Hypnosis decouples cognitive control from conflict monitoring processes of the frontal lobe.

Functional MRI Research Center, Columbia University, Neurological Institute Box 108, 710 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA.
NeuroImage (Impact Factor: 6.13). 11/2005; 27(4):969-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Hypnosis can profoundly alter sensory awareness and cognitive processing. While the cognitive and behavioral phenomena associated with hypnosis have long been thought to relate to attentional processes, the neural mechanisms underlying susceptibility to hypnotic induction and the hypnotic condition are poorly understood. Here, we tested the proposal that highly hypnotizable individuals are particularly adept at focusing attention at baseline, but that their attentional control is compromised following hypnosis due to a decoupling between conflict monitoring and cognitive control processes of the frontal lobe. Employing event-related fMRI and EEG coherence measures, we compared conflict-related neural activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and control-related activity in the lateral frontal cortex (LFC) during Stroop task performance between participants of low and high hypnotic susceptibility, at baseline and after hypnotic induction. The fMRI data revealed that conflict-related ACC activity interacted with hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility, in that highly susceptible participants displayed increased conflict-related neural activity in the hypnosis condition compared to baseline, as well as with respect to subjects with low susceptibility. Cognitive-control-related LFC activity, on the other hand, did not differ between groups and conditions. These data were complemented by a decrease in functional connectivity (EEG gamma band coherence) between frontal midline and left lateral scalp sites in highly susceptible subjects after hypnosis. These results suggest that individual differences in hypnotic susceptibility are linked with the efficiency of the frontal attention system, and that the hypnotized condition is characterized by a functional dissociation of conflict monitoring and cognitive control processes.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study explores whether self-reported depth of hypnosis and hypnotic suggestibility are associated with individual differences in neuroanatomy and/or levels of functional connectivity. Twenty-nine people varying in suggestibility were recruited and underwent structural, and after a hypnotic induction, functional magnetic resonance imaging at rest. We used voxel-based morphometry to assess the correlation of grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) against the independent variables: depth of hypnosis, level of relaxation and hypnotic suggestibility. Functional networks identified with independent components analysis were regressed with the independent variables. Hypnotic depth ratings were positively correlated with GM volume in the frontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Hypnotic suggestibility was positively correlated with GM volume in the left temporal-occipital cortex. Relaxation ratings did not correlate significantly with GM volume and none of the independent variables correlated with regional WM volume measures. Self-reported deeper levels of hypnosis were associated with less connectivity within the anterior default mode network. Taken together, the results suggest that the greater GM volume in the medial frontal cortex and ACC, and lower connectivity in the DMN during hypnosis facilitate experiences of greater hypnotic depth. The patterns of results suggest that hypnotic depth and hypnotic suggestibility should not be considered synonyms. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging 12/2014; 231(2). DOI:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2014.11.015 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Evidence supports the efficacy of hypnotic treatments, but there remain many unresolved questions regarding how hypnosis produces its beneficial effects. Most theoretical models focus more or less on biological, psychological, and social factors. This scoping review summarizes the empirical findings regarding the associations between specific factors in each of these domains and response to hypnosis. The findings indicate that (a) no single factor appears primary, (b) different factors may contribute more or less to outcomes in different subsets of individuals or for different conditions, and (c) comprehensive models of hypnosis that incorporate factors from all 3 domains may ultimately prove to be more useful than more restrictive models that focus on just 1 or a very few factors.
    International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 01/2015; 63(1):34-75. DOI:10.1080/00207144.2014.961875
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Motor imagery and perception- considered generally as forms of motor simulation- share overlapping neural representations with motor production. While much research has focused on the extent of this "common coding," less attention has been paid to how these overlapping representations interact. How do imagined, observed, or produced actions influence one another, and how do we maintain control over our perception and behavior? In the first part of this review we describe interactions between motor production and motor simulation, and explore apparent regulatory mechanisms that balance these processes. Next, we consider the somatosensory system. Numerous studies now support a "sensory mirror system" comprised of neural representations activated by either afferent sensation or vicarious sensation. In the second part of this review we summarize evidence for shared representations of sensation and sensory simulation (including imagery and observed sensation), and suggest that similar interactions and regulation of simulation occur in the somatosensory domain as in the motor domain. We suggest that both motor and somatosensory simulations are flexibly regulated to support simulations congruent with our sensorimotor experience and goals and suppress or separate the influence of those that are not. These regulatory mechanisms are frequently revealed by cases of brain injury but can also be employed to facilitate sensorimotor rehabilitation. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Neuropsychologia 04/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.04.005 · 3.45 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014