Seeing is believing: The reality of hypnotic hallucinations

Bryant, Richard A.; Mallard, David

doi:10.1016/s1053-8100(03)00003-5

Cited by 24 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ability to differentiate real and imaginal percepts, however, can be distorted in patients suffering from various organic and functional brain disorders and occasionally even in healthy subjects (1)(2)(3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain correlates of subjective reality of physically and psychologically induced pain

Raij

Numminen

Närvänen

et al. 2005

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meaningful behavior requires successful differentiation of events surfacing from one's mind from those arising from the external world. Such judgements may be especially demanding during pain because of the strong contribution from psychological factors to this experience. It is unknown how the subjective reality of pain (SRP) is constructed in the human brain, and neuronal mechanisms of the subjective reality are poorly understood in general. To address these questions, 14 suggestion-prone healthy subjects rated reality of pain that was induced either by laser pulses to the skin or by hypnotic suggestion during functional MRI. Both pain states were associated with activation of the brain's pain circuitry. During laser stimulation, the sensory parts of this circuitry were activated more strongly, and their activation strengths correlated positively with the SRP. During suggestion-induced pain, the reality estimates were lower and correlated positively with activation strengths in the rostral and perigenual anterior cingulate cortex and in the pericingulate regions of the medial prefrontal cortex; a similar trend was evident during laser-induced pain. These findings support the view that information about sensorydiscriminative characteristics of pain contributes to the SRP. Differences in such information between physically and psychologically induced pain, however, could be quantitative rather than qualitative and therefore insufficient for judging the reality of pain without knowledge about the source of this information. The medial prefrontal cortex is a likely area to contribute to such source monitoring.functional MRI ͉ suggestion ͉ hypnosis ͉ human ͉ cortex E vents surfacing from one's mind are usually differentiated from those arising from the external world by the subjective experience of reality. Ability to differentiate real and imaginal percepts, however, can be distorted in patients suffering from various organic and functional brain disorders and occasionally even in healthy subjects (1-3).Brain correlates of pain are affected by various psychological factors (4-7). According to recent brain imaging studies, painrelated brain areas can be activated without any physical stimulus, solely by cognitive cues (7-9). It remains unknown, however, how real the subject's experiences of such a psychologically induced pain are, and how the subjective reality of pain (SRP) is constructed in the human brain. Because the clarity of a percept likely affects the experience of its reality, and because both real and hallucinatory percepts may be associated with activation of sensory brain areas (10, 11), we hypothesized that a neuronal system subserving the SRP should involve components that process pain-related sensory-discriminative information, i.e., the primary and secondary somatosensory cortices and the posterior insula (12, 13). We also expected this system to include brain regions such as the perigenual anterior cingulate cortex (pACC) (14) that are able to support source monitoring, because a failure to differ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain correlates of subjective reality of physically and psychologically induced pain

Raij

Numminen

Närvänen

et al. 2005

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For an appropriate interpretation of the results it is necessary to assume that selfreports are reliable indicators of the subjective experience (Price et al, 2002;Ericsson and Simon, 1993), and that a successfully imagined modulation of perception does correspond to a modulation of the available information, as suggested by previous studies (Carli et al, 2006). This is reasonable given that similar cortical activation has been observed during perception and imagery for various sensory modalities (Bartolomeo, 2002;Bryant and Mallard, 2003;Bensafi , Porter, Pouliot, et al, 2003;Yoo, Freeman, McCarthy and Jolesz, 2003;Djordievic et al, 2004;Ganis et al, 2004;Prather et al, 2004;Zatorre and Halpern, 2005). In this regard both groups experienced a strong suppression of perception, although it was signifi cantly greater in Highs, and thus may have reduced the sensory availability required for postural control.…”

Section: Postural Variablesmentioning

confidence: 84%

Hypnotizability and imagery modality preference: Do highs and lows live in the same world?

Carli

Cavallaro

Santarcangelo

2007

Contemporary Hypnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imagery plays an important role in hypnotic phenomena. Recent fi ndings have shown, however, that hypnotized subjects with high (Highs) and low (Lows) susceptibility to hypnosis undergoing guided imagery tasks centred on specifi c sensory modalities share similar visual imagery ability, but Highs obtain better imagery than Lows when tactile instructions are given. The aim of this experiment was to confi rm this fi nding using instructions of globally reduced perception instead of suggestions centred on specifi c sensory modalities, assuming that the preferred imagery modality would be the least easily suppressed. Changes in body sway (that are sensitive to cognitive activity because postural control requires attention) were used as indices of possible differences in the cognitive task load in Highs and Lows. The results confi rmed the hypothesis that Highs and Lows differ in their preferred imagery modalities, and showed that Highs' body sway was not modifi ed by the simultaneous imagery of globally reduced perception, while Lows increased their sway while perceiving the decreased sensory availability. The Discussion focuses on the similar networks involved in imagery and perception and on possible differences between Highs and Lows in the mechanisms of imagery/perception and sensory-motor integration.

show abstract

“…To model Factor 2, they gave half the participants an additional suggestion to impair belief evaluation by suggesting that they could accept any explanation of what was happening that came to mind (based on an account of the second factor by Turner & Coltheart, 2010). As a hypnotic induction by itself may disrupt belief evaluation without the need for an additional suggestion (see, e.g., Bryant & Mallard, 2003Crawford & Allen, 1983;Oakley, 2008;Shor, 1959), they compared participants given the suggestions during hypnosis with other participants who received the suggestions outside hypnosis (in a wake control). Connors et al found that the suggestion for impaired face processing in combination with hypnosis was most successful in generating the delusion.…”

Section: Impaired Face Processing As Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specific suggestions can cause participants to experience distortions in perception and memory and also to believe temporarily in the external and physical reality of these experiences (Bryant & Mallard, 2003Bryant & McConkey, 1989a, 1989bHilgard, 1965;Szechtman, Woody, Bowers, & Nahmias, 1998;Woody & Szechtman, 2000. Some participants, for example, remain unable to distinguish hypnotically-suggested hallucinations from real stimuli (Bryant & Mallard, 2003) and maintain the reality of their experiences despite considerable social pressure (Bryant & McConkey, 1989a;McConkey, 1990McConkey, , 1991McConkey, , 2008. This subjective conviction in the reality of what is suggested distinguishes hypnosis from mere compliance and role-playing (Hilgard, 1965;Kihlstrom, 2007Kihlstrom, , 2008Kihlstrom & Hoyt, 1988;Orne, 1959).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hypnosis and belief: A review of hypnotic delusions

Connors

2015

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seeing is believing: The reality of hypnotic hallucinations

Cited by 24 publications

References 29 publications

Brain correlates of subjective reality of physically and psychologically induced pain

Brain correlates of subjective reality of physically and psychologically induced pain

Hypnotizability and imagery modality preference: Do highs and lows live in the same world?

Hypnosis and belief: A review of hypnotic delusions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About