Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The ICA section identifies bilateral DLPFC and parietal cortices in the executive-control network. The Behavioral correlations section specifically identifies left and right superior parietal lobules in that network, while Functional significance links its DLPFC and parietal regions to sustained attention and working memory. The paper identifies additional network regions as well; the claim does not say its list is exhaustive. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites Seeley et al. 2007 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Seeley et al. 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Seeley et al. 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Supekar et al. 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Greicius et al. 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Hoeft et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  In “Fear conditioning and extinction in humans,” the paper says dorsal ACC/mPFC is involved in the appraisal and expression of fear or anxiety. In “Integration with other perspectives on ACC/mPFC function and other emotions,” it places pain on the negative-emotion appraisal/expression side and reports dorsal ACC/mPFC activation during pain. The agency and perseverance clause is attributed to Parvizi et al., not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites Etkin et al. 2011 source
• Supported

  The Parvizi et al. citation is attached to the sense of personal agency or will to persevere, not the preceding fear-and-pain clause. In the Discussion, the authors describe aMCC stimulation producing anticipation of a challenge and strong motivation to overcome it, which they call the “will to persevere.” (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites Parvizi et al. 2013 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The citation identifies the framewise displacement measure, not the citing authors’ statistical results. The source’s Methods section (“Framewise displacement (FD) calculations”) defines how FD is calculated; the reported lack of group, condition, and interaction effects is explicitly the citing authors’ own finding. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Power et al. 2012 source

In the paper

“(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.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Hoeft et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“while the ECN is involved in cognitive control (Seeley et al. 2007)”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The section on functional significance describes the executive-control network as directing attention, maintaining relevant information, and supporting response selection and suppression. The Discussion also reports that connectivity within this network predicted executive-task performance. Together, these support the claim that the ECN is involved in cognitive control. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Seeley et al. 2007 source

In the paper

“as well as empathic perception of pain in others, (Menon and Uddin 2010;Gu et al. 2012)”

What the sources say

• Supported

  In “Multiple functions of the insula: toward a network model” (page not provided), the paper reports anterior insula activation both during pain perception and when participants witnessed a loved one receiving painful stimulation. It explicitly links the anterior insula to empathy, supporting the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Menon and Uddin 2010 source
• ?Not matched

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

  cites Gu et al. 2012

In the paper

“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”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Discussion’s “Dorsal and Ventral Attention System Interactions” section places the right anterior insula and ACC among regions hypothesized to support a salience or ventral attention system. “The Right aI/fO and Saliency” links the anterior insula to autonomic and interoceptive bodily information, while the Discussion links it to representing task performance. The Results report task-related connectivity differences for the insula but not the ACC, supporting a functional distinction; the supplied claim ends before stating a specific dACC function. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Eckert et al. 2009 source
• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Menon and Uddin 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Cai et al. 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Furthermore, ACC stimulation is associated with a”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

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

  cites Parvizi et al. 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Spiegel H and Spiegel D 2004 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Elkins et al. 2015 source

In the paper

“Insular cortex is also involved in self-reflection, selfmonitoring, and self-regulation (Herwig et al. 2012)”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Herwig et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Menon and Uddin 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Partly supported

  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)

  cites Cai et al. 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• Supported

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

  cites Hoeft et al. 2012 source
• Supported

  Split into 3 atoms — 3 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  cites Bell et al. 2011 source

In the paper

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

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

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

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“The effect is not significant for memory relative to rest at the same threshold.”

In the paper

“Hypnotic response scores correlating with FC: orange-yellow regions (insular cortex and supramarginal gyrus) show increased FC to left DLPFC during hypnosis.”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“Group by condition interaction (upper panel): blue regions show an interaction between group (high vs. low) and condition (hypnosis vs. rest).”

In the paper

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

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cardena et al. 2013 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Spiegel H and Spiegel D 2004 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Piccione et al. 1989 source

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites McGeown et al. 2009 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Deeley et al. 2012 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Raij et al. 2009 source

In the paper

“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).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

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

  cites Hilgard and Hilgard 1975
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Spiegel et al. 1993 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Spiegel et al. 1981 source

In the paper

“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).”

In the paper

“and the two networks become anti- correlated during working memory tasks (Leech et al. 2011).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Leech et al. 2011 source

In the paper

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

In the paper

“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.”

In the paper

“These DMN regions are involved in self-referential processing and episodic memory (Greicius and Menon 2004)”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Greicius and Menon 2004 source

In the paper

“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 the paper

“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).”

In the paper

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