Next Article in Journal
CT in the Differentiation of Gliomas from Brain Metastases: The Radiomics Analysis of the Peritumoral Zone
Previous Article in Journal
Presbycusis and the Aging of Eye Movement: Common Attention Mechanisms
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Functional Changes in Brain Activity Using Hypnosis: A Systematic Review

by
Thomas Gerhard Wolf
1,2,*,
Karin Anna Faerber
1,
Christian Rummel
3,
Ulrike Halsband
4,† and
Guglielmo Campus
1,5,6,†
1
Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland
2
Department of Periodontology and Operative Dentistry, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, D-55131 Mainz, Germany
3
Support Center for Advanced Neuroimaging (SCAN), University Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Bern University Hospital (Inselspital), University of Bern, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland
4
Department of Psychology, Neuropsychology, University of Freiburg, D-79085 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
5
Department of Surgery, Microsurgery and Medicine Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, I-07100 Sassari, Italy
6
Department of Pediatric, Preventive Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 119991 Moscow, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally.
Brain Sci. 2022, 12(1), 108; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12010108
Submission received: 25 November 2021 / Revised: 4 January 2022 / Accepted: 11 January 2022 / Published: 13 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Systems Neuroscience)

Abstract

:
Hypnosis has proven a powerful method in indications such as pain control and anxiety reduction. As recently discussed, it has been yielding increased attention from medical/dental perspectives. This systematic review (PROSPERO-registration-ID-CRD42021259187) aimed to critically evaluate and discuss functional changes in brain activity using hypnosis by means of different imaging techniques. Randomized controlled trials, cohort, comparative, cross-sectional, evaluation and validation studies from three databases—Cochrane, Embase and Medline via PubMed from January 1979 to August 2021—were reviewed using an ad hoc prepared search string and following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 10,404 articles were identified, 1194 duplicates were removed and 9190 papers were discarded after consulting article titles/abstracts. Ultimately, 20 papers were assessed for eligibility, and 20 papers were included after a hand search (ntotal = 40). Despite a broad heterogenicity of included studies, evidence of functional changes in brain activity using hypnosis was identified. Electromyography (EMG) startle amplitudes result in greater activity in the frontal brain area; amplitudes using Somatosensory Event-Related Potentials (SERPs) showed similar results. Electroencephalography (EEG) oscillations of θ activity are positively associated with response to hypnosis. EEG results showed greater amplitudes for highly hypnotizable subjects over the left hemisphere. Less activity during hypnosis was observed in the insula and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).

1. Introduction

Hypnosis is defined as “a state of consciousness involving focused attention and reduced peripheral awareness characterized by an enhanced capacity for response to suggestion,” according to the American Psychological Association (APA) Division 30 [1]. Hypnosis changes the state of consciousness of a person and allows unconscious experiences to become a modified way of looking at reality [2]. Judging by empirical evidence of its effectiveness in clinically diverse fields of application, hypnosis is furthermore described as an amount of biological, cognitive, and social perspectives [3]. In the state of hypnotic trance, control of the consciousness is in the background, modified by attention, concentration and letting go of thoughts while access to the unconsciousness is created [4,5]. Neutral hypnosis involves states of relaxation in which the subject responds only to important or particularly strong environmental stimuli and has reduced perception to peripheral stimuli [1,2]. Increasing activation in the visual center under hypnosis is related to a subjectively perceived degree of relaxation [2]. This means that the degree of subjectively perceived relaxation is usually greater in deep hypnosis than in a light hypnotic trance because the focus of attention on the inner experience is increased, allowing an increased capacity for responses to suggestion [1,2]. Hypnosis illustrates that the intervention modulates attentional control, which modifies emotions and the nervous system and interacts with past experiences in the subconscious. Suggestions during hypnosis can cause dynamic changes in brain activity [6]. Areas responsible for processing cognition and emotion show greater activity during hypnosis, as well as hypnosis-induced changes in functional connectivity between anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the large neural network [4,7]. Dynamic changes and connectivity in brain activity occurs not only during suggestion of analgesia but also naturally in the awake state [8].
With various imaging methods, such as EEG (electroencephalography), fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), fNIRS (near-infrared spectroscopy), PET (positron emission tomography), SPECT (single-photon emission computed tomography) and CT (computer tomography), functional, metabolic and structural information about the brain can be obtained. Using hypnosis, brain activity can be demonstrated using these imaging methods.
The aim of the present study was to perform a systematic review of articles published in the last four decades, investigating the functional changes in brain activity using hypnosis by means of different imaging methods. A broad review of the use of different imaging methods demonstrating plastic brain-activity changes during hypnosis should be provided to gain information for future study designs and to review whether similarities or differences exist regarding medical applications in the literature. The hypothesis of this systematic review is that differences can be observed in functional changes in brain activity when comparing the normal/resting state and the hypnotic state.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Review Design

The review protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO, on 5 July 2021 with ID-CRD42021259187 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; last access: 12 January 2022). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were adopted throughout the process of the present systematic review [9]. The inclusion and exclusion criteria and research questions were organized following PICOS guidelines [10]:
  • Population: Adults of all genders (>18 years)
  • Intervention: Medical subject headings (MeSH) terms and keywords related to the topic studied were applied. The Study Quality-assessment tool (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools; last access: 12 January 2022) of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute was used to rate the quality of the included papers.
  • Comparator: Different imaging techniques that show different functional changes in brain activity: computer tomography (CT), electroencephalogram (EEG), electromyogram (EMG), electrooculogram (EOG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and single-photon emission computer tomography (SPECT).
  • Outcome: The quality-control tool of the National Herat, Lung and Blood Institute included criteria about adequate randomization, participation rate, similarity of groups/population and adherence to the intervention protocols, as well as sources of bias (publication bias, eligible persons, exposure measures, blinding, validity, selection bias, information bias, etc.). For each part, yes/no/cannot determine was selected. In the end, each study/paper was scored as good if the study had the least risk for bias, fair if the study was predisposed to some bias and poor if it was possible that the study was biased.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

In this systematic review, randomized controlled trials, cohort, comparative, cross-sectional, evaluation and validation studies reporting brain-activity changes using hypnosis by means of imaging methods such as CT, EEG, EMG, EOG, fMRI, fNIRS, MRI PET, rCBF or SPECT were reviewed. Only human studies published in English from 1 January 1979 to 31 August 2021 were collected and evaluated.

