El “campo” de la formación de docentes para nivel secundario en la Argentina

Methodological limits in the designs of much psychophysiological research preclude definitive interpretation of the findings. For example, the vast majority of brain imaging studies do not include a non-hypnotic control group given the same suggestions but with no hypnotic induction procedure. This confounds the induction of a hypothesized trance state with the suggestion for a particular change in experience.

In the rare exception in which this confound is not an issue, it is not clear that the sug-gested effect was experienced subjectively in the control condition. Even if the exact same suggestion were given with and without the induction of trance, a failure to find a com-parable physiological change would be equivocal, especially if the experimenters had failed to induce the requisite experiential changes in the participants who had not been hypnotized. To support the hypothesis that the experiential effects of suggestion given without the induction of hypnosis are associated with brain activity that is different from that produced after a hypnotic induction, one first has to insure that the suggested expe-riences have been successfully induced in both conditions. Indeed, a strong version of the state hypothesis holds that there should be unique physiological changes in the hypnosis group that are not apparent in the control group, despite similar subjective experiences.

Accordingly, if hypnosis and (awake) task motivation instructions evoke similar subjec-tive experiences, yet hypnosis has distinct neurological correlates, it would constitute reasonably strong evidence for the altered state position.

Barabasz’s (2000) research used a group of role-playing subjects with low suggestibility (simulators) as a control group for demand characteristics (see also Gruzelier et al.

1988). However, there is no way that simulators can role-play a physiological response without attempting to experience the suggestion. Indeed, simulators are exhorted to ‘not go into hypnosis,’ which virtually insures they will not be able to experience what is sug-gested, thereby guaranteeing that differences will be observed across role-playing and

suggestible individuals. Also, simulators are asked to pretend to experience the response, whereas hypnotized subjects are not. The act of pretending itself must have some neural correlates.

The ‘holdback effect’ is a common design pitfall that can inhibit responding among non-hypnotized subjects (Zamansky et al. 1964). This can occur when participants are aware that their hypnotic and non-hypnotic performance is being compared, and is an issue in most of the studies reviewed in which participants are tested sequentially in wak-ing and hypnotic conditions. Non-hypnotized individuals who know they will be hypno-tized in an upcoming trial may purposefully refrain from deploying their imaginative abilities, or be less motivated to experience suggestions in non-hypnotic conditions, to demonstrate role-appropriate gains when hypnotized (see Zamansky et al. 1964).

To take the holdback effect into account, at least some subjects should be screened without a hypnotic induction (see Braffman and Kirsch 1999, for an example) and with-out any mention of hypnosis. Those scoring high in suggestibility and reporting the pres-ence of the hypnotic phenomenon that will be assessed (e.g. the suggested hallucination) can be given the hallucination suggestion again, still without mention or induction of hypnosis, and the neurophysiological correlates of their reports can be compared with those obtained following an induction (either subsequently in the same subjects or in a separate group of subjects).

9.5

Summary and conclusions

A state theory of hypnosis posits that: (1) brain differences between hypnotized and non-hypnotized subjects will be observed in line with altered experiences and behaviours;

(2) such differences are frequently observed in functional brain imaging studies; and (3) therefore, research supports a state theory of hypnosis. Yet to observe (2) and there-fore conclude that prediction (1) is correct is the logician’s error of affirming the conse-quent. Clearly, non-state theories also predict brain changes. After all, where else would such changes occur?

From a non-state perspective, if large quantitative differences on psychophysiological variables were observed across hypnotic and non-hypnotic conditions, it would beg the question of what was responsible for such differences (e.g. attitudes, expectancies, imagi-native strategies). Indeed, the failure of state theorists to forward a priori hypotheses that link subjective experiences and behaviours specific to hypnosis with psychophysiological changes in specific areas or networks of the brain leaves many of the studies open to any number of interpretations, entirely consistent with non-state views. Among other things, to make a compelling argument for a state theory of hypnosis, it will also be necessary to outline at least preliminary criteria that cognitive neuroscience researchers could use to discriminate between state and non-state views.

