Suggested visual blockade during hypnosis: Top-down modulation of stimulus processing in a visual oddball task.

Several theories of hypnosis assume that responses to hypnotic suggestions are implemented through top-down modulations via a frontoparietal network that is involved in monitoring and cognitive control. The current study addressed this issue re-analyzing previously published event-related-potentials (ERP) (N1, P2, and P3b amplitudes) and combined it with source reconstruction and connectivity analysis methods. ERP data were obtained from participants engaged in a visual oddball paradigm composed of target, standard, and distractor stimuli during a hypnosis (HYP) and a control (CON) condition. In both conditions, participants were asked to count the rare targets presented on a video screen. During HYP participants received suggestions that a wooden board in front of their eyes would obstruct their view of the screen. The results showed that participants' counting accuracy was significantly impaired during HYP compared to CON. ERP components in the N1 and P2 window revealed no amplitude differences between CON and HYP at sensor-level. In contrast, P3b amplitudes in response to target stimuli were significantly reduced during HYP compared to CON. Source analysis of the P3b amplitudes in response to targets indicated that HYP was associated with reduced source activities in occipital and parietal brain areas related to stimulus categorization and attention. We further explored how these brain sources interacted by computing time-frequency effective connectivity between electrodes that best represented frontal, parietal, and occipital sources. This analysis revealed reduced directed information flow from parietal attentional to frontal executive sources during processing of target stimuli. These results provide preliminary evidence that hypnotic suggestions of a visual blockade are associated with a disruption of the coupling within the frontoparietal network implicated in top-down control.

Suggested deafness during hypnosis and simulation of hypnosis compared to a distraction and control condition: A study on subjective experience and cortical brain responses.

Hypnosis is a powerful tool to affect the processing and perception of stimuli. Here, we investigated the effects of hypnosis on the processing of auditory stimuli, the time course of event-related-potentials (ERP; N1 and P3b amplitudes) and the activity of cortical sources of the P3b component. Forty-eight participants completed an auditory oddball paradigm composed of standard, distractor, and target stimuli during a hypnosis (HYP), a simulation of hypnosis (SIM), a distraction (DIS), and a control (CON) condition. During HYP, participants were suggested that an earplug would obstruct the perception of tones and during SIM they should pretend being hypnotized and obstructed to hear the tones. During DIS, participants' attention was withdrawn from the tones by focusing participants' attention onto a film. In each condition, subjects were asked to press a key whenever a target stimulus was presented. Behavioral data show that target hit rates and response time became significantly reduced during HYP and SIM and loudness ratings of tones were only reduced during HYP. Distraction from stimuli by the film was less effective in reducing target hit rate and tone loudness. Although, the N1 amplitude was not affected by the experimental conditions, the P3b amplitude was significantly reduced in HYP and SIM compared to CON and DIS. In addition, source localization results indicate that only a small number of neural sources organize the differences of tone processing between the control condition and the distraction, hypnosis, and simulation of hypnosis conditions. These sources belong to brain areas that control the focus of attention, the discrimination of auditory stimuli, and the organization of behavioral responses to targets. Our data confirm that deafness suggestions significantly change auditory processing and perception but complete deafness is hard to achieve during HYP. Therefore, the term 'deafness' may be misleading and should better be replaced by 'hypoacusis'.