CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesPain Management and Placebo EffectFree Will and Agency

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Boosting the hypnotic experience. Inhibition of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex alters hypnotizability and sense of agency. A randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled tDCS study

Perri, Rinaldo L., Perrotta, Davide, Rossani, Francesco, Pekala, Ronald J.·2022·Behavioural Brain Research
DOI 10.1016/j.bbr.2022.113833
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Hypnotizability refers to the individual responsiveness to hypnosis, and literature shows that the greater the hypnotizability, the more effective the hypnotic suggestions. So far, few studies attempted to enhance hypnotizability, and only two adopted brain stimulation with magnetic pulses. In the present study, we aimed to boost hypnotizability through transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). To this aim, bilateral tDCS was applied over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) with the target electrode providing negative current (cathodal stimulation) over the left hemisphere. Twenty-nine subjects participated in the study and they were randomly assigned to the sham or the active group in a double-blind design. The hypnotic experience was assessed before and after the stimulation through a phenomenological measure of consciousness (the PCI-HAP). The main findings revealed that a single tDCS session enhanced the hypnotic depth by 11% and reduced the volitional control by 30%, while no differences emerged in the sham group. This is the first study adopting the electrical neurostimulation to produce an alteration of hypnotizability and sense of agency, and confirmed the key-role of the DLPFC and executive control in the hypnotic phenomena. If confirmed, these findings could have relevant implications as enhanced hypnotizability could be translated into better outcomes for many hypnotic interventions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bbr.2022.113833

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 80

  1. Facco, 2017, Psychological features of hypnotizability: a first step towards its empirical definition, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn., 65, 98, 10.1080/00207144.2017.1246881 · DOI
  2. Pekala, 2010, Suggestibility, expectancy, trance state effects, and hypnotic depth: I. Implications for understanding hypnotism, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 52, 275, 10.1080/00029157.2010.10401732 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Testoni, 2020, The role of flexibility and other factors associated with hypnotizability: a second step towards its definition, Contemp. Hypn. Integr. Ther., 34, 1
  4. Ås, 1968, Hypnosis as subjective experience, Scand. J. Psychol., 9, 33, 10.1111/j.1467-9450.1968.tb00515.x · DOI
  5. Benham, 2006, Expect the unexpected: Ability, attitude, and responsiveness to hypnosis, J. Personal. Soc. Psychol., 91, 342, 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.342 · DOI
  6. Fassler, 2008, Is hypnotic suggestibility a stable trait?, Conscious. Cogn., 17, 240, 10.1016/j.concog.2007.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Gfeller, 1994, Hypnotizability enhancement: clinical implications of empirical findings, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 37, 107, 10.1080/00029157.1994.10403123 · DOI
  8. Council, 2002, A historical overview of hypnotizability assessment, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 44, 199, 10.1080/00029157.2002.10403480 · DOI
  9. Shor, 1962, Harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility, form A, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn.
  10. Perri, 2022, In medio stat virtus: the importance of studying mediums in hypnosis research, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 64, 4, 10.1080/00029157.2020.1859980 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Weitzenhoffer, 2002, Scales, scales and more scales, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 44, 209, 10.1080/00029157.2002.10403481 · DOI
  12. Kekecs, 2016, The elkins hypnotizability scale: assessment of reliability and validity, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn., 64, 285, 10.1080/00207144.2016.1171089 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Lynn, 2004, Enhancing suggestibility: the effects of compliance vs. imagery, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 47, 117, 10.1080/00029157.2004.10403630 · DOI
  14. Gorassini, D.R. and Spanos, N.P. The Carleton skill training program for modifying hypnotic suggestibility: original version and variations, 1999. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Spanos, 1989, Cognitive skill-training enhancement of hypnotizability: generalization effects and trance logic responding, J. Personal. Soc. Psychol., 56, 795, 10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.795 · DOI
  16. Bertrand, 1993, The carleton skills training package for modifying hypnotic susceptibility—a replication and extension: a brief communication, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn., 41, 6, 10.1080/00207149308414534 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Cangas, 1998, The effect of two procedures on hypnotic susceptibility modification, Contemp. Hypn., 15, 212, 10.1002/ch.137 · DOI
