The impacts of hypnotic susceptibility on chaotic dynamics of EEG signals during standard tasks of Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale

Yargholi, Elahe'; Nasrabadi, Ali Motie

doi:10.3109/03091902.2013.794867

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies described EEG correlates of hypnosis, but their results were often inconsistent owing to methodological differences [ 9 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 46 ]. The aim of the present study was to detect the role of formal hypnotic induction in the EEG activity of highs that are aware of their hypnotic score and waiting for hypnotic induction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within each three-minute-long window (i.e., R OE , R CE , IND1, IND2, NH, POST), we estimated the PSD with the Welch method using five-second-long windows with an overlap of 80%. The PSD was then integrated in the canonical EEG frequency bands, i.e., delta (1-4 Hz), theta (4-8 Hz), alpha (8-12 Hz), beta (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30), and gamma (30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45).…”

Section: Signal Acquisition and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, different connectivity could be responsible for different information processing not implying power changes, like the segregated mechanisms described by complexity indices during hypnosis [ 16 ]. The analyses of the EEG complexity [ 17 , 18 , 19 ], however, were often focused on the correlates of specific suggestions (like those administered during hypnotic assessment by standard scales) rather than solely on neutral hypnosis [ 13 , 20 ], which is the state following hypnotic induction not associated with any suggestion other than relaxation and pleasantness included in standard induction procedures [ 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is Hypnotic Induction Necessary to Experience Hypnosis and Responsible for Changes in Brain Activity?

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relevance of formal hypnotic induction to the experience of trance and its neural correlates is not clear, in that hypnotizability, beliefs and expectation of hypnosis may play a major role. The aim of the study was assessing the EEG brain activity of participants with high (highs) or low hypnotizability scores (lows), aware of their hypnotizability level and informed that the session will include simple relaxation, formal hypnotic induction and neutral hypnosis. A total of 16 highs and 15 lows (according to the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, form A) were enrolled. Their EEGs were recorded during consecutive conditions of open/closed-eyes relaxation, hypnotic induction, neutral hypnosis and post hypnosis not interrupted by interviews. The studied variables were theta, alpha and gamma power spectral density (PSD), and the Determinism (DET) and Entropy (ENT) of the EEG signal Multidimensional Recurrence Plot (mRP). Highs reported significantly greater changes in their state of consciousness than lows across the session. The theta, alpha and gamma PSD did not exhibit condition-related changes in both groups. The Alpha PSD was larger in highs than in lows on midline sites, and the different sides/regions’ theta and gamma PSD were observed in the two groups independently from conditions. ENT showed no correlation with hypnotizability, while DET positively correlated with hypnotizability during hypnosis. In conclusion, the relevance of formal hypnotic induction to the experience of trance may be scarce in highs, as they are aware of their hypnotizability scores and expecting hypnosis. Cognitive processing varies throughout the session depending on the hypnotizability level.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Signal Acquisition and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is Hypnotic Induction Necessary to Experience Hypnosis and Responsible for Changes in Brain Activity?

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the view of identifying more specific markers of hypnotic susceptibility, additional studies applied nonlinear measures to EEG of subjects under hypnosis [21][22][23][24][25][26]. In particular, it was observed that complexity was higher among HS compared to MS and LS using both Recurrence Quantification Analysis (RQA) and Fractal Dimension Analysis (FDA) [21,25]. Furthermore, the combination of RQA with Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA) allowed to distinguish HS from LS and to predict subjects' level of hypnotizability [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linear and Nonlinear Quantitative EEG Analysis during Neutral Hypnosis following an Opened/Closed Eye Paradigm

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypnotic susceptibility is a major factor influencing the study of the neural correlates of hypnosis using EEG. In this context, while its effects on the response to hypnotic suggestions are undisputed, less attention has been paid to “neutral hypnosis” (i.e., the hypnotic condition in absence of suggestions). Furthermore, although an influence of opened and closed eye condition onto hypnotizability has been reported, a systematic investigation is still missing. Here, we analyzed EEG signals from 34 healthy subjects with low (LS), medium (MS), and (HS) hypnotic susceptibility using power spectral measures (i.e., TPSD, PSD) and Lempel-Ziv-Complexity (i.e., LZC, fLZC). Indeed, LZC was found to be more suitable than other complexity measures for EEG analysis, while it has been never used in the study of hypnosis. Accordingly, for each measure, we investigated within-group differences between rest and neutral hypnosis, and between opened-eye/closed-eye conditions under both rest and neutral hypnosis. Then, we evaluated between-group differences for each experimental condition. We observed that, while power estimates did not reveal notable differences between groups, LZC and fLZC were able to distinguish between HS, MS, and LS. In particular, we found a left frontal difference between HS and LS during closed-eye rest. Moreover, we observed a symmetric pattern distinguishing HS and LS during closed-eye hypnosis. Our results suggest that LZC is better capable of discriminating subjects with different hypnotic susceptibility, as compared to standard power analysis.

show abstract

A new approach to analyze data from EEG-based concealed face recognition system

Mehrnam

Nasrabadi

Ghodousi

et al. 2017

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impacts of hypnotic susceptibility on chaotic dynamics of EEG signals during standard tasks of Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale

Cited by 8 publications

References 45 publications

Is Hypnotic Induction Necessary to Experience Hypnosis and Responsible for Changes in Brain Activity?

Is Hypnotic Induction Necessary to Experience Hypnosis and Responsible for Changes in Brain Activity?

Linear and Nonlinear Quantitative EEG Analysis during Neutral Hypnosis following an Opened/Closed Eye Paradigm

A new approach to analyze data from EEG-based concealed face recognition system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About