These concerns aside, research in this area has succeeded in finding baseline correlates of suggestibility, effects of induction procedures and effects of other specific sugges-tions. Perhaps the most important finding to date is the specificity of neurological effects in response to the specific wording of suggestions. The neural concomitants of suggested analgesia, for example, seem to depend on the specific suggestion that is used

(Rainville et al. 1998). This finding, however, also points to one of the weaknesses of some of the research. In particular, there has been a tendency to confound induction with suggestion variables, i.e. subjects either receive or do not receive a hypnotic induc-tion and then are given a suggesinduc-tion to experience a particular effect. However, the word-ing of the suggestion followword-ing a hypnotic induction differs from the wordword-ing of the suggestion given without the induction. This confound renders it impossible to ascertain what is responsible for obtained differences, and this problem is compounded by the finding that neural activity may be exquisitely sensitive to suggestion wording.

Much research remains to be done. The reasons for the inconsistencies across studies are not clear, and sustained research will be needed to uncover them. In addition, the altered state hypothesis, in its traditional strong form, has not yet been tested.

Although there are studies of the effects of inductions per se (i.e. the neurophysiology of neutral hypnosis), there is not as yet any research showing that non-mundane differences in background state of consciousness are a prerequisite to the experience of particular suggestions.

The increasing sophistication of neurophysiological methods renders altered state the-ories open to empirical support. It even provides a method of testing the hypothesis that some people slip into hypnosis in the absence of a hypnotic induction. If so, then the neural changes produced by inductions should also be observable without an induction and would need to be observed in responsive subjects for the altered state hypothesis to be confirmed. Until and unless it is confirmed, however, it should be considered a speculative hypothesis rather than a conventionally accepted fact.

References

Adolphs R (2003). Is the human amygdala specialized for social cognition? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 985, 326–40.

Barabasz AF (2000). EEG markers of alert hypnosis: the induction makes a difference. Sleep and Hypnosis, 24, 164–69.

Barabasz A and Lonsdale C (1983). Effects of hypnosis on P300 olfactory-evoked potential amplitudes.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 520–23.

Barabasz AF, Barabasz M, Jensen SM, Calvin S, Trevison M and Wagner D (1999). Cortical event-related potentials show the structure of hypnotic suggestions is crucial. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 47, 5–22.

Barber TX (1969). Hypnosis: a scientific approach. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Bartels A and Zeki S (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuro-Report, 11, 3829–34.

Baruss I (2003). Alterations of consciousness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bentall RP (2000). Hypnotic and psychotic hallucinations: rich data capable of multiple interpretations.

Contemporary Hypnosis, 17, 21–5.

Bloom P (2004). Advances in neuroscience relevant to the clinical practice of hypnosis: a clinician’s perspective. Keynote address to the 16th International Congress of Hypnosis and Hynotherapy.

Singapore.

Botvinick M, Braver TS, Barch DM, Carter CS and Cohen JD (2001). Conflict monitoring and cogni-tive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–52.

Braffman W and Kirsch I (1999). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability: an empirical analysis.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 578–87.

Brown RJ and Oakley DA (2004). An integrative cognitive theory of hypnosis and high hypnotizability.

In: Heap M, Brown RJ, and Oakley DA. (eds), The highly hypnotizable person. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Bush G, Luu P and Posner M (2000). Cognitive and emotional influences in the anterior cingulate cortex.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 215–22.

Cabeza R and Nyberg L (2000). Imaging cognition II: an empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies.

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1–47.

Cacioppo JT (2004). Feelings and emotions: roles for electrophysiological markers. Biological Psychiatry, 67, 235–43.

Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG, Lorig TS, Norris CJ, Rickett E and Nusbaum H (2003). Just because you’re imaging the brain doesn’t mean you can stop using your head: a primer and set of first principles.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 650–61.

Carter CS, MacDonald AM, Botvinick M, Ross LL, Stegner VA, Noll D, et al. (2000). Parsing executive processes: strategic vs. evaluative funcitons of the anterior cingulate cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97, 1944–48.

Christiansen C (2005). Preferences for descriptors of hypnosis: a brief communication. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 53, 281–9.

Crawford HJ (1990). Cognitive and psychophysiological correlates of hypnotic responsiveness and hypnosis. In: ML Fass and D Brown, eds. Creative mastery in hypnosis and hypnoanalysis: a festschrift for Erika Fromm. pp. 155–168. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.

Crawford HJ (2001). Neuropsychology of hypnosis: toward an understanding of how hypnotic inter-ventions work. In: GD Burrows, RO Stanley and PB Bloom, eds. International handbook of clinical hypnosis. pp. 61–84. New York, Wiley.

