Relationship between style of hypnotic induction and direction of lateral eye movements.

Gur, Raquel E.; Reyher, Joseph

doi:10.1037/h0035336

Cited by 52 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Early studies showed, for example, that under certain conditions (indirect observation) highly hypnotizable individuals were more likely than lows to deviate gaze to the left, indicating dominance of right hemispheric functioning (Gur & Reyher, 1973). However, more recent research has challenged this notion, suggesting that the sequential processing of the left hemisphere is at least as much involved (Jasiukaitis, Nouriani, Hugdahl, & Spiegel, 1997).…”

Section: Hemispheric Lateralizationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Negative and Positive Visual Hypnotic Hallucinations: Attending Inside and Out

Spiegel

2003

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypnotic perceptual alteration affects brain function. Those hypnotic instructions that reduce perception by creating an illusory obstruction to it reduce brain response to perception in the cognate sensory cortex, as measured by event-related potential (ERP) amplitude and regional blood flow (PET). Those hypnotic instructions that affect the subject's reaction to perception activate the anterior attentional system, especially the anterior cingulate cortex in PET studies. Hypnosis involves activation without arousal and may be particularly mediated via dopaminergic pathways. Hypnotic alteration of perception is accompanied by measurable changes in both perceptual and attentional function of those specific regions of the brain that process these activities, modulated by the nature of the specific hypnotic instruction. Positive obstructive hallucinations seem to allow for a hypnotic focus inward, activating the functioning of attentional neural systems and reducing perceptual ones.

show abstract

Section: Hemispheric Lateralizationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Negative and Positive Visual Hypnotic Hallucinations: Attending Inside and Out

Spiegel

2003

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…scoring the responses, the experimenter took the numbers on the face of a clock to stand for the direction of the subject's eye movements: left CLEMs were taken to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and right CLEMs to be 11, 10,9,8,7 from the position of the experimenter -who sat across from the subject. Based on previous studies (Bakan, 1969;Gur and Reyher, 1973;Gur and Gur, 1974;Gur, 1975), the subjects were classified as left hemispheric if 70% or more of their eye movements were to the right, and right hemispheric if 70% or more of their eye movements were to the left. If less than 70% of the eye movements were to one direction, such subjects termed 'bidirectionals' were excluded from the analysis.…”

Section: Variables and Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field dependence-independence and hemisphericity as variables in L2 achievement

Alptekin

Atakan

1990

Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following an extensive review of the literature, this study explores the relationship between L2 achievement and two learner characteristics -field dependence-independence and hemisphericity. Sixty-nine Turkish students of 11 to 12 years of age in an intensive EFL programme were administered the GEFT, the CLEM, and tests of L2 achievement. Significant positive correlations were observed between the GEFT scores and scores on L2 achievement tests. As expected, field independent learners performed better on the discretepoint and cloze tests. Hemisphericity, however, was not found to be related to L2 achievement. These results are evaluated critically and their implications for further research are discussed.One of the factors which accounts for differences in the manner students learn concerns the area of cognitive styles. Cognitive styles can be defined as the specific and relatively stable ways in which learners perceive and approach mental tasks. As such, they refer to an individual's preferred perceptual and intellectual mode. Hartnett (1980) classifies learners into two major categories with respect to the various dimensions of cognitive style that have been identified. The first group is said to be field independent, verbal, analytic, serialist, and sequential-successive. In contrast, the second group is described as field dependent, imaginal, relational, holist, and simultaneous-synthetic. Hartnett refers to the cognitive modes of the former group as 'analytical' and to those of the latter as 'holistic'.L2 learners are no exception to the above generalizations. Some prefer to use a more analytic approach to second language learning problems, while others prefer to tackle them in a predominantly holistic manner. However, learners' relatively stable preferences in this regard do not imply that there exist two distinct types of human beings. What is instead at issue here is a person's tendency to rely on a particular cognitive style more than the other. Otherwise, individuals are known to make use of varying degrees of analytic and

show abstract

“…However, both Land and Greenberg (1971) and Matheus (1973) found the prestige of the experimenter did not affect hypnotic suggestibility; but both researchers used tape recordings of hypnotic inductions and standardized hypnotic suggestions made by a hypnotist-model who was not the experimenter. Gur and Reyher (1973) found that some subjects had decided preferences for the sex of the hypnotist-model and for the type of hypnotic induction used. Matching subjects with their preferences significantly enhanced suggestibility.…”

Section: Social Learning Theorymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Gur (1973; informed initially resistant hypnotic subjects that they would receive a painful electric shock unless they pushed a button upon hearing the word "relax," which was embedded in the hypnotic induction. Gur's procedure punished subjects for not attending to the verbalizations of the hypnotist, and it probably reinforced them for attending to the verbalizations of the hypnotist since attending to the hypnotist reduced the probability of shock and presumably reduced the anxiety generated by the threat of shock.…”

Section: Hypnotic Theory and Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Social Learning Theory of Hypnosis

Smyth

1981

American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A theory of hypnotic suggestibility is advanced based on social learning theory principles. The theory is presented in four parts and a summary section, with each part devoted to one of four constructs (attention, retention, reproduction, and reinforcement/motivational processes) used to account for such behavior. All four constructs are borrowed from Bandura's (1969) social learning theory, and a modified version of Kahneman's (1973) capacity model of attention is employed to bolster Bandura's conceptualizations with regard to attention. It is argued that hypnotic suggestibility is a type of social learning involving verbal modeling, that differs from other more common types only in the particular form taken by attention and coding (retention) in hypnosis.

show abstract

Relationship between style of hypnotic induction and direction of lateral eye movements.

Cited by 52 publications

References 13 publications

Negative and Positive Visual Hypnotic Hallucinations: Attending Inside and Out

Negative and Positive Visual Hypnotic Hallucinations: Attending Inside and Out

Field dependence-independence and hemisphericity as variables in L2 achievement

Towards a Social Learning Theory of Hypnosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About