The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 26 of the 56 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
47 Own result · 16 No full text of the sources · 13 Own interpretation · 10 Partly supported · 10 Own method · 8 Supported · 2 No basis given · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Coupling of ECN and SN
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Shirer et al. 2012 source
The citation identifies the functionally defined ROIs, not the hypnosis finding. In “ROI Creation” (page unavailable), Shirer et al. describe deriving 90 ROIs from resting-state functional networks, supporting that identification. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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:”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Data preprocessing
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Power et al. 2012 source
The citation is attached to the scrubbing method and 0.5 mm threshold, not to the citing authors’ finding of no group or condition effects. The source paper’s Results describe scrubbing suspect frames and specify a framewise-displacement cutoff of 0.5. The no-significant-effects finding is not attributed to Power et al. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Thus these findings are consistent with the insula's role in brain regulation of somatic symptoms (Avery et al. 2014).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Avery et al. 2014 source
The COMMENT section reports that insula activity during heartbeat interoception was related to the severity of somatic symptoms. The paper’s Conclusions also associate somatic symptoms of depression with abnormal interoceptive representation in the insula. These findings support the citing sentence’s cautious interpretation; page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Kihlstrom 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“This finding indicates a selective reduction in dACC regional activity during hypnosis (Melcher and Gruber 2009;Zhang and Li 2012).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Melcher and Gruber 2009 source
- Could not verifycites Zhang and Li 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“increased functional connectivity between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC;ECN) and the insula in the SN”
- Also stated in: § Coupling of ECN and SN · plain
“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”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Highs displayed increased connectivity between bilateral DLPFC and the ipsilateral insula during hypnosis compared to rest, while lows exhibited no differences among any states.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 545- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Coupling of ECN and SN · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those who reported they felt more hypnotized had the lowest ratio of fALFF in the dACC during hypnosis relative to rest using TFCE, P < 0.001.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Decreased dACC Activity During Hypnosis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within-group analysis comparing hypnosis to rest confirmed that highs showed significantly elevated coupling between left DLPFC and ipsilateral insula during hypnosis compared to rest at P < 0.05, GRF corrected (Fig. 3A, Table 3).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Coupling of ECN and SN
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clusters in left insula, middle frontal gyrus and superior parietal lobule were significantly positively correlated with intensity of hypnosis ratings at P < 0.05, GRF corrected (Fig. 3C, Table 3).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Coupling of ECN and SN
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Highs also displayed significantly greater connectivity between right DLPFC and both left and right insula during hypnosis compared to rest at P < 0.05, GRF corrected (Fig. 3B, Table 3).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Coupling of ECN and SN
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 16
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Seeley et al. 2007 source
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Seeley et al. 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Seeley et al. 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Partly supportedcites Supekar et al. 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Partly supportedcites Greicius et al. 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Coupling of ECN and SN
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hoeft et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Etkin et al. 2011 source
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)
- Supportedcites Parvizi et al. 2013 source
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Data preprocessing
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Power et al. 2012 source
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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hoeft et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“while the ECN is involved in cognitive control (Seeley et al. 2007)”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Seeley et al. 2007 source
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“as well as empathic perception of pain in others, (Menon and Uddin 2010;Gu et al. 2012)”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Menon and Uddin 2010 source
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)
- Not matchedcites Gu et al. 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
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”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Eckert et al. 2009 source
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)
- Partly supportedcites Menon and Uddin 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Partly supportedcites Cai et al. 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, ACC stimulation is associated with a”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Parvizi et al. 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- 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
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Insular cortex is also involved in self-reflection, selfmonitoring, and self-regulation (Herwig et al. 2012)”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Herwig et al. 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Menon and Uddin 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Partly supportedcites Cai et al. 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hoeft et al. 2012 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Supportedcites Bell et al. 2011 source
Split into 3 atoms — 3 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Decreased dACC Activity During Hypnosis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Decoupling of the Executive Control and DMNs During Hypnosis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Coupling of ECN and SN