Crawford HJ and Gruzelier JH (1992). A midstream view of the neuropsychology of hypnosis: recent research and future directions. In: E Fromm and M Nash, eds. Contemporary perspectives in hypnosis research. pp. 227–66. New York, Guilford Press.

Crawford HJ, Gur RC, Skolnick B, Gur RE and Benson DM (1993). Effects of hypnosis on regional cerebral blood flow during ischemic pain with and without suggested hypnotic analgesia.

International Journal of Psychophysiology, 15, 181–96.

Crawford HJ, Horton JE, McClain-Furmanski D and Vandemia J (1998a). Brain dynamic shifts during the elimination of perceived pain and distress: neuroimagining studies of hypnotic analgesia. On-line Proceedings of the 5th International World Congress on Biomedical Sciences ‘98 at McMaster University, Canada (http://www.mcmaster.ca/inabis98/simantov/dus0133/index.html).

Crawford HJ, Knebel T and Vandemia JMC (1998b). The nature of hypnotic analgesis: neurophysiological foundation and evidence. Contemporary Hypnosis, 15, 22–33.

Crawford HJ, Harrington GS, Vendemia JMC, Plantec MB, Yung S, Shamro C, et al. (1998c). Hypnotic analgesia (disattending pain) impacts neuronal network activation: an fMRI study of noxious somatosensory TENS stimuli, NeuroImage, 7, S436.

Crawford HJ, Knebel T, Kaplan L, Vendemia J, Xie M, Jameson S, et al. (1998d). Hypnotic analgesia: I.

Somatosensory event-related potential changes to noxious stimuli and II. Transfer learning to reduce chronic low back pain. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 46, 92–132.

Crawford HJ, Horton JE, Harrington GS, Hirsch Downs T, Fox K, Daugherty S, et al. (2000). Attention and disattention (hypnotic analagesia) to noxious somatosensory TENS stimuli: fMRI differences in low and highly hypnotizable individuals. NeuroImage, 11, S44.

Danziger N, Fournier E, Bouhassira D, Michaud D, De Broucker T, Santarcangelo E, et al. (1998).

Different strategies of modulation can be operative during hypnotic analgesia: a neurophysiological study. Pain, 75, 85–92.

De Benedittis G and Sironi VA (1988). Arousal effects of electrical deep brain stimulation in hypnosis.

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 36, 96–106.

De Pascalis V (1999). Psychophysiological correlates of hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility.

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 47, 117–43.

De Pascalis V and Carboni G (1997). P300 event-related-potential amplitudes and evoked cardiac responses during hypnotic alteration of somatosensory perception. International Journal of Neuroscience, 92, 187–208.

De Pascalis V and Palumbo G (1986). EEG alpha asymmetry: task difficulty and hypnotizability.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 139–50.

De Pascalis V and Perrone M (1996). EEG asymmetry and heart rate during experience of hypnotic analgesia in high and low hypnotizables. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 163–75.

De Pascalis V, Ray WJ, Tranquillo I and D’Amico D (1998). EEG activity and heart rate during recall of emotional events in hypnosis. Relationships with hypnotizability and suggestibility. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 29, 255–75.

De Pascalis V, Magurano MR and Bellusci A (1999). 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. Pain, 96, 393–402.

De Pascalis, V, Magurano MR, Bellusci A and Chen AC (2001). Somatosensory event-related potential and autonomic activity to varying pain reduction cognitive strategies in hypnosis. Clinical Neurophysiology, 112, 1475–85.

Edmonston WE (1981). Hypnosis and relaxation: modern verification of an old equation. New York, Wiley.

Erickson MH (1980). Hypnosis: a general review. In: EL Rossi, ed. The collected papers of Milton H.

Erickson on hypnosis, Vol. 3. pp. 13–20. New York, Irvington. (Original work published in 1941.) Faymonville ME, Laureys S, Degueldre C, DelFiore G, Luxen A, Franck G, et al. (2000). Neural

mecha-nisms of antinociceptive effects of hypnosis. Anesthesiology, 92, 1257–67.

Graffin NF, Ray WJ and Lundy R (1995). EEG concomitants of hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 123–31.

Gruzelier JH (1996). The state of hypnosis: evidence and applications. Quarterly Journal of Medicine, 89, 313–17.

Gruzelier JH (1998). A working model of the neuropsychology of hypnosis: a review of the evidence.

Contemporary Hypnosis, 15, 3–21.

