Hypnosis Modulates Activity in Brain Structures Involved in the Regulation of Consciousness
Abstract
The notion of consciousness is at the core of an ongoing debate on the existence and nature of hypnotic states. Previously, we have described changes in brain activity associated with hypnosis (Rainville, Hofbauer, Paus, Duncan, Bushnell, & Price, 1999). Here, we replicate and extend those findings using positron emission tomography (PET) in 10 normal volunteers. Immediately after each of 8 PET scans performed before (4 scans) and after (4 scans) the induction of hypnosis, subjects rated their perceived level of “mental relaxation” and “mental absorption,” two of the key dimensions describing the experience of being hypnotized. Regression analyses between regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and self-ratings confirm the hypothesized involvement of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), the thalamus, and the ponto-mesencephalic brainstem in the production of hypnotic states. Hypnotic relaxation further involved an increase in occipital rCBF that is consistent with our previous interpretation that hypnotic states are characterized by a decrease in cortical arousal and a reduction in cross-modality suppression (disinhibition). In contrast, increases in mental absorption during hypnosis were associated with rCBF increases in a distributed network of cortical and subcortical structures previously described as the brain's attentional system. These findings are discussed in support of a state theory of hypnosis in which the basic changes in phenomenal experience produced by hypnotic induction reflect, at least in part, the modulation of activity within brain areas critically involved in the regulation of consciousness.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Relaxation, anxiety, pleasant body sensations, and desire for opioids were measured via validated single items rated on a numeric rating scale (0-10).
“Secondary outcomes were measured via validated single items assessing relaxation, 25 anxiety, 22 pleasant body sensations, 26 and desire for opioids, 27 all rated on a numeric rating scale (0 -10) to minimize patient confusion.”
From Randomized Controlled Trial of Brief Mindfulness Training and Hypnotic Suggestion for Acute Pain Relief in the Hospital Setting. (2017) · cites this paper as [25]
High-hypnotizable individuals, but not low-hypnotizable individuals, have shown altered activation in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and prefrontal cortex (PFC) when modulating pain perception, reducing Stroop interference, and during rest when they are in versus out of hypnotic states.
“High-hypnotizable individuals, but not low-hypnotizable individuals, have shown altered activation in the dACC7–9, 12, 21–26 and PFC7, 11, 22, 23 when modulating pain perception, reducing Stroop interference, and during rest when they are in versus out of hypnotic states.27”
From Functional Brain Basis of Hypnotizability (2012) · cites this paper as [9]
This could account for controlled dissociative experience in hypnosis, in which perceptions ordinarily available to consciousness are put outside of conscious awareness.
“This could account for controlled dissociative experience in hypnosis, in which perceptions ordinarily available to consciousness are put outside of conscious awareness (e.g. analgesia4, 9, 56 or alteration of color perception10), despite the apparent incongruity of this sensory alteration.”
From Functional Brain Basis of Hypnotizability (2012) · cites this paper as [9]
Studies have identified potential brain markers related to hypnotic inductions.
“These studies have identified potential brain markers related to hypnotic inductions, but, as in the Egner et al. study (2005), no specific suggestion was examined.”
From New directions in hypnosis research: strategies for advancing the cognitive and clinical neuroscience of hypnosis (2017) · cites this paper as Rainville et al. 2002
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 76 · Cited by 335
- Authors
- Rainville, P., Hofbauer, R. K., Bushnell, M. C., Duncan, G. H., & Price, D. D.
- Affiliations
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- McGill University (CA)
- University of Florida (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 887-901
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2167669774
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 6.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
- Keywords
- hypnosis, hypnotic state, regional cerebral blood flow, anterior cingulate cortex, thalamus, mental relaxation, cortical arousal, attentional networks, hypnotic induction
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Brain, Brain Mapping, Brain Stem, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Consciousness, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Hypnosis, Male, Relaxation, Thalamus, Tomography, Emission-Computed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