2.3. Information Sources

Electronic databases, such as Cochrane, Embase and MEDLINE via PubMed, were taken into consideration and screened for articles. Grey literature was retrieved via opengrey.eu (http://www.opengrey.eu; last access: 12 January 2022).

2.4. Information Sources and Search Strategy

Several search strategies were applied. The following search string with medical subject headings (MeSH) terms and keywords was used: (hypnosis OR hypnotizability OR hypnotic OR suggestibility OR suggestion OR hypnotic state OR consciousness OR susceptibility OR attention OR mental practice OR cognitive task OR resting state OR intention OR loss of control OR awareness of movements OR autogenetic training OR perception OR paralysis OR inhibition OR emotion OR behaviour OR behavior OR possession trance OR passivity OR regulation of consciousness OR attention) AND (dental phobia OR fear OR dental fear OR pain OR dental pain OR acute pain OR chronic pain OR pain threshold OR dental pain threshold OR perception threshold OR hypnotic focused analgesia) AND (EEG OR electroencephalography OR fMRI OR functional magnetic resonance imaging OR fNIRS OR near infrared spectroscopy OR functional near infrared spectroscopy OR PET OR positron emission tomography OR SPECT OR single photon emission computed tomography OR CT OR computer tomography OR regional cerebral blood flow OR neuroimaging OR structural and functional cerebral correlate OR functional connectivity OR local neuronal activity OR functional brain activity change OR brain activity OR cerebral somatic pain modulation OR brain imaging OR mental imagery OR resting-state functional connectivity OR cerebral hemodynamics OR affective neurofeedback OR feedback effect OR whole-connectivity profile OR voxel based morphometry). Using the bibliographies of full-text articles, cross-referencing was performed. Via opengrey.eu, grey literature was also retrieved.

2.5. Study Selection

After the comparison of the various string research studies with cross-referencing, all duplicates were excluded. Titles and abstracts of all references were read independently by two authors (K.A.F. and T.G.W.). The full texts of articles with titles and abstracts that appeared to fit the eligibility criteria were then assessed by the same authors. References for which the full texts fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in this systematic review. Any disagreement in the selection process was resolved in a discussion between peers. In the case of continuous controversy, a third author (G.C.) was consulted.

2.6. Data Collection, Summary Measures and Synthesis of Results

For each included reference, data collection and synthesis were carried out by two authors (K.A.F. and T.G.W.). The excluded and included articles are summarized in tables (Supplementary Materials S1–S3). The following data were extracted and input in a table: last name of the first author, country where the study was conducted, age, sex, methods used for evaluation of brain activity under hypnosis with different imagine techniques, and results of the comparison. The data were summarized in different tables to make the synthesis easier.

2.7. Assessment of Bias across Studies

The quality and choice of the included papers were obtained by two authors (K.A.F. and G.C.) according to the respective customized quality-assessment tool generated by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute for controlled intervention studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, observational cohort and cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, pre-post studies with no control group and case series studies, as well as the accompanying quality-assessment tool guidance for assessing the quality of controlled intervention studies (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools; last access: 12 January 2022). Quality control included criteria about adequate randomization, participation rate, similarity of groups/population, adherence to the intervention protocols and sources of bias (publication bias, eligible persons, exposure measures, blinding, validity, selection bias, information bias, etc.). For each part, yes/no/cannot determine was selected. Each study/paper was scored as good if the study had the least risk for bias, fair if the study was predisposed to some bias and poor if it was possible that the study was biased.

3. Results

The search identified 10′404 papers; 9210 were selected after removing 1194 duplicates. A total of 9190 studies were discarded after consulting titles and abstracts. A total of 20 articles were assessed for eligibility, and after evaluating the full text, 20 articles were included. A total of 40 papers were included (Figure 1). Quality-assessment scores of the included papers are listed in Supplementary Materials (Table S2, Quality assessment of included papers). Of the 40 included papers, 7 papers were classified as poor, 15 as fair and 18 as good quality (Table 1). A description of data concerning neutral hypnosis and suggestions for analgesia is provided in Table 2. Table 3 illustrates a description of data obtained in hypnotized and non-hypnotized participants.
Three studies concerning suggestion for analgesia found similar results for highly hypnotizable subjects, all obtained by the EEG method [22,25,48]. An ERP (event-related potential) study showed that placebo analgesia released higher P200 waves in the frontal left hemisphere and during hypnosis, while placebo analgesia involved activity of the left hemisphere, including the occipital region [48]. Pain reduction is related to larger EMG startle amplitudes and N100 and P200 waves, as well as enhanced activity within frontal, parietal, anterior and posterior cingulate gyres [48]. Highly hypnotizable participants had a larger P200 wave than the low-hypnotizability group [48]. A SERP study found that N2 amplitudes in highly hypnotizable subjects were greater over frontal and temporal scalp sites and displayed a larger N2 peak over temporal sites during focused analgesia [22]. Furthermore, a study examining the relationship between pain perception and EEG responses found significant pain and distress reductions in highly hypnotizable subjects for focused analgesia during hypnosis, which indicates a reduction for focused analgesia during hypnosis and post-hypnosis conditions [25].
Two studies from De Pascalis et al. [16,17] concerning suggestion for analgesia reported EEG results for highly hypnotizable subjects. Both studies found greater amplitudes in highly hypnotizable subjects over the left hemisphere [16,17]. The amplitudes in the left hemisphere were greater than those in the right hemisphere (δ, θ1, θ2, α1, β1 and β2), and during hypnosis/analgesia, highly hypnotizable subjects displayed significant reductions in pain [16]. Highly hypnotizable subjects showed greater θ1 amplitude over the left frontal compared to the right hemisphere and in the posterior areas, as well as more θ1 activity in the left and right frontal areas and in the right posterior area compared to the low-hypnotizability group [17]. Even for α1, more activity was observed in the left hemisphere over the frontal region as well as for α2 (greater over the left-frontal compared to the right-frontal site of the scalp [17].
Four studies obtained similar EEG results, three of which collected data concerning neutral hypnosis [15,21,44]. EEG oscillations of θ activity are positively associated with response to hypnosis [15,21,44,46]. θ power is associated with greater response to hypnotic analgesia and individuals who score high on measures of hypnotizability, which means that hypnotic procedures increase θ power [46]. Even more specific EEG findings showed significantly greater high θ activity for the high-hypnotizability group as compared to the low-hypnotizability group at parietal and occipital sites during both hypnosis and waking relaxation conditions [21]. In relation to low-susceptibility participants, high-susceptibility participants had significantly greater θ power during the hypnotic condition, as well as greater α power [44]. Graffin et al. showed that during hypnosis, high-susceptibility subjects had a significant increase in θ power in the more posterior areas of the cortex, and α activity increased among all sites [15].
Another two studies also used the EEG method, and all their data concerned suggestion for analgesia [30,33]. Highly hypnotizable participants had a significant reduction in phase-ordered γ patterns for focused analgesia during hypnosis [25], and θ activity during hypnosis had a peak in the posterior section of the brain, along with lateral shifting [30]. Brain activity changed under hypnosis from the left to the right hemisphere and from the anterior to the posterior brain segment [30].
Two other findings obtained by EEG, with data concerning neutral hypnosis, found higher α duration/more α activity in highly hypnotizable subjects [11,13], which are in agreement with a study mentioned above that used the same method and collected data concerning neutral hypnosis [44].
In order to chart results that were not obtained with an EEG method but by imaging methods, two studies were considered—one with thulium-YAG event-related fMRI and one with fMRI— and during hypnosis, the same activation for the insula could be determined [35,47]. The thulium-YAG event-related fMRI study showed that different regions were less activated during hypnosis compared to normal wakefulness: brainstem, right primary somatosensory cortex and the left and right insula [35]. In the fMRI study, activity was found in the left amygdala and bilaterally in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insula and hippocampus under the fear condition [47]. Under hypnosis, all these areas showed reduced activation [47].
Six other studies obtained using imaging methods, such as PET [18,19], fMRI [27,39,43] and MRI [42], concerned neutral hypnosis (except one) [42] and presented similar outcomes. In hypnotized participants, increased activity in the right ACC was noted in all studies, independent of the method [18,19,27,39,42,43].
Another study with fMRI data and concerning neutral hypnosis found reduced activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex during hypnosis [49]. This study also found increased functional connectivity between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the insula in the salience network during hypnosis, as well as reduced connectivity between the executive control network and the default mode network [49].
In a PET analysis, significant activation could be observed in right-sided extrastriate area and ACC during the hypnotic state [20], while contrary results were observed using event-related fMRI and EEG coherence measures [28]. High-susceptibility subjects showed increased conflict-related neural activity in the ACC under the hypnosis condition [28].