Gruzelier JH (2000). Redefining hypnosis: theory, methods, and integration. Contemporary Hypnosis, 17, 51–70.

Gruzelier JH, Allison J and Conway A (2000). A psychophysiological differentiation between hypnotic behaviour and simulation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 6, 331–8.

Hasegawa H and Jamieson GA (2002). Conceptual issues in hypnosis research: explanations, defini-tions, and the state/non-state debate. Contemporary Hypnosis, 19, 103–17.

Hilgard ER (1965). Hypnotic susceptibility. New York, Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Hilgard ER and Tart CT (1966). Responsiveness to suggestions following waking and imagination instructions and following induction of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 196–208.

Hofbauer RK, Rainville P, Duncan GH and Bushnell MC (2001). Cortical representation of the sensory dimension of pain. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86, 402–11.

Horton JE and Crawford HJ (2004). Neurophysiological and genetic determinants of high hypnotizability.

In: M Heap, RJ Brown and DA Oakley, eds. The highly hypnotizable person: theoretical, experimental and clinical issues. pp. 133–51. London, Routledge.

Horton JE, Crawford HJ, Harrington G and Downs JH III (2004). Increased anterior corpus callosum size associated positively with hypnotizability and the ability to control pain. Brain, 127, 1741–47.

Hyland ME (1985). Do person variables exist in different ways? American Psychologist, 40, 1003–10.

Jasiukaitis P, Nouriani B and Spiegel D (1996). Left hemisphere superiority for event-related potential effects of hypnotic obstruction Neuropsychologia, 34, 661–9.

Jasiukaitis P, Nouriani B, Hugdahl K and Spiegel D (1997). Relateralizing hypnosis: or, have we been barking up the wrong hemisphere? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 45, 158–77.

Kalin NH, Larson CL, Shelton SE and Davidson RJ (1998). Asymmetric frontal brain activity, cortisol, and behavior associated with fearful temperament in Rhesus monkeys. Behavioral Neuroscience, 112, 286–92.

Kallio S and Revonsuo A (2003). Hypnotic phenomena and altered states of consciousness: a multi-level framework of description and explanation. Contemporary Hypnosis, 20, 111–64.

Kang D, Davidson RJ, Coe CL, Wheeler RE, Tomarken AJ and Ershler WB (1991). Frontal brain asym-metry and immune function. Behavioral Neuroscience, 105, 860–9.

Kihlstrom JF (1985). Hypnosis. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 385–418.

Kihlstrom JF (2003). The fox, the hedgehog, and hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 51, 166–89.

Killeen PR and Nash MR (2003). The four causes of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 51, 195–231.

Kirsch I (1991). The social learning theory of hypnosis. In: SJ Lynn and JW Rhue, eds. Theories of hyp-nosis: current models and perspectives. pp. 439–466. New York, Guilford Press.

Kirsch I and Lynn SJ (1995). The altered state of hypnosis: changes in the theoretical landscape.

American Psychologist, 50, 846–58.

Kirsch I and Lynn SJ (1998). Dissociation theories of hypnosis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 100–15.

Kosslyn SM (1994). Image and brain: the resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Kosslyn SM (1999). If neuroimaging is the answer, what is the question? Philosophical Translations of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 29, 1283–94.

Kosslyn SM, Thompson WL, Constantine-Ferrando MF, Alpert NM and Spiegel D (2000). Hypnotic visual illusion alters color processing in the brain. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1279–84.

Kropotkov JD, Crawford HJ, and Polyakov YI (1997). Somatosensory event-related potential changes to painful stimuli during hypnotic analgesia: anterior cingulate cortex and anterior temporal cortex intracranial recordings. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 27, 1–8.

Lynn SJ and Kirsch I (2006). Essentials of clinical hypnosis: an evidence-based approach. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association.

Lynn SJ and Rhue JW (1991). An integrative model of hypnosis. In: SJ Lynn and JW Rhue, eds. Theories of hypnosis: current models and perspectives. pp. 397–438. New York, Guilford Press.

Maquet P. Faymonville ME, Degueldre C, Delfiore G, Franck G, Luxen A, et al. (1999). Functional neu-roanatomy of hypnotic state. Biological Psychiatry, 45, 327–33.

McConkey KM (1991). The construction and resolution of experience and behavior in hypnosis. In:

SJ Lynn and JW Rhue, eds. Theories of hypnosis: current models and perspectives. pp. 542–63.

