Social stimuli grab our attention: we attend to them in an automatic and bottom-up manner, and ascribe them a higher degree of saliency compared to non-social stimuli. However, it has rarely been investigated how variations in attention affect the processing of social stimuli, although the answer could help us uncover details of social cognition processes such as action understanding. In the present study, we examined how changes to bottom-up attention affects neural EEG-responses associated with intentional action processing. We induced an (...) increase in bottom-up attention by using hypnosis. We recorded the electroencephalographic µ-wave suppression of hypnotized participants when presented with intentional actions in first and third person perspective in a video-clip paradigm. Previous studies have shown that the µ-rhythm is selectively suppressed both when executing and observing goal-directed motor actions; hence it can be used as a neural signal for intentional action processing. Our results show that neutral hypnotic trance increases µ-suppression in highly suggestible participants when they observe intentional actions. This suggests that social action processing is enhanced when bottom-up attentional processes are predominant. Our findings support the Social Relevance Hypothesis, according to which social action processing is a bottom-up driven attentional process, and can thus be altered as a function of bottom-up processing devoted to a social stimulus. (shrink)

Consciousness alterations can be experienced during unstructured, monotonous stimuli. These effects have not been linked to particular cognitive operations; individual differences in response to such stimulation remain poorly understood. We examined the role of hypnotizability and dissociative tendencies in mind-wandering during a sensory homogenization procedure . We expected that the influence of ganzfeld on MW would be more pronounced among highly hypnotizable individuals , particularly those high in dissociative tendencies. High and low hypnotizables, also stratified by dissociation, completed the sustained (...) attention to response task during ganzfeld and control conditions. High dissociative highs made more commission errors during ganzfeld, suggesting increased MW, whereas the other groups displayed the opposite pattern. Increases in commission errors from the control condition to ganzfeld were associated with more alterations in consciousness and negative affect, but only among highs. Sensory homogenization had opposite effects on MW depending on the interaction of hypnotizability and dissociation. (shrink)

This study tested the prediction that dissociative tendencies modulate the impact of a hypnotic induction on cognitive control in different subtypes of highly suggestible individuals. Low suggestible , low dissociative highly suggestible , and high dissociative highly suggestible participants completed the Stroop color-naming task in control and hypnosis conditions. The magnitude of conflict adaptation was used as a measure of cognitive control. LS and LDHS participants displayed marginally superior up-regulation of cognitive control following a hypnotic induction, whereas HDHS participants’ performance (...) declined. These findings indicate that dissociative tendencies modulate the influence of a hypnotic induction on cognitive control in high hypnotic suggestibility and suggest that HS individuals are comprised of distinct subtypes with dissimilar cognitive profiles. (shrink)

In his paper Hypnosis Reconsidered, Resituated, and Redefined (JSE 26(2):297–327), Adam Crabtree, a distinguished expert in the history of hypnosis, maintains that contemporary hypnosis research suffers from conceptual disorder. In his words, he attempts to redefine hypnosis in order to provide a stronger ground for future research. We find that his proposed reconsideration of hypnosis as a form of “trance” characterized by a focus on internal stimuli and involving the recruitment of appropriate subliminal resources is neither novel nor helpful to (...) our current understanding of hypnosis. Among the problems we find with his paper is that it is conceptually unclear and is not informed by current research and theory; for instance, it disregards well-established findings such as individual differences in responsiveness to hypnosis and the importance of suggestion for the elicitation of hypnotic phenomena. Historical knowledge of a field is invaluable but is alone insufficient to understand its current status or propose pathways for future research and theory. Keywords: hypnosis—trance—suggestion. (shrink)