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to ascertain data concerning functional and/or metabolic changes in brain activity using hypnosis by means of different imaging techniques. The most common variables applied in the evaluated papers were high- versus low hypnotizability subjects, as well as hypnosis versus control, and placebo or normal/awake condition.
Owing to the various imaging techniques applied, summarizing the results was demanding. Placebo treatment in waking highly hypnotizable subjects resulted larger P200 waves than in low-hypnotizability groups in EMG, which was associated with pain reduction [49]. Studies examining EEG oscillations of θ activity showed that greater response to hypnosis is associated with reduction in pain, and pain intensity ratings are significantly below pain threshold with exposure to hypnotic analgesia. EEG findings also showed significantly greater θ activity during hypnosis for the high-hypnotizability as compared to low-hypnotizability group at parietal and occipital sites [21]. A recent review not covered in this study also notes that hypnosis is associated more with θ oscillations, while hypnotic response has been shown to be associated with changes in patterns of γ oscillations [51].
Highly hypnotizable subjects displayed significantly lower total and β1 amplitudes in EEG measures, and amplitudes in the left hemisphere were found to be greater than those in the right hemisphere compared to the low-hypnotizabilty group [16]. Highly hypnotizable subjects also showed greater θ1 amplitudes over the left frontal region compared to the right hemisphere and in the posterior areas, as well as more α1 activity in the left hemisphere over the frontal region during waking-rest, hypnosis-rest1 and hypnosis-rest2. Across emotional conditions, highly hypnotizable subjects had a greater α2 amplitude than the low-hypnotizability group, as well as greater α2 activity over the left-frontal compared to the right-frontal site of the scalp [17]. θ power in patterns of EEG activity significantly increased for the baseline and hypnosis groups in the more posterior areas of the cortex, whereas α activity increased across all sites [15]. θ and β1 bands were located more posteriorly in the high- than low-hypnotizabilty group, and the source gravity of the θ frequency band was to the left of the centers of both β bands, and for the low-hypnotizability group, to the right [24]. During hypnosis, highly hypnotizable subjects had significantly greater activity α than the low-hypnotizability group, and their θ activity was greater during hypnosis than the pre-hypnosis condition [44].
In a recent study from Santacangelo et al. [52], it was explained how the molecular effect had an effect in hypnotized participants. Oxytocin can contribute to suggestion-induced analgesia in highly hypnotizable subjects through activation of the endogenous opioid system [52]. In highly susceptible subjects, the oxytocin receptor gene occurs more frequently, so during a hypnosis, the hypnotizability score is higher and oxytocin release will be lower [52].
Thulium-YAG event-related fMRI showed less activity in regions (brainstem, left and right insula, right primary somatosensory cortex) under hypnosis than normal wakefulness and an increased functional connectivity between S1 and distant insular and prefrontal cortices [35]. Highly susceptible subjects displayed higher ACC activation under hypnosis [28]. A functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study found that during hypnosis, there was reduced activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), increased functional connectivity between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC; ECN (executive control network)) and the insula in the SN (salience network) and reduced connectivity between the ECN (DLPFC) and the DMN (default mode network and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) [49]. The largest reduction in pain rating was found in highly hypnotizable subjects during focused analgesia using hypnosis. Somatosensory event-related potentials (SERPs) showed that the N2 amplitude in highly hypnotizable subjects compared to the low-hypnotizability group was greater over frontal and temporal scalp sites than parietal and central sites [22]. High hypnotizable subjects experienced greater pain relief than the low-hypnotizability group in response to hypnosis, and highly hypnotizable subjects also showed significant reductions in somatosensory event-related phase-ordered patterns for focused analgesia during hypnosis [25].
When comparing these results with a recent study from De Souza et al. [53], a justification can be provided as to why the ACC plays a role in hypnosis. GABA concentration in the ACC was positively associated with the hypnotic induction profile in that a higher GABA concentration is associated with greater hypnotizability in individuals [53]. With increasing hypnotizability, a higher GABA concentration could be observed, spanning the same dACC (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex) regions with decreased activity during hypnosis in highly hypnotizable subjects [53]. However, a recent narrative review clarifies that the role of the DLPFC appears to depend on hypnosis and on the type of suggestion given; this is the reason why both activated and reduced activity of the dACC has already been determined [51]. During hypnosis, connectivity between the DLPFC and dACC activation is increased [51].
Positron emission tomography (PET) analysis showed that a hypnotic state induced a significant activation of a right-sided extrastriate area and the anterior cingulate cortex. This activation is related to pain perception and unpleasantness during hypnotic states [20]. Significant increases in PET measures of rCBF (regional cerebral blood flow) during hypnosis were found (left-sided and involved extrastriate visual cortex, inferior parietal lobule, precentral and adjacent promotor cortex and the depth of ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, close to the insular cortex), as well as decreases in rCBF during hypnosis as compared to normal alertness in the left temporal cortex, right temporal cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate and adjacent precuneus, right promotor cortex and right cerebellar hemisphere [18]. Hypnosis was accompanied by significant increases in rCBF and δ EEG activity. An increase in rCBF subtraction was found in the caudal part of the right anterior cingulate sulcus, the right anterior superior temporal gyrus and the left insula, as well as a decrease associated with hypnosis in the parietal cortex [19]. During hypnosis, dental-phobic subjects showed significantly reduced activation in the left amygdala and bilaterally in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insula and hippocampus [47].
Our primary aim was to focus on functional brain changes during hypnosis in dental applications. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is a limited number of papers available concerning dental applications [6]. Using dental stimuli in a fMRI trial, main effects for anxiety states were found in the left amygdala and bilaterally in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insula and hippocampus (R < L) [47]. Under the hypnosis condition, dental-phobic subjects showed significantly reduced activation in all of these areas [47].
It is difficult to generalize the results due to the various imaging techniques employed and the different application areas of hypnosis. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, the numerous imaging methods employed and the lack of comparability, a more uniform description is recommended in the design of future hypnosis studies investigating brain activity by means of imaging methods. Hypnotizability does not play a role in patient-specific individual hypnosis treatment, but it is used as a criterion in many studies and examined with validated questionnaires. In the future investigation not only of highly hypnotizable but also medium- and low-hypnotizability subjects is recommended in order to provide a better evaluation of the effectiveness of hypnosis on the whole population.