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect is not significant for memory relative to rest at the same threshold.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Post-scan intensity of hypnosis ratings validly measure the subjective intensity of hypnosis.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Group by condition interaction (upper panel): blue regions show an interaction between group (high vs. low) and condition (hypnosis vs. rest).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings additionally suggest that dACC deactivation during hypnosis is task-dependent, with decrements in activation related to decreased negative affect.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Introduction
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Hypnosis Conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Hypnosis Conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Data preprocessing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Subjects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Subjects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Greater functional connectivity between the SN and ECN would amplify task-related activity reflecting increases or decreases in anxiety.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cardena et al. 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Introduction
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Subjects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Hypnosis Conditions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Introduction
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Raij et al. 2009 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Subjects
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Data preprocessing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“and the two networks become anti- correlated during working memory tasks (Leech et al. 2011).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Leech et al. 2011 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while at the same time connectivity between the DLFPC and the insula is up-regulated, which facilitates somatic surveillance.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These DMN regions are involved in self-referential processing and episodic memory (Greicius and Menon 2004)”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Greicius and Menon 2004 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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.”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
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).”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Decreased fALFF in the dACC may reflect reduced context comparison and decreased attention to the external environment”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Increased functional connectivity between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the executive control network, and the insula in the salience network has also been observed (Jiang et al., 2016).”
From Remembering what did not happen: the role of hypnosis in memory recall and false memories formation (2025) · cites this paper as Jiang et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) under hypnosis has shown reduced connectivity between the executive control network, the default mode network, and the posterior cingulate cortex (Jiang et al., 2016) and a reduced activity of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (Jiang et al., 2016).”
From Remembering what did not happen: the role of hypnosis in memory recall and false memories formation (2025) · cites this paper as Jiang et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Post-hypnotic amnesia seems to be associated with hypnotic-induced interferences in the temporal sequencing during the memory recall process (Kihlstrom and Evans, 2014), which may be partially explained by the decoupling of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex from the default mode networks (Jiang et al., 2016).”
From Remembering what did not happen: the role of hypnosis in memory recall and false memories formation (2025) · cites this paper as Jiang et al., 2016
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(3,40) = 1.54,P = 0.21”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Data preprocessing
Reported p = .21 · recomputed p = .219
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(3,40) = 1.23,P = 0.30”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Data preprocessing
Reported p = .3 · recomputed p = .311
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(3,40) = 1.49,P = 0.22”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Data preprocessing
Reported p = .22 · recomputed p = .232
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(3,40) = 1.36,P = 0.26”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Data preprocessing
Reported p = .26 · recomputed p = .269
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(3,40) = 1.65,P = 0.18”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Discussion
Reported p = .18 · recomputed p = .193
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(3,40) = 0.69, P = 0.55”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Data preprocessing
Reported p = .55 · recomputed p = .564
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”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“High (36) High subgroup ( 21) Low ( 21) Age 23.8 ± 10.5 21.7 ± 8.5 26.5 ± 10.9 Gender (M/F) 12/25 7/13 10/10”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Hypnotizability
Reported 36 · recomputed 37
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“High (36) High subgroup ( 21) Low ( 21) Age 23.8 ± 10.5 21.7 ± 8.5 26.5 ± 10.9 Gender (M/F) 12/25 7/13 10/10”
§ Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity Associated with Hypnosis > Hypnotizability
Reported 21 · recomputed 20
Citations
Cites
Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL
Smith, S. M., Jenkinson, M., Woolrich, M. W., Beckmann, C. F., Behrens, T. E. J., Johansen-Berg, H., Bannister, P. R., De Luca, M., Drobnjak, I., Flitney, D. E., et al. (2004) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.051 · Cited by 13,630
Jenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., & Smith, S. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1132 · Cited by 11,888
Power, J. D., Barnes, K. A., Snyder, A. Z., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018 · Cited by 7,429
Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control
Seeley, W. W., Menon, V., Schatzberg, A. F., Keller, J., Glover, G. H., Kenna, H., Reiss, A. L., & Greicius, M. D. (2007) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5587-06.2007 · Cited by 7,426
Self-citationSaliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function
Menon, V., & Uddin, L. Q. (2010) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-010-0262-0 · Cited by 5,592
SMITH, S., & NICHOLS, T. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.061 · Cited by 5,250
The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after
Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150525 · Cited by 3,439
Emotional processing in anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex
Etkin, A., Egner, T., & Kalisch, R. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.11.004 · Cited by 3,059 · cited 4×
“…performance (Eckert et al. 2009; Menon and at Stanford U niversity on A ugust 10, 2016 http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/ D ow nloaded from Uddin 2010; Cai et al. 2014), while the dACC is involved more with mood (Etkin et al. 2011) and external attention (Raz et al. 2002; Petersen and Posner 2012).”