New York, Guilford Press.

Meehl PE (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–34.

Morris RG, Ahmed S, Syed GMS, and Toone BK (1993). Neural correlates of planning: frontal lobe acti-vation during the Tower of London test. Neuropsychologia, 31, 1367–1378.

Nash MR (2005). The importance of being earnest when crafting definitions: science and scientism are not the same thing. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 53, 265–80.

Nitschke JB, Heller W, Etienne MA and Miller GA (2004). Prefrontal cortex activity differentiates processes affecting memory in depression. Biological Psychology, 67, 125–43.

Oschner KN and Gross JJ (2004). Thinking makes it so: a social cognitive neuroscience approach to emotion regulation. In: RF. Baumeister and KD Vohs, eds. Handbook of self-regulation: research, the-ory, and applications. pp. 229–58. New York, Gulford Press.

Perlini AH and Spanos NP (1991). EEG alpha methodologies and hypnotizability: a critical review.

Psychophysiology, 28, 511–30.

Preacher KJ, Rucker D, MacCallum RC and Nicewander WA (2005). Use of extreme groups approach:

a critical reexamination and new recommendations. Psychological Methods, 10, 178–92.

Raichle ME (1990). Exploring the mind with dynamic imaging. Seminars in Neurosciences, 12, 307–15.

Rainville P, Duncan GH, Price DD, Carrier B and Bushnell MC (1997). Pain affect encoded in human anterior cingulated but not somatosensory cortex. Science, 277, 968–71.

Rainville P, Carrier B, Hofbauer RK, Bushnell MC and Duncan GH (1999a). Dissociation of sensory and affective dimensions of pain using hypnotic modulation. Pain, 82, 159–71.

Rainville P, Hofbauer RK, Paus T, Duncan GH, Bushnell MC and Price DD (1999b). Cerebral mecha-nisms of hypnotic induction and suggestion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 110–25.

Rainville P, Bushnell CM and Duncan GH (2000). PET studies of the subjective experience of pain. In:

KL Casey and CM Bushnell, eds. Progress in pain research and mangement, Vol. 18. pp. 123–56.

Seattle, WA, IASP Press.

Rainville P, Hofbauer RK, Bushnell MC, Duncan GH and Price DD (2002). Hypnosis modulates activity in bran structures involved in the regulation of consciousness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 887–901.

Ray WJ (1997). EEG concomitants of hypnotic susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 45, 301–13.

Ray WJ and De Pascalis V (2003). Temporal aspects of hypnotic processes. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 51, 147–65.

Ray WJ and Oathies D (2003). Brain imaging techniques. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 51, 97–104.

Raz A, Kirsch I, Pollard J, and Nitkin-Kaner Y (2006). Suggestion reduces the stroop effect. Psychological Science, 17, 91–95.

Raz A, Shapiro T, Fan J and Posner MI (2002). Hypnotic suggestion and the modulation of Stroop interference. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1155–61.

Sabourin JM, Cutcomb SD, Crawford HJ and Pribram K (1990). EEG correlates of hypnotic suscepti-bility and hypnotic trance: spectral analysis and coherence. International Journal of

Psychophyisiology, 10, 125–42.

Sarbin TR (1991). Hypnosis: a fifty-year perspective. Contemporary Hypnosis, 8, 1–16.

Sarbin TR (1950). Contributions to role-taking theory: I. Hypnotic behaviour. Psychological Review, 57, 225–270.

Sarter M, Berntson GG and Cacioppo JT (1996). Brain imaging and cognitive neuroscience: toward strong inference in attributing function to structure. American Psychology, 51, 13–21.

Schmidt LA (1999). Frontal brain electrical activity in shyness and sociability. Psychological Science, 10, 316–20.

Sheehan PW (1991). Hypnosis, context, and commitment. In: SJ Lynn and JW Rhue, eds. Theories of hypnosis: current models and perspectives. pp. 520–41. New York, Guilford Press.

Sheehan PW and Perry CW (1976). Methodologies of hypnosis: a critical appraisal of contemporary para-digms of hypnosis. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spanos NP (1986). Hypnotic behavior: a social psychological interpretation of amnesia, analgesia, and

Spanos NP (1986). Hypnotic behavior: a social psychological interpretation of amnesia, analgesia, and

In document FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS DE LA EDUCACIÓN DEPARTAMENTO DE PEDAGOGÍA (página 100-108)