5. Conclusions

  • Despite a broad heterogenicity of included studies, evidence of functional changes in brain activity using hypnosis could be determined.
  • EMG startle amplitudes indicate higher activity over the frontal brain area; amplitudes using SERP showed similar results.
  • EEG oscillations of θ activity are positively associated with response to hypnosis; EEG results showed greater amplitudes for highly hypnotizable subjects over the left hemisphere.
  • Less ACC and insula activity was observed during hypnosis.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/brainsci12010108/s1, Table S1: List of excluded papers, Table S2: Quality assessment of included papers, Table S3: PRISMA checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.G.W., G.C. and U.H.; methodology, T.G.W., U.H. and G.C.; formal analysis and data curation, K.A.F. and G.C.; supervision, T.G.W.; validation, U.H. and C.R.; writing—original draft preparation, K.A.F. and T.G.W.; writing—review and editing, C.R., U.H. and G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Elkins, G.R.; Barabasz, A.F.; Council, J.R.; Spiegel, D. Advancing research and practice: The revised APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis. Am. J. Clin. Hypn. 2015, 57, 378–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Revenstorf, D.; Peter, B. Hypnose in Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Medizin [Hypnosis in Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics and Medicine]; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Revenstorf, D. Scientific advisory board on psychotherapy. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2012, 109, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Halsband, U.; Mueller, S.; Hinterberger, T.; Strickner, S. Plasticity changes in the brain in hypnosis and meditation. Contemp. Hypn. 2009, 26, 194–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rainville, P.; Hofbauer, R.K.; Bushnell, M.C.; Duncan, G.H.; Price, D.D. Hypnosis modulates activity in brain structures involved in the regulation of consciousness. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2002, 14, 887–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Halsband, U.; Wolf, T.G. Current neuroscientific research database findings of brain activity changes after hypnosis. Am. J. Clin. Hypn. 2021, 63, 372–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Faymonville, M.E.; Boly, M.; Laureys, S. Functional neuroanatomy of the hypnotic state. J. Physiol. Paris 2006, 99, 463–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Jensen, M.P.; Adachi, T.; Hakimian, S. Brain oscillations, hypnosis, and hypnotizability. Am. J. Clin. Hypn. 2015, 57, 230–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Deveraux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PloS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. The Guidelines Manual; NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: London, UK, 2012; pp. 1–199.
  11. London, P.; Hart, J.; Leibovitz, M. EEG alpha rhythms and susceptibility to hypnosis. Nature 1968, 219, 71–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hart, J.; Engstrom, D.; London, P. Hypnotic susceptibility increased by EEG alpha training. Nature 1970, 227, 1261–1262. [Google Scholar]
  13. Morgan, A.; Macdonald, H.; Hilgard, E. EEG alpha: Lateral asymmetry related to task, and hypnotizablitiy. Psychophysiology 1974, 11, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tebecis, A.K.; Provins, K.A.; Farnbach, R.W.; Pentony, P. Hypnosis and the EEG. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 1975, 161, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Graffin, N.F.; Ray, W.J.; Lundy, R. EEG concomitants of hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1995, 104, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. De Pascalis, V.; Perrone, M. EEG asymmetry and heart rate during experience of hypnotic analgesia in high and low hypnotizables. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 1996, 21, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Pascalis, V.; Ray, W.J.; Tranquillo, I.; D’Amico, D. EEG activity and heart rate during recall of emotional events in hypnosis: Relationships with hypnotizability and suggestibility. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 1998, 29, 255–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maquet, P.; Faymonville, M.; Degueldre, C.; Delfiore, G.; Franck, G.; Luxen, A.; Lamy, M. Functional neuroanatomy of hypnotic state. Biol. Psychiatry 1999, 45, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Rainville, P.; Hofbauer, R.; Paus, T.; Duncan, G.; Bushnell, M.; Price, D. Cerebral mechanisms of hypnotic induction and suggestion. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 1999, 11, 110–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Faymonville, M.E.; Laureys, S.; Degueldre, C.; Del Fiore, G.; Luxen, A.; Franck, G.; Lamy, M.; Maquet, P. Neural mechanisms of antinociceptive effects of hypnosis. Anesthesiology 2000, 92, 1257–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Freeman, R.; Barabasz, A.; Barabasz, M.; Warner, D. Hypnosis and distraction differ in their effects on cold pressor pain. Am. J. Clin. Hypn. 2000, 43, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De Pascalis, V.; Magurano, M.; Bellusci, A.; Chen, A. Somatosensory event-related potential and autonomic activity to varying pain reduction cognitive strategies in hypnosis. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2001, 112, 1475–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Friedrich, M.; Trippe, R.; Özcan, M.; Weiss, T.; Hecht, H.; Miltner, W. Laser-evoked potentials to noxious stimulation during hypnotic analgesia and distraction of attention suggest different brain mechanisms of pain control. Psychophysiology 2001, 38, 768–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Isotani, T.; Lehmann, D.; Pascual-Marqui, R.; Kochi, K.; Wackermann, J.; Saito, N.; Yagyu, T.; Kinoshita, T.; Sasada, K. EEG source localization and global dimensional complexity in high- and low- hypnotizable subjects: A pilot study. Neuropsychobiology 2001, 44, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. De Pascalis, V.; Cacace, I.; Massicolle, F. Perception and modulation of pain in waking and hypnosis: Functional significance of phase-gamma oscillations. Pain 2004, 112, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Harandi, A.; Esfandani, A.; Shakibaei, F. The