CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 239Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesPain Management and Placebo EffectHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control

Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis

Open access
Jiang, Heidi, White, Matthew P., Greicius, Michael D., Waelde, Lynn C., Spiegel, David·2016·Cerebral Cortex
DOI 10.1093/cercor/bhw220PMC PMC6248753
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Hypnosis has proven clinical utility, yet changes in brain activity underlying the hypnotic state have not yet been fully identified. Previous research suggests that hypnosis is associated with decreased default mode network (DMN) activity and that high hypnotizability is associated with greater functional connectivity between the executive control network (ECN) and the salience network (SN). We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate activity and functional connectivity among these three networks in hypnosis. We selected 57 of 545 healthy subjects with very high or low hypnotizability using two hypnotizability scales. All subjects underwent four conditions in the scanner: rest, memory retrieval, and two different hypnosis experiences guided by standard pre-recorded instructions in counterbalanced order. Seeds for the ECN, SN, and DMN were left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), respectively. During hypnosis there was reduced activity in the dACC, increased functional connectivity between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC;ECN) and the insula in the SN, and reduced connectivity between the ECN (DLPFC) and the DMN (PCC). These changes in neural activity underlie the focused attention, enhanced somatic and emotional control, and lack of self-consciousness that characterizes hypnosis.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This fMRI study compared highly hypnotizable and minimally hypnotizable healthy adults during hypnosis and control conditions, focusing on executive control, salience, and default mode networks. Hypnosis in highs was linked to lower dACC activity, stronger DLPFC-insula coupling, and weaker DLPFC-default mode connectivity, with effects tracking reported hypnotic depth.

Key findings

  • Among high hypnotizables, hypnosis reduced dACC fALFF relative to rest; the group-by-condition interaction was significant, and greater reported hypnotic intensity correlated with lower dACC fALFF (figure reports r = -0.72; TFCE P < 0.001 uncorrected). dACC activity decreased in a graded way across hypnosis, memory, and rest for highs, while lows showed the reverse pattern.
  • Highs showed increased functional connectivity between left DLPFC and ipsilateral insula plus contralateral supramarginal gyrus during hypnosis vs rest compared with lows (P < 0.05, GRF corrected). Within highs, left DLPFC-insula and right DLPFC-bilateral insula connectivity increased during hypnosis vs rest; insula, middle frontal, and superior parietal clusters correlated positively with hypnosis ratings.
  • As hypnosis intensity increased among all 36 highs, connectivity between bilateral DLPFC and default mode regions (PCC, contralateral IPL, mPFC) decreased during hypnosis; this decoupling was not seen during rest or memory. Connectivity within the DMN itself was not altered by hypnosis.
  • Lows showed no significant hypnosis-vs-rest connectivity differences for either DLPFC seed.

Methods

  • 545 healthy participants were screened with HGSHS:A and HIP; 36 highs and 21 lows were scanned. Between-group fMRI analyses used 21 highs with the highest hypnosis ratings matched to 21 lows; covariate analyses used all 36 highs.
  • Four counterbalanced 8-min fMRI conditions were used: rest, autobiographical memory, hypnotic happiness, and hypnotic vacation, with standardized pre-recorded instructions/inductions. Scanning was on a 3T GE scanner with 31 axial slices, TR = 2000 ms, TE = 30 ms.
  • Analyses included fALFF for regional spontaneous activity and seed-based functional connectivity with left/right DLPFC, dACC, and PCC seeds, using FSL, TFCE, and GRF cluster correction; physiological and movement covariates were checked.

Limitations

  • The paper notes that some secondary findings were uncorrected for multiple comparisons, including the dACC fALFF correlation with hypnotic intensity and the group interaction at P < 0.001; the right DLPFC-insula interaction did not survive correction, and PCC/dACC seed group-by-condition comparisons did not survive correction.
  • The paper reports that the memory control condition unexpectedly produced network changes resembling hypnosis, so it may not have served as a clean control; the authors suggest any focused task in highs might induce similar changes.
  • Evident from the text: between-group analyses relied on 21 highs and 21 lows, with all 36 highs used only for within-group covariate analyses; participants were healthy volunteers selected at the extremes of hypnotizability, so generalizability is limited. The paper does not present a formal limitations section.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/bhw220

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

20 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

26 of 56 cited sources checked · 12 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    In between-group analysis, the left DLPFC displayed significantly enhanced connectivity to ipsilateral insular cortex and contralateral supramarginal gyrus in highs compared to lows during hypnosis compared to rest.

