Electrophysiological Features of Hypnotic State in Healthy Volunteers_CORRIGENDUM

Year 2026, Volume: 13 Issue: 1 , 40 - 40 , 31.03.2026

Metin Çınaroğlu , Cumhur Taş

https://doi.org/10.4103/jnbs.jnbs_25_21

https://izlik.org/JA52RE98PY

Abstract

Aim: Hypnosis is treated as a state of mind. An individual depending on his/her social and psychological features follows suggestions and applies the requirements concerning time and space. With the advancement in brain-imagining techniques, viewing neuropsychological features of hypnosis has become a possibility. This article investigates the neuropsychological properties of hypnosis. The present study examines the electrophysiological features of the hypnotic minds of healthy individuals. This study aims to detect whether there is a change in and, if yes, in what region of suggestible individuals' minds during hypnosis. Materials and Methods: In this study, 34 highly suggestive individuals were selected out of 150 healthy individuals and were subjected to multidimensional Iowa suggestibility scale inventory and electroencephalogram (EEG). Due to technical problems during EEG, 24 data could be used cleanly. Using a correlational design, 34 healthy, suggestive individuals between the ages of 18–55 were included in the study. These participants have gone through an EEG procedure using the oddball paradigm. EEG and oddball were administered to 17 participants with and without hypnosis. Seventeen participants were administered without and with hypnosis. Twenty-four participants whose data was clear were included in the analyses. Results: When the groups were compared, it was seen that there was no significant difference in P300, P200, and P100 activities. There was also no significant difference in N200 and N100 activities. Conclusions: In this study the authors administered oddball paradigm with hypnosis and without hypnosis. The authors do not report any differences between conditions in terms of enterprise resource plannings. Although there was no statistically significant difference in this experimental design, studies with new and different designs should be continued.

 

*This corrigendum refers to a 2021 article published outside DergiPark. The original article DOI: 10.4103/jnbs.jnbs_25_21. Published in the March 2026 issue of The Journal of Neurobehavioral Sciences on DergiPark.

Keywords

Electroencephalogram , Event Related Potentials , hypnosis , P300

References

• 1. Trakyali G, Sayinsu K, Müezzinoğlu AE, Arun T. Conscious hypnosis as a method for patient motivation in cervical headgear wear – A pilot study. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:147‑52. Doi: 10.1093/Ejo/Cjm120.
• 2. Hsu LC. Forecasting integrated circuit output using relational scanning model. Sci Direct 2009;36:1403‑9.
• 3. Kotov RB. Multidimensional Iowa Suggestibility Scale. USA: Stony Brook University; 2004.
• 4. Gençöz T. Pozitif ve negatif duygu ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Derg 2000;15:19-26.
• 5. Heaton R. Wisconsin card sorting test manual. From Psychological Assessment Resources. 1981
• 6. Berg EA. A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. J Gen Psychol 1948;39:15‑22. Doi:10.1080/00221309.1948.9918159.
• 7. Brickencamp R. d2 Aufmerksamkeits‑ Belastungs. Test: Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hofrere; 1981.
• 8. Yaycı L. D2 dikkat testinin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Kalem Uluslararası Eğitim İnsan Bilimleri Derg 2013;36:43‑80.
• 9. Çağlar E. d2 Dikkat Testinin sporcularda güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. Hacettepe Üniv Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü 2006;17:58‑80. Available from: http://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sbd/issue/16401/171458. [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 21].
• 10. Cleary P. A, Derogatis L. R. Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the scl‑90: A study in construct validation. J Clin Psychol 1977;33:981-9.
• 11. Koğar H. Belirti tarama listesi’nin (SCL‑90) geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması: mokken ölçekleme analizleri. Turk Psychol Couns Guidance J 2019;9:689‑705.
• 12. Barabasz AF, Lonsdale C. Effects of hypnosis on P300 olfactory‑evoked potential amplitudes. J Abnorm Psychol 1983;92:520‑3.
• 13. Spiegel D, Cutcomb S, Ren C, Pribram K. Hypnotic hallucination alters evoked potentials. J Abnorm Psychol 1985;94:249‑55.
• 14. Barabasz AF, Barabasz M. Research designs and considerations. In: Fromm E, Nash M, editors. Contemporary Hypnosis Research. New York: Guilford Press; 1992. p. 173‑200.
• 15. Perlini AH, Lorimer AL, Campbell KB, Spanos NP. An electro‑physiological and psychophysical analysis of hypnotic visual hallucinations. Imagin Cogn Pers 1993;12:301‑12.
• 16. Schulman‑Galambos C, Galambos R. Cortical responses from adults and infants to complex visual stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1978;45:425‑35.
• 17. DePascalis V. Event‑related potentials during hypnotic hallucination. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 1994;42:39‑55.