effect of hypnotherapy on procedural pain and state anxiety related to physiotherapy in women hospitalized in a burn out. Contemp. Hypn. 2004, 21, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wager, T.; Rilling, J.; Smith, E.; Sokolik, A.; Casey, K.; Davidson, R.; Kosslyn, S.; Rose, R.; Cohen, J. Placebo-induced changes in fMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science 2004, 303, 1162–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Egner, T.; Jamieson, G.; Gruzelier, J. Hypnosis decouples cognitive control from conflict monitoring processes of the frontal lobe. NeuroImage 2005, 27, 969–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Batty, M.; Bonnington, S.; Tang, B.K.; Hawken, M.; Gruzelier, J. Relaxation strategies and enhancement of hypnotic susceptibility: EEG neurofeedback, progressive muscle relaxation and self-hypnosis. Brain Res. Bull. 2006, 71, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Eitner, S.; Wichmann, M.; Schultze-Mosgau, S.; Schlegel, A.; Lehrer, A.; Heckmann, J.; Heckmann, S.; Holst, S. Neurophysiologic and long-term effects of clinical hypnosis in oral and maxillofacial treatment—A comparative interdisciplinary clinical study. Int. J. Clin Exp. Hypn. 2006, 54, 457–479. [Google Scholar]
  31. Saadat, H.; Drummond-Lewis, J.; Marantes, I.; Kaplan, D.; Saadat, A.; Wang, S.M.; Kain, Z. Hypnosis reduces preoperative anxiety in adult patients. Anesth. Analg. 2006, 102, 1394–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Milling, L.; Shores, J.; Coursen, E.; Menario, D.; Farris, C. Response expectancies, treatment credibility, and hypnotic suggestibility: Mediator and moderator effects in hypnotic and cognitive-behavioral pain interventions. Ann. Behav. Med. 2007, 33, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. De Pascalis, V.; Cacace, I.; Massicolle, F. Focused analgesia in waking and hypnosis: Effects on pain, memory, and somatosensory event-related potentials. Pain 2008, 134, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marc, I.; Rainville, P.; Masse, B.; Dufresne, A.; Verreault, R.; Vaillancourt, L.; Dodin, S. Women’s views regarding hypnosis for the control of surgical pain in the context of a randomized clinical trial. J. Womens Health 2009, 18, 1441–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Vanhaudenhuyse, A.; Boly, M.; Baltea, E.; Schnakers, C.; Moonen, G.; Luxen, A.; Lamy, M.; Degueldre, C.; Brichant, J.F.; Maquet, P.; et al. Pain and non-pain processing during hypnosis: A thulium-YAG event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage 2009, 47, 1047–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Krummenacher, P.; Candia, V.; Folkers, G. Prefrontal cortex modulates placebo analgesia. Pain 2010, 148, 368–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Miltner, W.; Trippe, R.; Hecht, H.; Weiss, T. Hypnotic analgesia as a consequence of abandoned cortical communication. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2010, 77, 206–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Brockardt, J.; Reeves, S.; Frohman, H.; Madan, A.; Jensen, M.; Patterson, D.; Barth, K.; Smith, A.; Gracely, R.; George, M. Fast left prefrontal rTMS acutely suppresses analgesic effects of perceived controllability on the emotional component of pain experience. Pain 2011, 152, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Pyka, M.; Burgmer, M.; Lenzen, T.; Pioch, R.; Dannlowski, U.; Pfleiderer, B.; Ewert, A.W.; Heuft, G.; Arolt, V.; Konrad, C. Brain correlates of hypnotic paralysis—A resting state fMRI study. NeuroImage 2011, 56, 2173–2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Terhune, D.; Cardena, E.; Lindgren, M. Differential frontal-parietal phase synchrony during hypnosis as a function of hypnotic suggestibility. Psychophysiology 2011, 48, 1444–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Zeidan, F.; Martucci, K.; Kraft, R.; Gordon, N.; McHaffie, J.; Coghill, R. Brain mechanisms supporting the modulation of pain by mindfulness meditation. J. Neurosci. 2011, 31, 5540–5548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Stein, N.; Sprenger, C.; Scholz, J.; Wiech, K.; Bingel, U. White matter integrity of the descending pain modulatory system is associated with interindividual differences in placebo analgesia. Pain 2012, 153, 2210–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hilbert, K.; Evens, R.; Maslowski, N.I.; Wittchen, H.U.; Lueken, U. Fear processing in dental phobia during crossmodal symptom provocation: An fMRI study. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 196353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Williams, J.D.; Gruzelier, J.H. Differentiation of hypnosis and relaxation by analysis of narrow band theta and alpha frequencies. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn. 2013, 49, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dufresne, A.; Rainville, P.; Dodin, S.; Barré, P.; Masse, B.; Verreault, R.; Marc, I. Hypnotizability and opinions about hypnosis in a clinical trial for the hypnotic control of pain and anxiety during pregnancy termination. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn. 2014, 58, 82–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jensen, M.; Sherlin, L.; Fregni, F.; Gianas, A.; Howe, J.D.; Hakimian, S. Baseline brain activity predicts response to neuromodulatory pain treatment. Pain Med. 2014, 15, 2055–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Halsband, U.; Wolf, T.G. Functional changes in brain activity after hypnosis in patients with dental phobia. J. Physiol. Paris 2015, 109, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. De Pascalis, V.; Scacchia, P. Hypnotizability and placebo analgesia in waking and hypnosis as modulators of auditory ttartle responses in healthy women: An ERP study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Jiang, H.; White, M.P.; Greicius, M.D.; Waelde, L.C.; Spiegel, D. Brain activity and functional connectivity associated with hypnosis. Cereb. Cortex 2017, 27, 4083–4093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Williams, R.M.; Ehde, D.M.; Day, M.; Turner, A.P.; Hakimian, S.; Gertz, K.; Ciol, M.; McCall, A.; Kincaid, C.; Petter, M.W.; et al. The chronic pain skills study: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing hypnosis, mindfulness meditation and pain education in Veterans. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2020, 90, 105935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. De Benedittis, G. Neural mechanisms of hypnosis and meditation-induced analgesia: A narrative review. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn. 2021, 69, 363–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Santarcangelo, E.L.; Carli, G. Individual traits and pain treatment: The case of hypnotizability. Front. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 683045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. DeSouza, D.D.; Stimpson, K.H.; Baltusis, L.; Sacchet, M.D.; Gu, M.; Hurd, R.; Wu, H.; Yeomans, D.C.; Williams, N.; Spiegel, D. Association between anterior cingulate neurochemical concentration and individual differences in hypnotizability. Cereb. Cortex 2020, 30, 3644–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Flow chart of the search.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the search.