    “In between-group analysis using functionally defined ROIs (Shirer et al. 2012) based upon our a priori hypotheses, the left DLPFC displayed significantly enhanced connectivity to ipsilateral insular cortex and contralateral supramarginal gyrus in highs compared to lows during hypnosis compared to rest (P < 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons with FEAT's GRF correction; Fig. 3A; Table 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shirer et al. 2012 source
  • Study design and conductown data

    Percent frames scrubbed using a threshold of 0.5 mm showed no significant effects of group, condition, or group-by-condition interaction.

    “Finally there were no significant effects of percent frames scrubbed using a threshold of 0.5 mm (Power et al. 2012) on group, condition, or interactions of group and condition (group:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Power et al. 2012 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    The findings are consistent with the insula's role in brain regulation of somatic symptoms.

    “Thus these findings are consistent with the insula's role in brain regulation of somatic symptoms (Avery et al. 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Avery et al. 2014 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    The decoupling of the DLPFC from the DMN during hypnosis reveals another neural mechanism underlying hypnotic absorption and, potentially, hypnotic loss of self-consciousness and amnesia.

    “Further, the decoupling of the DLPFC from the DMN during hypnosis reveals another neural mechanism underlying hypnotic absorption and, potentially, hypnotic loss of self-consciousness and amnesia (Kihlstrom 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kihlstrom 2013 source

      Section 3.3, “The Frontal Lobes” (page unavailable), reports DMN deactivation during neutral hypnosis. It does not report decoupling of the DLPFC from the DMN or identify that decoupling as a mechanism for absorption, loss of self-consciousness, or amnesia. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    The finding indicates a selective reduction in dACC regional activity during hypnosis.

    “This finding indicates a selective reduction in dACC regional activity during hypnosis (Melcher and Gruber 2009;Zhang and Li 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Melcher and Gruber 2009 source
    • cites Zhang and Li 2012 source

      The Introduction and Discussion address default-mode activity during tasks, and the reported reduction concerns the precuneus during task residuals compared with resting. Searches for hypnosis and dACC found no passage addressing a selective reduction in dACC activity during hypnosis. (LLM, conf=0.77)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16
  • May combine two claims. 36
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The ECN comprises bilateral DLPFC and superior parietal cortices and is involved during focused attention and working memory tasks.

    “The ECN comprises bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and superior parietal cortices and is involved during focused attention and working memory tasks (Seeley et al. 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Seeley et al. 2007 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The SN joins the dACC and frontoinsular cortex to subcortical regions like the hypothalamus and is typically activated when one is challenged or anxious.

    “Like the ECN, the SN is activated during tasks; it joins the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and frontoinsular cortex to subcortical regions like the hypothalamus.It is typically activated when one is challenged or anxious (Seeley et al. 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Seeley et al. 2007 source

      The ICA section identifies a salience network linking the dACC and frontoinsular cortex with subcortical regions including the hypothalamus. The Introduction describes dACC and frontoinsular activation during demanding tasks and threats, but the paper links anxiety to task-free connectivity, not to typical activation of the network when a person is anxious. Passage-specific page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The DMN is composed of structures including the PCC and mPFC, which are activated and highly interconnected during rest and rumination and deactivated as task engagement increases.

    “The DMN is composed of a set of structures including the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) and other midline brain structures including the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), which are activated and become highly interconnected during rest and rumination and deactivated as task engagement increases (Seeley et al. 2007;Supekar et al. 2008;Greicius et al. 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Seeley et al. 2007 source

      The ‘Limitations and relationship to previous work’ section identifies the posterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex as default-mode network nodes and reports their connectivity in a task-free setting (page unavailable). It does not establish that these regions become highly interconnected during rumination or that they deactivate progressively as task engagement increases. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Supekar et al. 2008 source

      The Introduction identifies the posterior cingulate cortex as part of the default-mode network, discusses its resting-state connectivity, and reports network deactivation during certain tasks. It does not identify the medial prefrontal cortex as a network component or address rumination, activation during rest, or connectivity increasing during rest. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Greicius et al. 2009 source

      The Abstract (page unavailable) identifies the PCC and mPFC as DMN regions, describes their resting-state connectivity, and says the DMN typically deactivates during cognitive tasks. It does not address rumination or show that these regions become more interconnected during rest or as task engagement changes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Highs who felt the most hypnotized exhibited the greatest connectivity between the left DLPFC and left insula, and this connectivity increased during hypnosis relative to rest.

