Literature DB >> 10568858

Pain perception, somatosensory event-related potentials and skin conductance responses to painful stimuli in high, mid, and low hypnotizable subjects: effects of differential pain reduction strategies.

Vilfredo De Pascalis1, Maria R Magurano, Anna Bellusci.   

Abstract

In this study, pain perception, somatosensory event-related potential (SERP) and skin conductance response (SCR) changes during hypnotic suggestions of Deep Relaxation, Dissociated Imagery, Focused Analgesia, and Placebo, compared with a Waking baseline condition, were investigated. SERPs were recorded from frontal, temporal, central, and parietal scalp sites. Ten high, 9 mid, and 10 low hypnotizable right-handed women participated in the experiment. The following measures were obtained: (1) pain and distress tolerance ratings; (2) sensory and pain thresholds to biphasic electrical stimulation delivered to the right wrist; (3) reaction time and number of omitted responses; (4) N2 (280+/-11 ms) and P3 (405+/-19 ms) peak amplitudes of SERPs to target stimuli delivered using an odd-ball paradigm; (5) number of evoked SCRs and SCR amplitudes as a function of stimulus repetition. Results showed, high, mid and low hypnotizables exhibited significant reductions of reported pain and distress ratings during conditions of Deep Relaxation/Suggestion of Analgesia, Dissociated Imagery and Focused Analgesia. High hypnotizable subjects displayed significant reductions in pain and distress levels compared to mid and low hypnotizables during Dissociated Imagery, Focused Analgesia and, to a lesser degree, during Deep Relaxation. Placebo condition did not display significant differences among hypnotizability groups. High hypnotizables, compared to mid and low hypnotizables, also showed significant increases in sensory and pain thresholds during Dissociated Imagery and Focused Analgesia. High, mid, and low groups showed significant reductions in P3 peak amplitudes across all hypnosis conditions and, to a lesser degree, during Placebo. The temporal cortical region was the most sensitive in differentiating SERP responses among hypnotizability groups. On this recording area the subjects highly susceptible to hypnosis displayed significantly smaller P3 and greater N2 peaks during Focused Analgesia than did the other hypnotizable groups. In this condition highly susceptible subjects also reported the highest number of omitted responses and the shortest Reaction Times. These subjects also showed faster habituation of SCRs when compared with mid and low hypnotizables. During Dissociated Imagery and Focused Analgesia, highly hypnotizable subjects also disclosed a smaller total number of evoked SCRs than did mid and low hypnotizable subjects. The results are discussed considering possible common and different mechanisms to account for the effects of different hypnotic suggestions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10568858     DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00157-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  11 in total

1.  Trait phenomenological control predicts experience of mirror synaesthesia and the rubber hand illusion.

Authors:  P Lush; V Botan; R B Scott; A K Seth; J Ward; Z Dienes
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 14.919

2.  Neurocognitive evidence for mental imagery-driven hypoalgesic and hyperalgesic pain regulation.

Authors:  Francesca Fardo; Micah Allen; Else-Marie Elmholdt Jegindø; Alessandro Angrilli; Andreas Roepstorff
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  Hypnotic relaxation results in elevated thresholds of sensory detection but not of pain detection.

Authors:  Sybille Kramer; Rolf Zims; Michael Simang; Linda Rüger; Dominik Irnich
Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 3.659

4.  Hypnotizability and Placebo Analgesia in Waking and Hypnosis as Modulators of Auditory Startle Responses in Healthy Women: An ERP Study.

Authors:  Vilfredo De Pascalis; Paolo Scacchia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Pain modulation in waking and hypnosis in women: event-related potentials and sources of cortical activity.

Authors:  Vilfredo De Pascalis; Vincenzo Varriale; Immacolata Cacace
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Are Cognitive Load and Focus of Attention Differentially Involved in Pain Management: An Experimental Study Using a Cold Pressor Test and Virtual Reality.

Authors:  Stéphanie Dumoulin; Stéphane Bouchard; Claudie Loranger; Pamela Quintana; Véronique Gougeon; Kim L Lavoie
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 3.133

7.  Complex Role of Hypnotizability in the Cognitive Control of Pain.

Authors:  Enrica L Santarcangelo; Sybille Consoli
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-11-20

8.  Hypnosis-induced modulation of corticospinal excitability during motor imagery.

Authors:  Paola Cesari; Michele Modenese; Sara Benedetti; Mehran Emadi Andani; Mirta Fiorio
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Cognitive modulation of psychophysical, respiratory and autonomic responses to cold pressor test.

Authors:  Enrica L Santarcangelo; Giulia Paoletti; Iacopo Chiavacci; Carlo Palombo; Giancarlo Carli; Maurizio Varanini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Hypnotizability, hypnosis and prepulse inhibition of the startle reflex in healthy women: an ERP analysis.

Authors:  Vilfredo De Pascalis; Emanuela Russo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-22       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.