  18. Fellows, 1992, The Carleton skills training program: a preliminary British trial, Contemp. Hypn.
  19. Niedzwieñska, 2000, Goal-directed fantasy does not explain the training effect of the Carleton skills training package, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn., 48, 404, 10.1080/00207140008410369 · DOI
  20. Bryant, 2012, Oxytocin as a moderator of hypnotizability, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37, 162, 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.05.010 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Coltheart, 2018, Belief, delusion, hypnosis, and the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study, Cortex, 101, 234, 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Pekala, 2010, Suggestibility, expectancy, trance state effects, and hypnotic depth: II. Assessment via the PCI-HAP, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 52, 291, 10.1080/00029157.2010.10401733 · DOI
  23. Nitsche, 2011, Transcranial direct current stimulation–update 2011, Restor. Neurol. Neurosci., 29, 463
  24. Miniussi, 2013, Modelling non-invasive brain stimulation in cognitive neuroscience, Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 37, 1702, 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.06.014 · DOI
  25. Nitsche, 2000, Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation, J. Physiol., 527, 633, 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2000.t01-1-00633.x · DOI · Paper page
  26. Bikson, 2016, Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: evidence based update 2016, Brain Stimul., 9, 641, 10.1016/j.brs.2016.06.004 · DOI
  27. Falcone, 2012, Transcranial direct current stimulation augments perceptual sensitivity and 24-hour retention in a complex threat detection task, PloS One, 7, 10.1371/journal.pone.0034993 · DOI
  28. Jacobson, 2012, tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: a meta-analytical review, Exp. Brain Res., 216, 1, 10.1007/s00221-011-2891-9 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Kang, 2011, Effect of a tDCS electrode montage on implicit motor sequence learning in healthy subjects, Exp. Transl. Stroke Med., 3, 1, 10.1186/2040-7378-3-4 · DOI
  30. Perri, 2021, Transcranial direct current stimulation of the prefrontal cortex reduces cigarette craving in not motivated to quit smokers: a randomized, sham-controlled study, Addict. Behav., 120, 10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106956 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Perrotta, 2021, Anodal tDCS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex reduces Stroop errors. A comparison of different tasks and designs, Behav. Brain Res., 405, 10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113215 · DOI
  32. Peters, 2013, Anodal tDCS to V1 blocks visual perceptual learning consolidation, Neuropsychologia, 51, 1234, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.03.013 · DOI
  33. Poreisz, 2007, Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients, Brain Res. Bull., 72, 208, 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.01.004 · DOI
  34. Reinhart, 2017, Using transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) to understand cognitive processing, Atten., Percept., Psychophys., 79, 3, 10.3758/s13414-016-1224-2 · DOI
  35. Vines, 2008, Dual-hemisphere tDCS facilitates greater improvements for healthy subjects’ non-dominant hand compared to uni-hemisphere stimulation, BMC Neurosci., 9, 1, 10.1186/1471-2202-9-103 · DOI
  36. Giordano, 2017, Mechanisms and effects of transcranial direct current stimulation, Dose-Response, 15, 10.1177/1559325816685467 · DOI
  37. Burgmer, 2013, The mirror neuron system under hypnosis–brain substrates of voluntary and involuntary motor activation in hypnotic paralysis, Cortex, 49, 437, 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.05.023 · DOI
  38. Cojan, 2009, The brain under self-control: Modulation of inhibitory and monitoring cortical networks during hypnotic paralysis, Neuron, 62, 862, 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.05.021 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Deeley, 2013, Using hypnotic suggestion to model loss of control and awareness of movements: an exploratory FMRI study, PLoS One, 8, 10.1371/journal.pone.0078324 · DOI
  40. Nordby, 1999, Effects of hypnotizability on performance of a Stroop task and event-related potentials, Percept. Mot. Skills, 88, 819, 10.2466/pms.1999.88.3.819 · DOI