    “Furthermore, Highs who felt the most hypnotized exhibited the greatest connectivity between the left DLPFC and left insula, and this connectivity increased during hypnosis relative to rest, consistent with prior work (Hoeft et al. 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hoeft et al. 2012 source

      The Results report greater resting-state connectivity between the left DLPFC and a salience network that includes the insula in high- versus low-hypnotizable participants; the confirmed regional coupling was between the left DLPFC and dACC. The Discussion says participants were not scanned during hypnosis and that the study had no behavioral measures, so it does not support the claims about who felt most hypnotized or an increase during hypnosis relative to rest. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    dACC activation is associated with appraisal and expression of fear and pain, as well as a sense of personal agency or will to persevere.

    “This is consistent with previous work showing that dACC activation is associated with appraisal and expression of fear and pain (Etkin et al. 2011), as well as a sense of personal agency or will to persevere (Parvizi et al. 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Etkin et al. 2011 source
    • cites Parvizi et al. 2013 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Mean framewise displacement showed no main effect of group, condition, or group-by-condition interaction.

    “Additionally we examined mean framewise displacement (Power et al. 2012) and found no main effect of group (F(1,40) = 0.01, P = 0.92), condition (F(3,40) = 1.01,P = 0.39), or group by condition interaction (F(3,40) = 1.49,P = 0.22).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Power et al. 2012 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    High hypnotizables compared with lows at rest show increased connectivity of the left anterior aspects of the DLPFC of the ECN and the dACC of the SN, identifying the trait rather than the state.

    “(Hoeft et al. 2012) found increased connectivity of the left anterior aspects of the DLPFC of the ECN and the dACC of the SN in high hypnotizables compared with lows at rest, identifying the trait rather than the state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hoeft et al. 2012 source

      The Results report greater resting-state connectivity between the left DLPFC and dACC in high- than low-hypnotizable participants. The Discussion interprets this as a difference related to hypnotizability, but does not establish that it identifies the trait rather than a state: no hypnotic instructions were given, yet the authors note that some participants may have inferred a hypnotic-like state was being studied. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The ECN is involved in cognitive control.

    “while the ECN is involved in cognitive control (Seeley et al. 2007)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Seeley et al. 2007 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The insular cortex is involved in empathic perception of pain in others.

    “as well as empathic perception of pain in others, (Menon and Uddin 2010;Gu et al. 2012)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Menon and Uddin 2010 source
    • cites Gu et al. 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Both insula and dACC are components of the SN, but they subserve different functions, with insula more related to internal somatic function and monitoring task performance, while the dACC is

    “However, while both insula and dACC are components of the SN, they subserve different functions, with insula more related to internal somatic function and monitoring task performance (Eckert et al. 2009;Menon and Uddin 2010;Cai et al. 2014), while the dACC is”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Eckert et al. 2009 source
    • cites Menon and Uddin 2010 source

      The ‘Functional connectivity of the human insula and the salience network’ section identifies the anterior insula and dorsal ACC as salience-network components. ‘Multiple functions of the insula’ links insular function to visceral and somatic processes, and ‘Saliency, attention, and cognitive control’ distinguishes the anterior insula’s transient salience detection from ACC functions. That section does not specifically assign monitoring of task performance to the insula; it discusses monitoring in connection with the ACC and other regions instead. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Cai et al. 2014 source

      In “Intrinsic and task-evoked responses” (page not provided), the paper identifies the anterior insula and ACC as salience-network nodes involved in detecting events such as stop signals and errors. Its response-profile analysis links the right anterior insula to stop-trial outcomes, but it does not establish the claimed functional distinction between the insula and dACC. The “Meta-analysis of 70 published inhibitory control tasks” section associates interoception with other insular subdivisions, not the anterior-dorsal subdivision studied here. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    ACC stimulation is associated with a will to persevere through difficulties, so its reduced activity could decrease personal agency and contribute to heightened suggestibility as well as the ability to dissociate from distress and pain that are characteristic of hypnosis.