Brainsci 12 00108 g001
Table 1. Overview of included studies with information on type, imaging method and quality assessment.
Table 1. Overview of included studies with information on type, imaging method and quality assessment.
NoAuthorType of StudyMethodQuality Assessment
1London et al. [11]OSEEGFair
2Hart [12]CCSEEGGood
3Morgan et al. [13]OSEEGPoor
4Tebecis et al. [14]CCSEEGFair
5Graffin et al. [15]CSEEGGood
6De Pascalis et al. [16]CSSEEGFair
7De Pascalis et al. [17]COSEEGFair
8Maquet et al. [18]CCSPETFair
9Rainville et al. [19]OSEEG, PETFair
10Faymonville et al. [20]CSSPETFair
11Freeman et al. [21]CSSEEGGood
12De Pascalis et al. [22]CCSrCBF + EEGGood
13Friedrich et al. [23]CSSThulium YAG Laser + EEGFair
14Isotani et al. [24]CSSEEGFair
15De Pascalis et al. [25]OSEEGGood
16Harandi et al. [26]RCTRIAPoor
17Wager et al. [27]CCSfMRIPoor
18Egner et al. [28]OSEEG, fMRIFair
19Batty et al. [29]RCTEEGFair
20Eitner et al. [30]CICSEEGGood
21Saadat et al. [31]RCTSTAIGood
22Milling et al. [32]RCTCURSSFair
23De Pascalis et al. [33]CCSEEGFair
24Marc et al. [34]RCTSPGood
25Vanhaudenhuyse et al. [35]CSSfMRIGood
26Krummenacher, [36]CCSrTMSPoor
27Miltner et al. [37]CSSEEGPoor
28Brockardt et al. [38]RCSrTMSGood
29Pyka et al. [39]CTfMRIPoor
30Trehune et al. [40]CCSEEGPoor
31Zeidan et al. [41]RCSMRIGood
32Stein et al. [42]PCSMRIGood
33Hilbert et al. [43]CCSfMRIGood
34Williams et al. [44]OSEEGGood
35Dufresne et al. [45]RCTOAH, SHSS:AFair
36Jensen et al. [46]RCTEEGFair
37Halsband et al. [47]CCSfMRIGood
38De Pascalis et al. [48]CCSEEG, EMGGood
39Jiang et al. [49]OSfMRIGood
40Williams et al. [50]RCTEEGGood
CICS: comparative interdisciplinary clinical study; CCS: case-control study; CS: comparative study; CSS: cross-sectional Study; CT: clinical trial; CURSS: Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale; EEG: electroencephalography; EMG: electromyography; fMRI: functional magnetic resonance imaging; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; PET: positron-emission tomography; OAH: McConkey’s Opinions About Hypnosis scale; OS: observational study; rCBF: regional cerebral blood flow; RCS: retrospective cohort study; RCT: randomized clinical trial; RIA: rapid-induction analgesia, SHSS:A: Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, Form A; SP: surgical pain; STAI: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; rTMS: repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Table 2. Description of data concerning neutral hypnosis and suggestions for analgesia.
Table 2. Description of data concerning neutral hypnosis and suggestions for analgesia.
NoAuthorNeutral HypnosisSuggestion for Analgesia
1London et al. [11]x
2Hart [12]x
3Morgan et al. [13]x
4Tebecis et al. [14]x
5Graffin et al. [15]x
6De Pascalis et al. [16] x
7De Pascalis et al. [17] x
8Maquet et al. [18]x
9Rainville et al. [19]xx
10Faymonville et al. [20] x
11Freeman et al. [21] x
12De Pascalis et al. [22] x
13Friedrich et al. [23] x
14Isotani et al. [24]x
15De Pascalis et al. [25] x
16Harandi et al. [26] x
17Wager et al. [27]x
18Egner et al. [28]x
19Batty et al. [29]x
20Eitner et al. [30] x
21Saadat et al. [31]x
22Milling et al. [32]x
23De Pascalis et al. [33] x
24Marc et al. [34] x
25Vanhaudenhuyse et al. [35] x
26Krummenacher, [36] x
27Miltner et al. [37]x
28Brockardt et al. [38] x
29Pyka et al. [39]x
30Terhune et al. [40]x
31Zeidan et al. [41]x
32Stein et al. [42] x
33Hilbert et al. [43]x
34Williams et al. [44]x
35Dufresne et al. [45]x
36Jensen et al. [46] x
37Halsband & Wolf [47]x
38De Pascalis et al. [48] x
39Jiang et al. [49]x
40Williams et al. [50]x
Table 3. Description of data obtained in hypnotized and non-hypnotized participants.
Table 3. Description of data obtained in hypnotized and non-hypnotized participants.
NoAuthorDescription of Data Obtained in Hypnotized ParticipantsDescription of Data Obtained in Non-Hypnotized Participants
1London et al. [11]High α durationLower α duration → problem in high susceptibility: they produce high α under waking condition; no change observed under hypnosis
2Hart [12]Rhythm and high susceptibility are positively related
3Morgan et al. [13]More α activity in highly hypnotizable subjectsMore α activity
4Tebecis et al. [14]
-
No difference in mean power of the whole EEG spectrum
-
Trend toward increased θ
No differences in mean power of the whole EEG spectrum
5Graffin et al. [15]
-
Initial baseline period: high susceptibibility, greater θ power in the more frontal areas of the cortex
-
Period preceding and following standardized hypnotic induction: low susceptibility increased θ activity; high susceptibility decreased
-
actual hypnotic induction: θ power increased for both in the more posterior areas of the cortex, and α activity increased across all sites
6De Pascalis et al. [16]High susceptibility:
-
Significant reduction in pain and distress
-
EEG activity recorded from central and posterior sites showed total and δ EEG amplitude reductions, as well as θ1 reduction on the left side
-
Decrease in the level of sympathetic activity
Low susceptibility:
-
EEG activity recorded from posterior displayed δ amplitude reduction
-
EEG activity recorded from frontal, central, posterior displayed reduction in θ1
High susceptibility: less reduction in pain and distress
7De Pascalis et al. [17]High susceptibility:
-
Higher level of visual imagery than low susceptibility
-
Higher level of emotionality than low susceptibility
-
Greater θ1 amplitude over left frontal compared to right hemisphere and posterior areas
Low susceptibility:
-
Greater θ1 amplitude over left frontal sites compared to right