  41. Zahedi, 2017, Eliminating stroop effects with post-hypnotic instructions: brain mechanisms inferred from EEG, Neuropsychologia, 96, 70, 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.01.006 · DOI
  42. De Pascalis, 2008, Focused analgesia in waking and hypnosis: effects on pain, memory, and somatosensory event-related potentials, Pain, 134, 197, 10.1016/j.pain.2007.09.005 · DOI
  43. De Pascalis, 1999, Pain perception, somatosensory event-related potentials and skin conductance responses to painful stimuli in high, mid, and low hypnotizable subjects: effects of differential pain reduction strategies, PAIN®, 83, 499, 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00157-8 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Del Percio, 2013, Subjects’ hypnotizability level affects somatosensory evoked potentials to non-painful and painful stimuli, Clin. Neurophysiol., 124, 1448, 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.02.008 · DOI
  45. Perri, 2019, Neuroelectric evidences of top-down hypnotic modulation associated with somatosensory processing of sensory and limbic regions, Neuroimage, 202, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116104 · DOI
  46. Ray, 2002, High resolution EEG indicators of pain responses in relation to hypnotic susceptibility and suggestion, Biol. Psychol., 60, 17, 10.1016/S0301-0511(02)00029-7 · DOI
  47. Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. Executive control without conscious awareness: The cold control theory of hypnosis. Hypnosis and conscious states: The cognitive neuroscience perspective, 293–314, 2007. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Perri, 2020, Cerebral mechanisms of hypnotic hypoesthesia. An ERP investigation on the expectancy stage of perception, Psychophysiology, 57, 10.1111/psyp.13657 · DOI
  49. Zahedi, 2019, Common and specific loci of Stroop effects in vocal and manual tasks, revealed by event-related brain potentials and posthypnotic suggestions, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen., 148, 1575, 10.1037/xge0000574 · DOI
  50. Oakley, 2013, Hypnotic suggestion: opportunities for cognitive neuroscience, Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 14, 565, 10.1038/nrn3538 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Elkins, 2015, Advancing research and practice: the revised APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 57, 378, 10.1080/00029157.2015.1011465 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Pekala, 2007, An empirical-phenomenological approach to quantifying consciousness and states of consciousness: with particular reference to understanding the nature of hypnosis, Hypn. Conscious S.: Cogn. Neurosci. Perspect., 167
  53. Carvalho, 2008, Portuguese norms for the Waterloo-Stanford Group C (WSGC) scale of hypnotic susceptibility, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn., 56, 295, 10.1080/00207140802041850 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Fellows, 1979, The British use of the barber suggestibility scale: norms, psychometric properties and the effects of the sex of the subject and of the experimenter, Br. J. Psychol., 70, 547, 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1979.tb01730.x · DOI
  55. Forbes, 1993, Predicting hypnotic susceptibility via a phenomenological approach, Psychol. Rep., 73(3_suppl), 1251, 10.2466/pr0.1993.73.3f.1251 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Pekala, 2015, Hypnosis as a “state of consciousness”: How quantifying the mind can help us better understand hypnosis, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 57, 402
  57. Pekala, 1987, Predicting hypnotic susceptibility via a self-report instrument: a replication, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 30, 57
  58. Nasseri, 2015, A framework for categorizing electrode montages in transcranial direct current stimulation, Front. Hum. Neurosci., 9, 54, 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00054 · DOI
  59. Brunoni, 2011, A systematic review on reporting and assessment of adverse effects associated with transcranial direct current stimulation, Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol., 14, 1133, 10.1017/S1461145710001690 · DOI
  60. Thielscher, A., Antunes, A., Saturnino, G.B. Field modeling for transcranial magnetic stimulation: A useful tool to understand the physiological effects of TMS? 2015 37th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC), 222–225, 2015. · DOI · Paper page