    “Furthermore, ACC stimulation is associated with a”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Parvizi et al. 2013 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Spiegel H and Spiegel D 2004 source
    • cites Elkins et al. 2015 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The insular cortex is involved in self-reflection, self-monitoring, and self-regulation.

    “Insular cortex is also involved in self-reflection, selfmonitoring, and self-regulation (Herwig et al. 2012)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Herwig et al. 2012 source

      The Discussion (‘Brain activity associated with self-reflection’; page not supplied) identifies insular activity during self-reflection. The paper does not establish that the insular cortex is involved in self-monitoring or self-regulation; its discussion of monitoring and a regulatory network concerns the anterior cingulate cortex. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The insula is involved in processing body control and experience, emotion, empathy, and time through its extensive connections to cortical and subcortical limbic structures.

    “the insula is involved in the processing of body control and experience, emotion, empathy, and time through its extensive connections to cortical and subcortical limbic structures (Menon and Uddin 2010;Cai et al. 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Menon and Uddin 2010 source

      The sections “Multiple functions of the insula: toward a network model” and “Structural connectivity of the insula” describe roles in bodily-state awareness, autonomic control, emotion, and empathy, alongside connections with other brain regions (page numbers unavailable). Our copy does not establish a role in processing time, nor does it attribute all the listed functions specifically to extensive cortical and subcortical limbic connections. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Cai et al. 2014 source

      The meta-analysis section says that anterior-ventral and posterior insular subdivisions have been implicated in affective and interoceptive processes, which partly supports the references to emotion and bodily experience. The intrinsic functional connectivity section reports connections between the right anterior insula and several cortical and subcortical regions. Neither passage supports empathy or time processing, nor establishes that the listed functions arise through connections to limbic structures. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    This finding would seem inconsistent with the observation that higher hypnotizability is associated with greater functional connectivity between the left DLPFC and the dACC, and with work indicating higher prefrontal activity associated with hypnosis.

    “This finding would seem inconsistent with the observation of (Hoeft et al. 2012) that higher hypnotizability is associated with greater functional connectivity between the left DLPFC and the dACC, and with work indicating higher prefrontal activity associated with hypnosis (Bell et al. 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hoeft et al. 2012 source
    • cites Bell et al. 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Highs displayed higher dACC amplitude at rest than lows, and significantly lower dACC activity in both hypnosis conditions with respect to rest.

    “Highs displayed higher dACC amplitude at rest than lows, and significantly lower dACC activity in both hypnosis conditions with respect to rest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The degree of fALFF reduction was related linearly to engagement with task; highs exhibited reduced dACC fALFF during hypnosis compared to memory, and less during memory compared to rest, whereas lows showed the opposite pattern.

    “Additionally, the degree of fALFF reduction was related linearly to engagement with task; highs exhibited reduced dACC fALFF during hypnosis compared to memory, and less during memory compared to rest, whereas lows showed the opposite pattern (Fig. 2, Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    As subjects reported they felt more hypnotized, the DMN became increasingly decoupled from both the left and right DLPFC, but only during hypnosis; connectivity between DLPFC and DMN was not significantly anti-correlated during the rest and memory control conditions.

    “Therefore as subjects reported they felt more hypnotized, the DMN became increasingly decoupled from both the left and right DLPFC, but only during hypnosis; connectivity between DLPFC and DMN was not significantly anti-correlated during the rest and memory control conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Overall highs showed more variability in functional connectivity across conditions than did lows, but started from lower resting connectivity between DLPFC and insula.

    “Overall highs showed more variability in functional connectivity across conditions than did lows, but started from lower resting connectivity between DLPFC and insula.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The findings were evident in the two hypnosis conditions among high but not low hypnotizables, and they were different from the memory and rest conditions.