InfluentialPain Affect Encoded in Human Anterior Cingulate But Not Somatosensory Cortex
Rainville, P., Duncan, G. H., Price, D. D., Carrier, B., & Bushnell, M. C. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.968 · Cited by 2,629 · cited 3×
“…insular cortex is also involved in spatial and temporal aspects of pain processing (Roder et al. 2007), as well as empathic perception of pain in others, (Menon and Uddin 2010; Gu et al. 2012) which clarifies the potency of hypnosis in pain control (Rainville et al. 1997; Melcher and Gruber 2009).”
Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0036681 · Cited by 2,196
Resting-State Functional Connectivity Reflects Structural Connectivity in the Default Mode Network
Greicius, M. D., Supekar, K., Menon, V., & Dougherty, R. F. (2009) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn059 · Cited by 2,175
Self-citationZou, Q., Zhu, C.-Z., Yang, Y., Zuo, X., Long, X., Cao, Q., Wang, Y., & Zang, Y. (2008) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2008.04.012 · Cited by 2,169
Accurate, Robust, and Automated Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Brain Change Analysis
Smith, S. M., Zhang, Y., Jenkinson, M., Chen, J. M., Matthews, P. M., Federico, A., & Stefano, N. D. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1040 · Cited by 2,013
REST: A Toolkit for Resting-State Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data Processing
Song, X., Dong, Z.-Y., Long, X., Li, S., Zuo, X., Zhu, C.-Z., Yong He, A., Yan, C., & Zang, Y. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025031 · Cited by 1,889
Decoding subject-driven cognitive states with whole-brain connectivity patterns
Shirer, W. R., Ryali, S., Rykhlevskaia, E., Menon, V., & Greicius, M. D. (2012) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr099 · Cited by 1,843
Self-citationNetwork Analysis of Intrinsic Functional Brain Connectivity in Alzheimer's Disease
Supekar, K., Menon, V., Rubin, D., Musen, M., & Greicius, M. D. (2008) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000100 · Cited by 1,148
Self-citationHarvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A
Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1961) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t02246-000 · Cited by 918
Leech, R., Kamourieh, S., Beckmann, C. F., & Sharp, D. J. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5626-10.2011 · Cited by 759
Greicius, M. D., & Menon, V. (2004) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/0898929042568532 · Cited by 684
Self-citationHypnosis In The Relief Of Pain
Hilgard, E. R., & Hilgard, J. R. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203765647 · Cited by 639
Spiral‐in/out BOLD fMRI for increased SNR and reduced susceptibility artifacts
Glover, G. H., & Law, C. S. W. (2001) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.1222 · Cited by 600
Trance and Treatment: Clinical Uses of Hypnosis
Spiegel, H., & Spiegel, D. (1978) · Cited by 516
Self-citationAdjunctive non-pharmacological analgesia for invasive medical procedures: a randomised trial
Lang, E. V., Benotsch, E. G., Fick, L. J., Lutgendorf, S., Berbaum, M. L., Berbaum, K. S., Logan, H., & Spiegel, D. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02162-0 · Cited by 513
Self-citationChang, C., & Glover, G. H. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.012 · Cited by 503
Lanius, R. A., Brand, B., Vermetten, E., Frewen, P. A., & Spiegel, D. (2012) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.21889 · Cited by 459
Self-citationGroup therapy and hypnosis reduce metastatic breast carcinoma pain
Spiegel, D., & Bloom, J. R. (1983) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00006842-198308000-00007 · Cited by 451
Self-citationAvery, J. A., Drevets, W. C., Moseman, S. E., Bodurka, J., Barcalow, J. C., & Simmons, W. K. (2014) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.11.027 · Cited by 442
Brief psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorders.