-
Greater θ1 amplitude in the right hemisphere compared to the left in posterior recording sites
-
High susceptibility produced more θ2
-
α1 activity high in waking rest and hypnotized for high susceptibility in the left hemisphere over frontal region
8Maquet et al. [18]Activation of widespread, mainly left-sided set of cortical areas involving occipital, parietal, precentral, premotor, ventrolateral and prefrontal cortices, as well as a few right-sided regions (occipital, anterior, cingulate cortices)Activates the anterior part of both temporal lobes, basal forebrain structures and some left mesiotemporal areas (not hypnotized but listening to autobiographical material)
9Rainville et al. [19]
-
Significant increases in both occipital rCBF and δ EEG activity
-
Peak increases in rCBF were observed in the caudal part of the right anterior cingulate sulcus and bilaterally in the inferior frontal gyri
-
Hypnosis-related decreases in rCBF were found in the right inferior parietal lobule, the left precuneus and the posterior cingulate gyrus
-
Medial and lateral posterior parietal cortices showed suggestion-related increases overlapping partly with regions of hypnosis-related decrease
-
Consistent ACC activation in response to experimental painful stimuli
Pain-related effect was independent
10Faymonville et al. [20]
-
Decrease in both pain sensation and the unpleasantness of noxious stimuli
-
Noxious stimulation caused an increase in regional cerebral blood flow in the thalamic nuclei, as well as anterior cingulate and insular cortices
-
Significant activation of a right-sided extrastriate area and the anterior cingulate cortex
-
Activity in the anterior (mid-)cingulate cortex was differently related to pain perception and unpleasantness in the hypnotic state compared to control situations
11Freeman et al. [21]High hypnotizability:
-
Significantly greater pain relief for hypnosis vs. distraction or waking relaxation conditions
  • Significantly greater pain relief than low hypnotizability
-
Significantly greater high θ activity as compared to low hypnotizability at parietal and occipital sites
Significantly greater high θ activity for high hypnotizability as compared to low hypnotizability at parietal and occipital sites
12De Pascalis et al. [22]High susceptibility:
-
Focused analgesia induced the greatest reduction in pain rating
-
N2 amplitude was greater over frontal and temporal scalp sites than over parietal and central sites
-
Low susceptibility:
-
N2 was greater over temporal sites than over frontal, parietal and central sites
-
Larger N2 peak over temporal sites during focused analgesia
P3 peaks were smaller during focused analgesia, deep relaxation and dissociated imagery conditions compared to placebo
13Friedrich et al. [23]
-
Pain reports were significantly reduced
-
Amplitudes of the late laser-evoked brain potential (LEP) components N200 and P320 were significantly smaller for distraction of attention than the control condition
N200 and P320 were higher
14Isotani et al. [24]High susceptibility:
-
full-band global dimensional complexity was higher than in low susceptibility
Before hypnosis, high and low hypnotizability were in different brain electric states, with more posterior brain activity gravity centers (excitatory right, routine or relaxation left) and higher dimensional complexity (higher arousal) in high than the low-hypnotizability group
15De Pascalis et al. [25]
-
Ohase-ordered γ scores over frontal scalp site predicted pain ratings
High hypnotizability:
-
Significant pain and distress reductions for focused analgesia during hypnosis and, to a greater extent, during post-hypnosis condition compared to low and medium hypnotizability
-
Significant reductions in phase-ordered γ patterns for focused analgesia during hypnosis and post-hypnosis conditions
Phase-ordered γ scores over central scalp site predicted subjects’ pain ratingsPhase-ordered γ scores over frontal scalp site predicted pain ratings for high, medium and low hypnotizability
16Harandi et al. [26]Degree of pain and anxiety caused by physiotherapy decreased significantly
17Wager et al. [27]
  • Placebo analgesia was related to decreased brain activity in pain-sensitive brain regions, including the thalamus, insula and anterior cingulate cortex
  • Placebo analgesia was associated with increased activity during anticipation of pain in the prefrontal cortex
18Egner et al. [28]High susceptibility:
-
Participants displayed increased conflict-related neural activity compared to baseline
-
Decrease in functional connectivity (EEG γ band coherence) between frontal midline and left lateral scalp sites
Cognitive-control-related LFC activity did not differ
19Batty et al. [29]
-
Further evidence that operant control over the theta/alpha ratio is possible
-
Elevation of the theta/alpha ratio proved no more successful than the other interventions
20Eitner et al. [30]
-
(α-) θ-activity during hypnosis with a peak in the posterior section of the brainalong with lateral shifting
Brain activity changed under hypnosis from the left to the right hemisphere, and with further intensification of the trance state, it changed from the anterior to the posterior brain segments
β waves indicating an awakened state
21Saadat et al. [31]
-
Significantly less anxious post-intervention as compared with patients in the attention-control group and the control group
-
Significant decrease of 56% in anxiety level
Increase of 47% in anxiety
22Milling et al. [32]The extent of mediation increased as participants gained more experience with the interventions
23De Pascalis et al. [33]High susceptibility:
-
Experienced significant pain and distress reductions during post-hypnotic analgesia as compared to hypnotic analgesia
-
Smaller number of target stimuli and displayed a significant amplitude reduction in the midline frontal and central N140 and P200 SERP components
  • Less pain and lower distress levels
  • No significant SERP differences
24Marc et al. [34]
-
Mental imagery of a secure place was the strategy used by most women (71%) in the hypnosis group. A significant propotion of them used focal analgesia (39%)
25Vanhaudenhuyse et al. [35]
-
Intensity-matched stimuli in both the non-painful and painful range failed to elicit any cerebral activation
-
Increases in functional connectivity between S1 and distant anterior insular and prefrontal cortices