    “The findings were evident in the two hypnosis conditions among high but not low hypnotizables, and they were different from the memory and rest conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The effect of hypnosis vs rest on left DLPFC connectivity is not significant for memory relative to rest at the same threshold.

    “The effect is not significant for memory relative to rest at the same threshold.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Hypnotic response scores correlate with FC: increased FC to left DLPFC during hypnosis in insular cortex and supramarginal gyrus.

    “Hypnotic response scores correlating with FC: orange-yellow regions (insular cortex and supramarginal gyrus) show increased FC to left DLPFC during hypnosis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Post-scan intensity of hypnosis ratings validly measure the subjective intensity of hypnosis.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Increases in ECN-SN connectivity involving primarily DLPFC and ipsilateral insula occurred during hypnosis among high hypnotizables, who were at lower functional connectivity levels at baseline.

    “Increases in ECN-SN connectivity involving primarily DLPFC and ipsilateral insula occurred during hypnosis among high hypnotizables, who were at lower functional connectivity levels at baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Reduced connectivity between left DLPFC and PCC was notable during hypnosis in highs but not during memory, and it was the clearest state difference highlighting hypnosis.

    “In particular, reduced connectivity between left DLPFC and PCC was notable during hypnosis in highs but not during memory, and it was the clearest state difference highlighting hypnosis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingown data

    There is a group by condition interaction in dACC fALFF between high and low hypnotizable subjects for hypnosis vs rest.

    “Group by condition interaction (upper panel): blue regions show an interaction between group (high vs. low) and condition (hypnosis vs. rest).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    dACC deactivation during hypnosis is task-dependent, with decrements in activation related to decreased negative affect.

    “These findings additionally suggest that dACC deactivation during hypnosis is task-dependent, with decrements in activation related to decreased negative affect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study controlled for variability in social input by using standardized recordings of hypnotic instructions and for expectancy by having subjects rate the intensity of their hypnotic experience.

    “We controlled for variability in social input by using standardized recordings of hypnotic instructions during the experiment, and for expectancy by having subjects rate the intensity of their hypnotic experience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The 2 × 2 design tested for fMRI differences only among highs and only in the two hypnosis conditions compared to rest and memory without hypnosis, to control for memory processing during hypnosis conditions.

    “Our 2 × 2 design (high vs. low hypnotizabilty, hypnosis vs. control conditions) tested for fMRI differences observed only among highs and only in the two hypnosis conditions compared to rest and memory without hypnosis, to control for the role of memory processing during hypnosis conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Respiration rate was significantly higher during the memory scan than during rest, vacation, and happy, and significantly higher during rest compared to vacation and happy.

    “Post-hoc paired sample t-tests showed that respiration rate was significantly higher during the memory scan than during rest (t(40) = 4.14, P < 0.001), vacation (t(40) = 6.24,P < 0.001), and happy (t(40) = 5.45, P < 0.001), and significantly higher during rest compared to vacation (t(40) = 2.33, P = 0.02) and happy (t(40) = 2.37, P = 0.02).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Data from 7 highs and 3 lows were discarded due to reasons including metal retainer, head movement, scanner noise, technical problems, failure to experience hypnosis, or incomplete scan.

    “Data from 7 highs and 3 lows were discarded (1 had a permanent metal retainer, 3 had excess head movement during the scan, 2 were bothered by the scanner noise, and 4 others because of technical scanner problems, failure to experience hypnosis in the scanner, or an incomplete scan).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Between the 21 selected highs and the 15 remaining highs, hypnotizability scores did not differ significantly, but post-scan ratings did.

    “Between the 21 highs selected and the 15 remaining highs, independent two-sample t-tests showed that hypnotizability scores (HIP: t = 0.95, P = 0.35; HGS: t = 1.25, P = 0.22) did not differ significantly, but, as planned, post-scan ratings did (t = 8.87, P < 0.0001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    When subjects are simply told to enter hypnosis with no further instructions, low hypnotizables focus on everyday concerns while high hypnotizables experience imagery or positive affect/exceptional experiences.

    “When subjects are simply told to enter hypnosis with no further instructions, low hypnotizables focus on everyday concerns while high hypnotizables experience imagery or positive affect/exceptional experiences (Cardena et al. 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cardena et al. 2013 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Hypnotizability is a measurable and stable trait throughout adulthood, with a 0.7 test-retest correlation over 25 years.