Brom, D., Kleber, R. J., & Defares, P. B. (1989) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.57.5.607 · Cited by 438
At the heart of the ventral attention system: The right anterior insula
Eckert, M. A., Menon, V., Walczak, A., Ahlstrom, J., Denslow, S., Horwitz, A., & Dubno, J. R. (2009) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20688 · Cited by 406
Advancing Research and Practice: The Revised APA Division 30 Definition of Hypnosis
Elkins, G. R., Barabasz, A. F., Council, J. R., & Spiegel, D. (2015) · International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00207144.2014.961870 · Cited by 401
Self-citationCai, W., Ryali, S., Chen, T., Li, C.-S. R., & Menon, V. (2014) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3048-14.2014 · Cited by 362
On the degree of stability of measured hypnotizability over a 25-year period.
Piccione, C., Hilgard, E. R., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.289 · Cited by 315
Norms on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A
Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1963) · International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00207146308409226 · Cited by 262
The will to persevere Induced by electrical stimulation of the human cingulate gyrus
Parvizi, J., Rangarajan, V., Shirer, W. R., Desai, N., & Greicius, M. D. (2013) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.057 · Cited by 254
Self-citationHypnosis decouples cognitive control from conflict monitoring processes of the frontal lobe
Egner, T., Jamieson, G., & Gruzelier, J. (2005) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.002 · Cited by 245
Advancing Research and Practice: The Revised APA Division 30 Definition of Hypnosis
Elkins, G. R., Barabasz, A. F., Council, J. R., & Spiegel, D. (2015) · American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00029157.2015.1011465 · Cited by 226
Self-citationAnterior insular cortex is necessary for empathetic pain perception
Gu, X., Gao, Z., Wang, X., Liu, X., Knight, R. T., Hof, P. R., & Fan, J. (2012) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/aws199 · Cited by 223
Hypnotic Suggestion and the Modulation of Stroop Interference
Raz, A., Shapiro, T., Fan, J., & Posner, M. I. (2002) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.12.1155 · Cited by 216
Dissociation in hysteria and hypnosis: evidence from cognitive neuroscience
Bell, V., Oakley, D. A., Halligan, P. W., & Deeley, Q. (2011) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2009.199158 · Cited by 214
Functional Brain Basis of Hypnotizability
Hoeft, F., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Haas, B. W., Bammer, R., Menon, V., & Spiegel, D. (2012) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.2190 · Cited by 203 · cited 4×
“(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.”