  61. Cumming, 2014, The new statistics: why and how, Psychol. Sci., 25, 7, 10.1177/0956797613504966 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Költ\Ho, 2014, The influence of time and gender on hungarian hypnotizability scores1, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn., 62, 84, 10.1080/00207144.2013.841487 · DOI
  63. Russell, 2017, Sex and electrode configuration in transcranial electrical stimulation, Front. Psychiatry, 8, 147, 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00147 · DOI
  64. Gruzelier, 2006, Frontal functions, connectivity and neural efficiency underpinning hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility, Contemp. Hypn., 23, 15, 10.1002/ch.35 · DOI
  65. Gruzelier, 1993, Neuropsychological evidence of reductions on left frontal tests with hypnosis, Psychol. Med., 23, 93, 10.1017/S0033291700038885 · DOI
  66. Terhune, 2010, Methodological and interpretative issues regarding the phenomenology of consciousness inventory—hypnotic assessment procedure: a comment on Pekala et al.(2010a, 2010b), Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 53, 109, 10.1080/00029157.2010.10404333 · DOI
  67. Dienes, 2012, Is hypnotic responding the strategic relinquishment of metacognition, Found. Metacogn., 267, 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199646739.003.0017 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Barnier, A.J., Dienes, Z., and Mitchell, C.J. How hypnosis happens: New cognitive theories of hypnotic responding, 2008. · DOI · Paper page
  69. De Benedittis, G, 2015, Neural mechanisms of hypnosis and meditation, J. Physiol. -Paris, 109, 152, 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2015.11.001 · DOI
  70. Polito, 2013, Developing the Sense of Agency Rating Scale (SOARS): an empirical measure of agency disruption in hypnosis, Conscious. Cogn., 22, 684, 10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.003 · DOI
  71. Egner, 2005, Hypnosis decouples cognitive control from conflict monitoring processes of the frontal lobe, Neuroimage, 27, 969, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.002 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Woody, 1998, Dissociation in hypnosis and frontal executive function, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 40, 206, 10.1080/00029157.1998.10403427 · DOI
  73. Landry, 2015, Hypnosis and imaging of the living human brain, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 57, 285, 10.1080/00029157.2014.978496 · DOI
  74. Haggard, 2017, Sense of agency in the human brain, Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 18, 196, 10.1038/nrn.2017.14 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Rainville, 2019, Hypnotic automaticity in the brain at rest: an arterial spin labelling study, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn., 67, 512, 10.1080/00207144.2019.1650578 · DOI
  76. Acunzo, 2021, The neurochemistry of hypnotic suggestion, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 63, 355, 10.1080/00029157.2020.1865869 · DOI
  77. De Benedittis, 2012, The hypnotic brain: linking neuroscience to psychotherapy, Contemp. Hypn. Integr. Ther., 29, 1
  78. Facco, 2021, Hypnosis and Hypnotic ability between old beliefs and new evidences: an epistemological reflection, Am. J. Clin. Hypn., 64, 20, 10.1080/00029157.2020.1863181 · DOI
  79. DaSilva, 2011, Electrode positioning and montage in transcranial direct current stimulation, JoVE (J. Vis. Exp.), 51
  80. Jansen, 2013, Effects of non-invasive neurostimulation on craving: a meta-analysis, Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 2472, 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.009 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Perri, R. L., Perrotta, D., Rossani, F., & Pekala, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University Niccolò Cusano (IT)
  • Coatesville Veterans Affairs Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Perri, Rinaldo L.
ORCID
Venue
Behavioural Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-05
Volume
425
Pages
113833
ISSN
0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.bbr.2022.113833
OpenAlex
W4220956473
Cited by
19
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
hypnotic susceptibility, transcranial direct current stimulation, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, sense of agency, hypnotic depth, executive function, volitional control, hypnotic suggestion, non-invasive brain stimulation, hypnotherapy
MeSH terms
Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Prefrontal Cortex, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review