    “a measurable (Spiegel H and Spiegel D 2004) and stable trait throughout adulthood (0.7 test-retest correlation over 25 years) (Piccione et al. 1989).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Spiegel H and Spiegel D 2004 source
    • cites Piccione et al. 1989 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Between the 21 highs and 21 lows, hypnotizability scores and post-scan ratings differed significantly as planned, while age and gender did not.

    “Between the 21 highs and 21 lows, independent twosample t-tests showed that hypnotizability scores (HIP: t = 17.4,P < 0.0001; HGS: t = 24.0,P < 0.001) and post-scan ratings (t = 12.50, P < 0.0001) differed significantly as planned, while age (t = 1.58,P = 0.12) and gender (χ 2 = 0.89, P = 0.35) did not (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The four conditions were administered in counterbalanced order.

    “All subjects were scanned during 4 conditions administered in counterbalanced order: 1) hypnotic happiness (hypnotic emotion condition), 2) hypnotic vacation (hypnotic memory condition), 3) resting state, and 4) memory condition (Fig. 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Decreased DMN activity has been reported in high hypnotizables during hypnosis, indicating that hypnosis is a state of awareness distinct from the resting state.

    “Decreased DMN activity has been reported in high hypnotizables during hypnosis (McGeown et al. 2009;Deeley et al. 2012), indicating that hypnosis is a state of awareness distinct from the resting state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites McGeown et al. 2009 source
    • cites Deeley et al. 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The degree of pain experienced by subjects when told under hypnosis that they will experience pain is positively correlated with DLPFC, dACC, and insular activation.

    “Furthermore, prior work has shown that the degree of pain experienced by subjects when told under hypnosis that they will experience pain is positively correlated with DLPFC, dACC, and insular activation (Raij et al. 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Raij et al. 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The HGSHS:A and HIP have acceptable test-retest reliability and inter-rater agreement, and evidence for validity includes significant correlations with clinical response to hypnosis treatments for pain, smoking, and phobias.

    “Both have acceptable test-retest reliability and inter-rater agreement.Evidence for validity includes significant correlations between scores on these tests and clinical response to treatments involving hypnosis for pain (Hilgard and Hilgard 1975), smoking (Spiegel et al. 1993), and phobias (Spiegel et al. 1981).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hilgard and Hilgard 1975

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Spiegel et al. 1993 source
    • cites Spiegel et al. 1981 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Respiration rate had a significant main effect of condition but no significant main effect of group or group-by-condition interaction.

    “For respiration rate, there was a significant main effect on condition (F(3,40) = 16.24,P < 0.001) but no significant main effect on group (F(1,40) = 0.04, P = 0.84) or group by condition interaction (F(3,40) = 1.23,P = 0.30).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The ECN and DMN become anti-correlated during working memory tasks.

    “and the two networks become anti- correlated during working memory tasks (Leech et al. 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Leech et al. 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Connectivity between the DLPFC and the insula is up-regulated during hypnosis, which facilitates somatic surveillance.

    “while at the same time connectivity between the DLFPC and the insula is up-regulated, which facilitates somatic surveillance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    As levels of connectivity between these nodes during hypnosis was the same between groups, these findings may reflect decreased crossnetwork connectivity at rest, a trait difference, which normalizes after engagement with task.

    “As levels of connectivity between these nodes during hypnosis was the same between groups (Fig. 3), these findings may reflect decreased crossnetwork connectivity at rest, a trait difference, which normalizes after engagement with task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    DMN regions are involved in self-referential processing and episodic memory.

    “These DMN regions are involved in self-referential processing and episodic memory (Greicius and Menon 2004)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Greicius and Menon 2004 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In our data, highs displayed less regional amplitude in dACC and therefore less vigilance about possible alternative foci of attention during hypnosis than during a memory task, and less during memory than when subjects were at rest.

    “In our data, highs displayed less regional amplitude in dACC and therefore less vigilance about possible alternative foci of attention during hypnosis than during a memory task, and less during memory than when subjects were at rest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Effects of hypnosis may be due to separation of certain brain functions (ECN from DMN) as well as integration of others (ECN and SN).