  • Stimuli in the non-painful range activated brainstem, contralateral primary somatosensory (S1) and bilateral insular cortices
  • Painful stimuli activated additional areas, encompassing thalamus, bilateral striatum, anterior cingulate (ACC), premotor and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices
  • Contralateral thalamus, bilateral striatum and ACC activated more than in hypnosis
26Krummenacher, [36]Significant increase in pain threshold and toleranceThe sensation of pain was not affected
27Miltner et al. [37]
-
Significantly less painful sensations
-
Smaller magnitudes of more topographically focused brain oscillations within the γ band above the primary sensory representation areas of the stimulated hand/finger in response to the noxious stimuli
-
Slower oscillations were significantly reduced at more extended brain areas spanning the primary and secondary sensory and more frontal executive brain areas
Slow oscillations within focused and extended brain areas broke down completely during hypnotic oscillations, as compared to the distraction condition
28Brockardt et al. [38]
-
Left dorsolateral prefrontal TMS may produce analgesic effects by acting through a cortical perceived-control circuit regulating limbic and brainstem areas of the pain circuit
-
Perceived control on the emotional dimension of pain but not the sensory/discriminatory dimension
29Pyka et al. [39]
-
Increased connectivity of the precuneus with the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, angular gyrus and a dorsal part of the precuneus
-
Functional connectivity of the medial frontal cortex and the primary motor cortex remained unchanged
Functional connectivity of the medial frontal cortex and the primary motor cortex remained unchanged compared to hypnotized participants
30Terhune et al. [40]High suggestibility:
-
Experienced greater state dissociation and exhibited lower frontal-parietal phase synchrony in the α2 frequency band than low suggestibility
31Zeidan et al. [41]
-
Significantly reduced pain unpleasantness by 57% and pain intensity ratings by 40%
-
Reduced pain-related activation of the contralateral primary somatosensory cortex
-
Reductions in pain intensity ratings were associated with increased activity in the anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula, areas involved in the cognitive regulation of nociceptive processing
-
Reductions in pain unpleasantness ratings were associated with orbitofrontal cortex activation, an area implicated in reframing the contextual evaluation of sensory events
32Stein et al. [42]
-
Positively correlated with fractional anisotropy in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, left rostral anterior cingulate cortex and the periaqueductal gray region
-
Stronger placebo analgesic responses = increased mean fractional anisotropy values within, white matter tracts connecting the periaqueductal gray with pain-control regions, such as the rostral anterior cingulate cortex and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
33Hilbert et al. [43]Increased activation in the insula, anterior cingulate cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, and thalamus in dental-phobic subjects compared to healthy controls during auditory stimulationActivation in orbitofrontal and prefrontal gyri in dental-phobic subjects related to processes of cognitive control
34Williams et al. [44]High susceptibility:
-
θ had greater activity post-hypnosis → θ is an index of relaxation that continues after hypnosis
-
α posterior power increased from the pre-hypnosis to hypnosis conditions and decreased post-hypnosis
-
Greater α power than in low susceptibility during both pre-hypnosis and hypnosis
Low susceptibility:
-
α posterior power decreased from the pre-hypnosis to hypnosis conditions and increased post-hypnosis
High susceptibility:
  • α posterior power decreased
    Greater α power than low
    susceptibility
Low susceptibility:
  • Higher α posterior power
    compared to hypnosis
35Dufresne et al. [45]No significant difference
36Jensen et al. [46]
-
More presession θ power was associated with greater response to hypnotic analgesia
-
Less baseline α power predicted pain reduction with meditation
37Halsband & Wolf [47]
-
Dental-phobic subjects, main effects of fear condition: Left amygdala and bilaterally in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), insula and hippocampus (R < L) → significant reduction in all areas during hypnosis
-
No amygdala activation
  • Reduced neural activity patterns
  • No amygdala activation
  • Less bilateral activation in the insula and ACC compared to dental-phobic subjects
38De Pascalis et al. [48]
-
Highly hypnotizable participant placebo treatment produced significant reductions in pain and distress perception
-
Placebo analgesia involved activity of the left hemisphere, including the occipital region
-
Pain reduction was associated with larger EMG startle amplitudes and N100 and P200 responses, as well as enhanced activity within the frontal, parietal, anterior and posterior cingulate gyres
  • Highly hypnotizable participants:
    placebo treatment produced significant
    reductions in pain and distress perception
During placebo analgesia, P200 wave was larger in the frontal left hemisphere
39Jiang et al. [49]Reduced activity in the dACC, increased functional connectivity between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC;ECN(executive control network)) and the insula in the SN (salience network), and reduced connectivity between the ECN (DLPFC) and the DMN (PCC(posterior cingulate cortex))
40Williams et al. [50]Protocol only
  • Protocol only
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wolf, T.G.; Faerber, K.A.; Rummel, C.; Halsband, U.; Campus, G. Functional Changes in Brain Activity Using Hypnosis: A Systematic Review. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12010108

AMA Style

Wolf TG, Faerber KA, Rummel C, Halsband U, Campus G. Functional Changes in Brain Activity Using Hypnosis: A Systematic Review. Brain Sciences. 2022; 12(1):108. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12010108

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wolf, Thomas Gerhard, Karin Anna Faerber, Christian Rummel, Ulrike Halsband, and Guglielmo Campus. 2022. "Functional Changes in Brain Activity Using Hypnosis: A Systematic Review" Brain Sciences 12, no. 1: 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12010108

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop