Relations between hypnotizability and psychopathology revisited

Gruzelier, John; Pascalis, Vilfredo De; Jamieson, G.A.; Laidlaw, Tannis M.; Naito, Akira; Bennett, Bryan; Dwivedi, Prabudha

doi:10.1002/ch.304

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As has been developed elsewhere (Gruzelier, 2002a) a highly flexible nervous system may under some circumstances be a vulnerable one and reflect vulnerabilities for pathology through both imbalances in the internal milieu and susceptibilities to psychological stressors. The evidence of associations with the schizotypal personality provides one such example (Jamieson and Gruzelier, 2001;Gruzelier, De Pascalis, Jamieson, Laidlaw, Naito, Bennett and Dwivedi, 2004). Recent evidence shows strong relations in medical students between hypnotizability and a range of personality variables, including low self-directedness, schizotypy, affective distress, anxiety and depression, as well as with altered states of consciousness, imaginative involvement, and self-transcendence .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Frontal functions, connectivity and neural efficiency underpinning hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility

Gruzelier

2006

Contemp. Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An update is provided of an earlier review (Gruzelier, 1998) of the range of evidence for neurophysiological changes in frontal and lateralized functions with hypnosis, changes which have differentiated high from low hypnotically susceptible subjects, and which led to a working model and neuropsychological translation of the hypnotic induction process. New evidence is outlined from an fMRI/EEG study. This study also disclosed the importance of neural efficiency in left lateral frontal and anterior cingulate structures, and their connectivity, for distinguishing high from low hypnotic susceptibility both in hypnosis and in the everyday state. This amplifies earlier constructs such as cognitive flexibility. Though the focus will be largely on the alteration of connections with the anterior brain and its corresponding alterations of function, interhemispheric, posterior and subcortical connectivity is also considered. The practical implications for the interaction between the hypnotherapist and subject are considered, including stage hypnosis. Key words: EEG, fMRI, hypnosis, hypnotic susceptibility, neurophysiology, stage hypnosis Neurocognitive changes with hypnosis Selective inhibition, dissociation and disconnectionSince the time of Janet dissociation has been historically the dominating cognitive theory of hypnosis (Hilgard, 1965;Bowers, 1992). Now a range of evidence is showing that following instructions of hypnosis a different and unusual pattern of abilities and disabilities is brought into play in hypnotizable subjects compared with the pre-hypnosis state. These involve dissociations between cognitive processes, and disconnections between brain regions together with selective inhibition and enhancement of abilities and processes (Gruzelier, 1998;2004). The likening of hypnosis to an inhibitory process is enshrined in the term hypnosis, itself derived from Hypnos the god of sleep, and initially made popular by Pavlov's inhibitory concepts. Early electrophysiological studies found no evidence of sleep per se (Crawford and Gruzelier, 1992), nevertheless frontal inhibition may represent one dynamic of frontal involvement in hypnosis (e.g. Gruzelier, 1990;1998;Woody and Bowers, 1994;Woody and Sadler, 1998), and one which may be an alternative to disconnection, or be in parallel with it. The experimental evidence for changes in anterior brain activity will be considered in turn. Error detection and evaluation Neurophysiological fractionation of processes, to include possible inhibition, has been demonstrated between error detection processes and error evaluation processes and with the apparent inhibition or uncoupling of the latter, both of which are processes emanating from the anterior cingulate. These processes were measured with event-related potentials (ERPs) in a Stroop-like conflict task (Kaiser, Barker, Haenschel, Baldeweg and Gruzelier, 1997). The ERPs disclosed a dissociation not evident behaviourally. In the highly hypnotizable participants error detection rates decreased and reaction times (RT...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Frontal functions, connectivity and neural efficiency underpinning hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility

Gruzelier

2006

Contemp. Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One could thus speculate that the reported ameliorating effects of hypnosis on mental functions (see Introduction) might be implemented via the properties of light hypnosis as they are reflected by the microstate parameters that run counter to those in schizophrenia, while the allegedly adverse effects of hypnosis (e.g. [45][46][47][48]) might be implemented via the properties of deep hypnosis whose microstate parameter changes resemble those in schizophrenia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Classes of Multichannel EEG Microstates in Light and Deep Hypnotic Conditions

Katayama¹,

Gianotti²,

Isotani³

et al. 2007

Brain Topogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study assessed the brain electric mechanisms of light and deep hypnotic conditions in the framework of EEG temporal microstates. Multichannel EEG of healthy volunteers during initial resting, light hypnosis, deep hypnosis, and eventual recovery was analyzed into temporal EEG microstates of four classes. Microstates are defined by the spatial configuration of their potential distribution maps ([Symbol: see text]potential landscapes') on the head surface. Because different potential landscapes must have been generated by different active neural assemblies, it is reasonable to assume that they also incorporate different brain functions. The observed four microstate classes were very similar to the four standard microstate classes A, B, C, D [Koenig, T. et al. Neuroimage, 2002;16: 41-8] and were labeled correspondingly. We expected a progression of microstate characteristics from initial resting to light to deep hypnosis. But, all three microstate parameters (duration, occurrence/second and %time coverage) yielded values for initial resting and final recovery that were between those of the two hypnotic conditions of light and deep hypnosis. Microstates of the classes B and D showed decreased duration, occurrence/second and %time coverage in deep hypnosis compared to light hypnosis; this was contrary to microstates of classes A and C which showed increased values of all three parameters. Reviewing the available information about microstates in other conditions, the changes from resting to light hypnosis in certain respects are reminiscent of changes to meditation states, and changes to deep hypnosis of those in schizophrenic states.

show abstract

“…Hypnotic suggestibility has previously been found to correlate with various ostensibly pathological symptoms such as perceptual distortions (Gruzelier, De Pascalis, Jamieson, et al, 2004;Jamieson & Gruzelier, 2001) and to be associated with exposure to abuse or severe punishment (J. R. Hilgard, 1979;Nash & Lynn, 1985-86;Nash, Lynn, & Givens, 1984). Research has suggested that individuals exhibiting pathological dissociation may form a taxon or latent subtype (Waller, Putnam, & Carlson, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociative tendencies and individual differences in high hypnotic suggestibility

Terhune

Cardeña

Lindgren

2011

Cognitive Neuropsychiatry

105

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Inconsistencies in the relationship between dissociation and hypnosis may result from heterogeneity among highly suggestible individuals, in particular the existence of distinct highly suggestible subtypes that are of relevance to models of psychopathology and the consequences of trauma. This study contrasted highly suggestible subtypes high or low in dissociation on measures of hypnotic responding, cognitive functioning, and psychopathology. Methods: Twenty-one low suggestible (LS), 19 low dissociative highly suggestible (LDHS), and 11 high dissociative highly suggestible (HDHS) participants were administered hypnotic suggestibility scales and completed measures of free recall, working memory capacity, imagery, fantasy-proneness, psychopathology, and exposure to stressful life events. Results: HDHS participants were more responsive to positive and negative hallucination suggestions and experienced greater involuntariness during hypnotic responding. They also exhibited impaired working memory capacity, elevated pathological fantasy and dissociative symptomatology, and a greater incidence of exposure to stressful life events. In contrast, LDHS participants displayed superior object visual imagery. Conclusions: These results provide further evidence for two highly suggestible subtypes: a dissociative subtype characterized by deficits in executive functioning and a predisposition to psychopathology and a subtype that exhibits superior imagery and no observable deficits in functioning.

show abstract

Relations between hypnotizability and psychopathology revisited

Cited by 21 publications

References 18 publications

Frontal functions, connectivity and neural efficiency underpinning hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility

Frontal functions, connectivity and neural efficiency underpinning hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility

Classes of Multichannel EEG Microstates in Light and Deep Hypnotic Conditions

Dissociative tendencies and individual differences in high hypnotic suggestibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About