    “Thus, effects of hypnosis may be due to separation of certain brain functions (ECN from DMN) as well as integration of others (ECN and SN).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Decreased fALFF in the dACC may reflect reduced context comparison and decreased attention to the external environment.

    “Decreased fALFF in the dACC may reflect reduced context comparison and decreased attention to the external environment”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
45 of 45

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Self-reported intensity of hypnotic experience is a valid measure of the depth of hypnosis.

    “All subjects were asked to rate on a scale of 1-10 how hypnotized they felt during each of the two hypnotic scans, with one indicating”
    “As a manipulation check, at the end of each condition subjects rated how hypnotized (or drowsy, in the rest and autobiographical memory scans) they felt on a scale of 1-4 using a button box.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two hypnosis conditions, hypnotic happiness and hypnotic vacation, both induce a common hypnotic state that can be averaged to index hypnosis.

    “We chose to structure the content of the two hypnosis conditions rather than simply provide an hypnotic induction with no further guidance.”
    “beta values for the two hypnosis conditions were averaged after regression for each subject”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Post-scan intensity of hypnosis ratings validly measure the subjective intensity of hypnosis.

    “Hypnotic response scores correlate with fALFF: blue regions show decreasing fractional amplitude during hypnosis relative to rest as post-scan intensity of hypnosis ratings increases, among all 36 highs.”
    “Connectivity during the two hypnotic states (averaged across happy/vacation) covaried with mean intensity of hypnosis ratings for 36 highs: regions in blue exhibit decreased FC with left (A) and right (B) DLPFC among subjects who felt more hypnotized.”
3 of 3

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?

  • The findings support a relationship between inhibition of the left DLPFC and an increase in hypnotizability.

    “Our findings support a relationship between the inhibition of the left DLPFC and an increase in hypnotizability.”

    From Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT): a preregistered randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Coupling of ECN and SN section (page unavailable) links left DLPFC connectivity to hypnotizability: highly hypnotizable participants showed increased left DLPFC–insula connectivity during hypnosis compared with rest. It does not report inhibiting the left DLPFC or show that inhibition increases hypnotizability. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In FMS, functional connectivity is altered in the salience network and the default mode network, both of which are involved in hypnosis.

    “In FMS, functional connectivity is altered in the salience network and the default mode network, both of which are involved in hypnosis 19 .”

    From Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT): a preregistered randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Abstract reports altered connectivity involving the salience and default mode networks during hypnosis, supporting their involvement in hypnosis. It describes a study of healthy subjects, however, and does not establish that connectivity in those networks is altered in FMS (searched: fibromyalgia, FMS). (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • During hypnosis, the dACC shows reduced activation, while the L-DLPFC increases its functional connectivity with the insula and reduces its connectivity with the posterior cingulate cortex.

    “During hypnosis, the dACC shows reduced activation, while the L-DLPFC increases its functional connectivity with the insula (a central node of the salience network) and reduces its connectivity with the posterior cingulate cortex (a key node in the default mode network) 19 .”

    From Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT): a preregistered randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    The ‘Decreased dACC Activity During Hypnosis’ and ‘Coupling of ECN and SN’ sections report reduced dACC activity and increased left-DLPFC–insula connectivity during hypnosis relative to rest, but these findings were in highly hypnotizable participants. The ‘Decoupling of the Executive Control and DMNs During Hypnosis’ section reports that left-DLPFC connectivity with regions including the PCC decreased as reported hypnotic intensity increased; it does not establish a decrease relative to rest. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Evidence from neuroimaging studies suggests that hypnosis involves activity changes in the central executive network (CEN), salience network (SN), and default mode network (DMN).

    “Evidence from neuroimaging studies suggests that hypnosis involves activity changes in the central executive network (CEN), salience network (SN), and default mode network (DMN)32,33.”

    From Effects of app delivered self hypnosis on stress management (2025) · cites this paper as [32]

  • Our results provide further support for a relationship between the L-DLPFC and hypnotizability, as its inhibition produced changes in a hypnotizability measure.

    “Building on our group's previous work on the neural bases of hypnotizability 3,19,31 , our results provide further support for a relationship between the L-DLPFC and hypnotizability, as its inhibition produced changes in a hypnotizability measure.”

