EEG correlates of posthypnotically controlled degrees of cognitive arousal

Abstract

Experimental control over five degrees of cognitive (as opposed to organismic) arousal has been developed by hypnotic programming techniques. Previously, these posthypnotic manipulations have been applied to the investigation of diverse topics such as visual discrimination, performance on the Stroop test, selective concentration on color vs, form of consonants, and cognitive "reverberation." The present study explored electroencephalographic (EEG) correlates of the five degrees of cognitive arousal in a task requiring participants to visualize objects for l-min periods while lying on a couch with their eyes closed. Analysis of data from the occipital area in left and right hemispheres revealed that the highest degree of arousal was accompanied by larger amplitudes of alpha and beta power and smaller amplitudes of theta. This pattern of results was similar in both hemispheres, although more marked in the left. The findings, which provide an independent source of support for validity of the hypnotic programming, are discussed in relation to EEG literature on cognitive activity. This investigation was undertaken to provide independent electroencephalographic (EEG) evidence bearing on the validity of posthypnotically controlled degrees of cognitive arousal. In the past, a conceptual distinction between "cognitive" and "organismic" arousal was drawn to separate mental from somatic components of arousal, and a hypnotic programming technique was first used to operationalize the distinction in the context of a visual discrimination task (Blum, Geiwitz, & Stewart, 1967). In the course of their hyp

Action and desire in posthypnotic responding

“…In terms of its use as a tool, for instance, Reyher (1961Reyher ( ,1962; see also Brickner & Kubie, 1936;Burns & Reyher, 1976; Matthews, Kirsch, & Allen, 1984;Sheehan, 1969;Sommerschield & Reyher, 1973) used a posthypnotic paradigm to examine the clinical relevance of hypnotically induced psychopathology; Blum (1979; Blum & Green, 1978; Blum, Hauenstein, & Graef, 1968;Blum & Nash, 1982; Blum & Wohl, 1971) used a similar paradigm to manipulate cognitive arousal and mood; and Zimbardo, Andersen, and Kabat (1981; see also Van Denburg & Kurtz, 1989) used posthypnotic suggestions to investigate the psychophysiological consequences of unexplained arousal. In terms of intrinsic interest in the phenomenon itself, for instance, Kellogg (1929) and Patten (1930) examined the duration of posthypnotic responding (see also Damaser, 1964; Edwards, 1963;Kihlstrom & Hoyt, 1988; Weitzenhoffer, 1950); Erickson and Erickson (1941;see also McCue, 1992;Reyher & Smyth, 1971) investigated whether a trance state is associated with the execution of posthypnotic suggestions; and Barber (1958Barber ( ,1962; see also Edwards, 1965;Sheehan & Ome, 1968; Weitzenhoffer, 1957) focused on the role of amnesia in posthypnotic behavior.…”