InfluentialSelf-citationRegularized higher‐order in vivo shimming
Kim, D., Elfar Adalsteinsson, A., Glover, G. H., & Spielman, D. M. (2002) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.10267 · Cited by 200
Hypnotic induction decreases anterior default mode activity
McGeown, W. J., Mazzoni, G., Venneri, A., & Kirsch, I. (2009) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.09.001 · Cited by 195
Cojan, Y., Waber, L., Schwartz, S., Rossier, L., Forster, A., & Vuilleumier, P. (2009) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.05.021 · Cited by 189
Tefikow, S., Barth, J., Maichrowitz, S., Beelmann, A., Strauss, B., & Rosendahl, J. (2013) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.03.005 · Cited by 170
The neurophenomenology of neutral hypnosis
Cardeña, E., Jönsson, P., Terhune, D. B., & Marcusson-Clavertz, D. (2013) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.04.001 · Cited by 149
Modulating the default mode network using hypnosis
Deeley, Q., Oakley, D. A., Toone, B., Giampietro, V., Brammer, M. J., Williams, S. C. R., & Halligan, P. W. (2012) · International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00207144.2012.648070 · Cited by 146
Hypnosis, Suggestion, and Suggestibility: An Integrative Model
Lynn, S. J., Laurence, J.-R., & Kirsch, I. (2015) · American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00029157.2014.976783 · Cited by 143
Adachi, T., Fujino, H., Nakae, A., Mashimo, T., & Sasaki, J. (2014) · International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00207144.2013.841471 · Cited by 140
Meta-analysis of the effects of psychosocial interventions on survival time in cancer patients
Smedslund, G., & Ringdal, G. I. (2004) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/s0022-3999(03)00575-0 · Cited by 121
Boosting Human Learning by Hypnosis
Nemeth, D., Janacsek, K., Polner, B., & Kovacs, Z. A. (2013) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs068 · Cited by 112
Schaefert, R., Klose, P., Moser, G., & Häuser, W. (2014) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/psy.0000000000000039 · Cited by 103
Neuro-hypnotism: Prospects for hypnosis and neuroscience
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2013) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.05.016 · Cited by 99
Neuronal correlates of symptom formation in functional somatic syndromes: A fMRI study
Landgrebe, M., Barta, W., Rosengarth, K., Frick, U., Hauser, S., Langguth, B., Rutschmann, R., Greenlee, M. W., Hajak, G., & Eichhammer, P. (2008) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.04.171 · Cited by 87 · cited 1×
“Sham mobile phone radiation in electrosensitive subjects caused somatic symptoms that were mediated through increased insular activity (Landgrebe et al. 2008), similar to the ability of hypnosis to affect somatic perception and control.”
Pain Response in Depersonalization: A Functional Imaging Study Using Hypnosis in Healthy Subjects
Röder, C. H., Michal, M., Overbeck, G., van de Ven, V. G., & Linden, D. E. J. (2007) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000097970 · Cited by 82
TRANCEFORMATIONS: HYPNOSIS IN BRAIN AND BODY
Spiegel, D. (2013) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.22046 · Cited by 79
Self-citationModulation of gastric acid secretion by hypnosis
Klein, K. B., & Spiegel, D. (1989) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/0016-5085(89)90502-7 · Cited by 77
Self-citationCojan, Y., Piguet, C., & Vuilleumier, P. O. (2015) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.076 · Cited by 74
Structural and functional correlates of hypnotic depth and suggestibility
McGeown, W. J., Mazzoni, G., Vannucci, M., & Venneri, A. (2015) · Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2014.11.015 · Cited by 74
(1993) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.150.7.1090 · Cited by 74
Self-citationEr, H. (1975) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.26.020175.000315 · Cited by 69
The Hypnotic Induction Profile: Normative Observations, Reliability and Validity
Stern, D. B., Spiegel, H., & Nee, J. C. M. (1978) · American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00029157.1978.10403967 · Cited by 67
Measuring extrastriatal dopamine release during a reward learning task
Vrieze, E., Ceccarini, J., Pizzagalli, D. A., Bormans, G. M., Vandenbulcke, M., Demyttenaere, K., Laere, K. V., & Claes, S. J. (2011) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.21456 · Cited by 65
CONTROLLED TRIAL OF HYPNOTHERAPY IN RELAPSE PREVENTION OF DUODENAL ULCERATION
Colgan, S. M., Faragher, E. B., & Whorwell, P. J. (1988) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(88)92118-6 · Cited by 61
Melcher, T., & Gruber, O. (2009) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.06.004 · Cited by 59
Neuroimaging resolution of the altered state hypothesis