    From Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT): a preregistered randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(3,40) = 1.54,p = .21

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .21 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .219. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .21 · recomputed p = .219

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(3,40) = 1.23,p = .30

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .3 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .311. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .3 · recomputed p = .311

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(3,40) = 1.49,p = .22

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .22 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .232. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .22 · recomputed p = .232

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(3,40) = 1.36,p = .26

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .26 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .269. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .26 · recomputed p = .269

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(3,40) = 1.65,p = .18

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .18 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .193. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .18 · recomputed p = .193

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(3,40) = 0.69, p = .55

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .55 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .564. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .55 · recomputed p = .564

6 of 6

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(3, 40) = 1.54reported p = .21 · recomputed p = .219

    “F(3,40) = 1.54,p = .21”

  • Doesn’t add upF(3, 40) = 1.36reported p = .26 · recomputed p = .269

    “F(3,40) = 1.36,p = .26”

  • Doesn’t add upF(3, 40) = 1.23reported p = .3 · recomputed p = .311

    “F(3,40) = 1.23,p = .30”

  • Doesn’t add upF(3, 40) = 0.69reported p = .55 · recomputed p = .564

    “F(3,40) = 0.69, p = .55”

  • Doesn’t add upF(3, 40) = 1.49reported p = .22 · recomputed p = .232

    “F(3,40) = 1.49,p = .22”

  • Doesn’t add upF(3, 40) = 1.65reported p = .18 · recomputed p = .193

    “F(3,40) = 1.65,p = .18”

  • Not confirmedF(3, 40) = 1.01reported p = .39 · recomputed p = .398

    “F(3,40) = 1.01,p = .39”

  • ConsistentF(1, 40) = 0.51reported p = .48 · recomputed p = .479

    “F(1,40) = 0.51, p = .48”

  • ConsistentF(3, 40) = 16.24reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(3,40) = 16.24,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 40) = 0.04reported p = .84 · recomputed p = .842

    “F(1,40) = 0.04, p = .84”

  • Consistentt(40) = 4.14reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(40) = 4.14, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(40) = 6.24reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(40) = 6.24,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(40) = 5.45reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(40) = 5.45, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(40) = 2.33reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .025

    “t(40) = 2.33, p = .02”

  • Consistentt(40) = 2.37reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .023

    “t(40) = 2.37, p = .02”

  • ConsistentF(1, 40) = 2.27reported p = .14 · recomputed p = .140

    “F(1,40) = 2.27, p = .14”

  • ConsistentF(3, 40) = 0.44reported p = .72 · recomputed p = .726

    “F(3,40) = 0.44, p = .72”

  • ConsistentF(1, 40) = 0.01reported p = .92 · recomputed p = .921

    “F(1,40) = 0.01, p = .92”

  • ConsistentF(1, 40) = 0.56reported p = .46 · recomputed p = .459

    “F (1,40) = 0.56, p = .46”

  • ConsistentF(3, 40) = 0.27reported p = .85 · recomputed p = .847

    “F(3,40) = 0.27, p = .85”

20 of 20

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

  • Gender counts exceed the full high-group size

    Minor

    The table lists 12 males and 25 females in the 36-person high group, but those counts sum to 37.

    Reported 36 · recomputed 37

  • Gender counts fall short of the high-subgroup size

    Minor

    The high subgroup contains 21 subjects, but its listed gender counts sum to 20.

    Reported 21 · recomputed 20

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jiang, H., White, M. P., Greicius, M. D., Waelde, L. C., & Spiegel, D.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Palo Alto University (US)
Corresponding author
Spiegel, David
ORCID
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2016-07-28
Volume
27
Issue
8
Pages
4083-4093
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
DOI
10.1093/cercor/bhw220
PMC
PMC6248753
OpenAlex
W2484956421
Cited by
239
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
7.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (P41-EB015891)
  • National Institute of Biomedical imaging and Bioengineering
  • Jay and Rose Phillips Family Foundation, and the Nissan Research Center
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Keywords
hypnosis, hypnotic susceptibility, default mode network, frontoparietal network, salience network, functional connectivity, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Hypnosis, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-15.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-15.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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