Zoltan Dienes1, Sam Hutton. 1. Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. dienes@sussex.ac.uk
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: According to the cold control theory of hypnosis (Dienes and Perner, 2007), hypnotic response occurs because of inaccurate higher order thoughts of intending. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is a region likely involved in constructing accurate higher order thoughts. Thus, disrupting DLPFC with low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) should make it harder to be aware of intending to perform an action. That is, it should be easier to respond to a hypnotic suggestion. METHOD: Twenty-four medium hypnotisable subjects received low frequency rTMS to the left DLPFC and to a control site, the vertex, in counterbalanced order. The hypnotist was blind to which site had been stimulated. Subjects rated how strongly they expected to respond to each suggestion, and gave ratings on a 0-5 scale of the extent to which they experienced the response, for four suggestions (magnetic hands, arm levitation, rigid arm and taste hallucination). The experimenter also rated behavioural response. RESULTS: Low frequency rTMS to the DLPFC rather than vertex increased the degree of combined behavioural and subjective response. Further, subjects did not differ in their expectancy that they would respond in the two conditions, so the rTMS had an effect on hypnotic response above and beyond expectancies. CONCLUSIONS: The results support theories, including cold control theory, postulating a component of hypofrontality in hypnotic response.
INTRODUCTION: According to the cold control theory of hypnosis (Dienes and Perner, 2007), hypnotic response occurs because of inaccurate higher order thoughts of intending. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is a region likely involved in constructing accurate higher order thoughts. Thus, disrupting DLPFC with low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) should make it harder to be aware of intending to perform an action. That is, it should be easier to respond to a hypnotic suggestion. METHOD: Twenty-four medium hypnotisable subjects received low frequency rTMS to the left DLPFC and to a control site, the vertex, in counterbalanced order. The hypnotist was blind to which site had been stimulated. Subjects rated how strongly they expected to respond to each suggestion, and gave ratings on a 0-5 scale of the extent to which they experienced the response, for four suggestions (magnetic hands, arm levitation, rigid arm and taste hallucination). The experimenter also rated behavioural response. RESULTS: Low frequency rTMS to the DLPFC rather than vertex increased the degree of combined behavioural and subjective response. Further, subjects did not differ in their expectancy that they would respond in the two conditions, so the rTMS had an effect on hypnotic response above and beyond expectancies. CONCLUSIONS: The results support theories, including cold control theory, postulating a component of hypofrontality in hypnotic response.
Authors: Rhonda M Williams; Dawn M Ehde; Melissa Day; Aaron P Turner; Shahin Hakimian; Kevin Gertz; Marcia Ciol; Alisha McCall; Carrie Kincaid; Mark W Pettet; David Patterson; Pradeep Suri; Mark P Jensen Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Mark P Jensen; Leslie H Sherlin; Felipe Fregni; Ann Gianas; Jon D Howe; Shahin Hakimian Journal: Pain Med Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Danielle D DeSouza; Katy H Stimpson; Laima Baltusis; Matthew D Sacchet; Meng Gu; Ralph Hurd; Hua Wu; David C Yeomans; Nolan Willliams; David Spiegel Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: R L Carhart-Harris; M Kaelen; M G Whalley; M Bolstridge; A Feilding; D J Nutt Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Pedro A Magalhães De Saldanha da Gama; Hichem Slama; Emilie A Caspar; Wim Gevers; Axel Cleeremans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 3.240