Can hypnosis displace the threshold for visual consciousness?
Hernán Anlló, Jérôme Sackur
Neuroscience of Consciousness 2018 DOI: 10.1093/nc/niy009 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Experimental study Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Population | Participants with high and low hypnotic susceptibility |
| Intervention | posthypnotic suggestion for peripheral visual inattention |
| Keywords | Cognitive control Hypnosis Hypnotic induction Posthypnotic suggestion Semantic priming Subjective visibility Task set Visuospatial attention |
| Key findings | Highly hypnotizable participants reported decreased subjective visibility of peripheral targets and showed no dual-task interference from them during a posthypnotic suggestion, while low-susceptibility participants did show interference. Yet both groups discriminated peripheral targets with equal accuracy. The authors argue that hypnosis cannot restrict processing of supraliminal stimuli to subliminal levels. |
Abstract
To test the specific effects of hypnosis on the attentional components of visual awareness, we developed a posthypnotic suggestion for peripheral visual inattention inspired on the "tunnel vision" symptom of the Balint Syndrome. We constructed a dual-target visibility and discrimination paradigm, in which single-digit numerical targets were placed both on the hypnotically affected peripheral space and on the remaining undisturbed central area. Results were 3-fold: (i) when compared to participants of Low hypnotic susceptibility (Lows), highly susceptible participants (Highs) presented decreased subjective visibility; (ii) Highs did not show dual-task interference from peripheral targets (an effect of unconscious processing) during hypnotic suggestion to not attend them, but Lows did; (iii) nevertheless, when asked to execute a discrimination task over these same targets, Highs performed with the same accuracy as Lows. These results suggest that the hypnotic manipulation of visuospatial attention did produce an experiential change in Highs, but not one that could be mapped onto interference at a single (conscious or unconscious) level of processing. Rather, we posit that Highs simultaneously displayed (i) a fluctuation in awareness of peripheral targets coherent with the suggestion and (ii) a control strategy that involved removing hypnotically unattended targets from the task set whenever task instructions would allow for it. In light of these findings, we argue that hypnosis cannot be used as a tool to restrict the processing of otherwise supraliminal stimulation to subliminal levels.
Citations in the library
Cites 7
- How rich is consciousness? The partial awareness hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences July 1, 2010
- Nuances and Uncertainties Regarding Hypnotic Inductions: Toward a Theoretically Informed Praxis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis October 1, 2016
- New directions in hypnosis research: strategies for advancing the cognitive and clinical neuroscience of hypnosis. Neuroscience of Consciousness April 12, 2017
- Hypnosis and top-down regulation of consciousness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews February 4, 2017
- Retrospective Attention Gates Discrete Conscious Access to Past Sensory Stimuli. PLoS One February 10, 2016
and 2 more in the library