Mazzoni, G., Venneri, A., McGeown, W. J., & Kirsch, I. (2013) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.08.005 · Cited by 58
Neural activity associated with self-reflection
Herwig, U., Kaffenberger, T., Schell, C., Jäncke, L., & Brühl, A. B. (2012) · BMC Neuroscience · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-13-52 · Cited by 50
Strength of prefrontal activation predicts intensity of suggestion-induced pain
Raij, T. T., Numminen, J., Närvänen, S., Hiltunen, J., & Hari, R. (2009) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.20716 · Cited by 50
Grounding Hypnosis in Science: The “New” APA Division 30 Definition of Hypnosis as a Step Backward
Lynn, S. J., Green, J. P., Kirsch, I., Capafons, A., Lilienfeld, S. O., Laurence, J.-R., & Montgomery, G. H. (2015) · American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00029157.2015.1011472 · Cited by 43
Hypnotizability and CSF HVA levels among psychiatric patients
Spiegel, D., & King, R. (1992) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/0006-3223(92)90009-o · Cited by 43
Self-citationPower, J. D., Barnes, K. A., Snyder, A. Z., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.069 · Cited by 42
Hypnotic Responsivity and the Treatment of Flying Phobia
Spiegel, D., Maruffi, B., Frischholz, E. J., & Spiegel, H. (1981) · American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00029157.1981.10404028 · Cited by 40
Self-citationHypnotic Responsivity and the Treatment of Flying Phobia
Spiegel, D., Maruffi, B. L., Frischholz, E. J., & Spiegel, H. (2014) · American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00029157.2015.967086 · Cited by 39
Self-citationZhang, S., & Li, C.-S. R. (2012) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00172 · Cited by 37
Etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of nonepileptic seizures
Barry, J. J., & Sanborn, K. (2001) · Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports · doi:10.1007/s11910-001-0094-7 · Cited by 23
Sadler, P., & Woody, E. Z. (2006) · International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00207140600856715 · Cited by 22
Spiegel, D. (2004) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/s0022-3999(03)00576-2 · Cited by 12
Self-citationBhuvaneswar, C., & Spiegel, D. (2013) · International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00207144.2013.784115 · Cited by 9 · cited 5×
“…were performed. at Stanford U niversity on A ugust 10, 2016 http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/ D ow nloaded from typical in hypnosis (Spiegel H and Spiegel D 2004; Bell et al. 2011) and dissociative traumatic experiences (Spiegel H and Spiegel 2004; Lanius et al. 2012; Bhuvaneswar and Spiegel 2013).”
InfluentialSelf-citationGlover (2000) · doi:10.1002/1522-2594(200007)44:1
Hypnotic Induction Attenuates Anterior Default Mode Activity
McGeown, W. J., Mazzoni, G., Venneri, A., et al. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/s1053-8119(09)71597-6
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brain correlates of hypnosis: A systematic review and meta-analytic exploration
Landry, M., Lifshitz, M., & Raz, A. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.02.020 · Cited by 295
Hypnosis and top-down regulation of consciousness
Terhune, D. B., Cleeremans, A., Raz, A., & Lynn, S. J. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.02.002 · Cited by 183
Jensen, M. P., Jamieson, G. A., Lutz, A., Mazzoni, G., McGeown, W. J., Santarcangelo, E. L., Demertzi, A., De Pascalis, V., Bányai, É. I., Rominger, C., et al. (2017) · Neuroscience of Consciousness · doi:10.1093/nc/nix004 · Cited by 162
“works (Cojan et al. 2009; Jiang et al. 2016), and the functional role of different frequencies of brain oscillations (De Pascalis et al.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTimmermann, C., Bauer, P. R., Gosseries, O., Vanhaudenhuyse, A., Vollenweider, F., Laureys, S., Singer, T., Antonova, E., & Lutz, A. (2023) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2022.11.006 · Cited by 150
Wren, A., Ross, A., D’Souza, G., Almgren, C., Feinstein, A., Marshall, A., & Golianu, B. (2019) · Children · doi:10.3390/children6020033 · Cited by 115
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- PMC
- PMC6248753
- OpenAlex
- W2484956421
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 7.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Keywords
- hypnosis, hypnotic susceptibility, default mode network, frontoparietal network, salience network, functional connectivity, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, insula, memory retrieval, focused attention, self-consciousness
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Hypnosis, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Mental Recall, Rest, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-15, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-15 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
