Abstract
We all very well know the literature that shows that the left and right hemispheres are differentially involved in cognitive processing. The left hemisphere is often found to be more involved in analytical and sequential thought processes, and the right hemisphere is more involved in imaginal and holistic thought processes. Recent studies of behavioral task performance and EEG and electrodermal responses during hypnosis suggest that there is an enhancement of right hemisphere involvement. For example, the following have been demonstrated enhancements during hypnosis for hypnotically responsive individuals in imaginal and holistic thinking (e.g., Crawford & Allen, 1983; Gruzelier, 1987), EEG ratio shifts showing a greater right hemisphere involvement in relation to the left (e.g., Bányai, Mészáros, & Csokay, 1985; Chen, Dworkin, Bloomquist, 1981; MacLeod-Morgan, 1979, 1982; Mészáros, Crawford, Nagy-Kovács, & Szabó, 1987), shifts in evoked potential amplitude toward the right hemisphere (e.g., Mészáros, Bányai, & Greguss, 1982, 1985; Spiegel, Cutcomb, Ren, & Pribram, 1985), and decreases in left hemisphere involvement in studies of electrodermal responses (e.g., Gruzelier, 1987; Gruzelier, Brow, Perry, Rhonder, & Thomas, 1984). Some studies (e.g., Sabourin, Cutcomb, & Pribram, 1986) have reported no such EEG hemispheric shifts during hypnosis among high hypnotizables.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bányai, E.I., Mészáros, I., & Csokay, L. (1985). Interaction between hypnotist and subject: A social psychophysiological approach. In D. Waxman, P.C. Misra, M.A. Basker (Eds.), Modern trends in hypnosis. New York: Plenum.
Chen, A.C.N., Dworkin, S.F., & Bloomquist, D.S. (1981). Cortical power spectrum analysis of hypnotic pain control in surgery. International Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 127–136.
Crawford, H.J., & Allen, S.N. (1982). Administration manual for the Stanford Group Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C. Unpublished scale, University of Wyoming, Laboratory of Cognitive Processing, Department of Psychology, Laramie, WY, USA.
Crawford, H.J., & Allen, S.N. (1983). Enhanced visual memory during hypnosis as mediated by hypnotic responsiveness and cognitive strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 662–685.
Gruzelier, J. (1987). The neuropsychology of hypnosis. In M. Heap (Ed.), Hypnosis: Current clinical, experimental and forensic practices. London: Croom Helm.
Gruzelier, J., Brow, T., Perry, A., Rhonder, J., & Thomas, M. (1984). Hypnotic susceptibility. A lateral predisposition and altered cerebral asymmetry under hypnosis. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2, 131–139.
MacLeod-Morgan, C. (1979). Hypnotic susceptibility, EEG theta and alpha waves, and hemispheric specificity. In G.D. Burrows, D.R. Collison, & L. Dennerstein (Eds.), Hypnosis 1979. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical.
MacLeod-Morgan, C. (1982). EEG lateralization in hypnosis: A preliminary report. Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 10, 99–102.
Mészáros, I., Bányai, E. I., & Greguss, A. C. (1982). Evoked potential, reflecting hypnotically altered state of consciousness. In G. Adam, I. Mészáros, & E.I. Bányai (Eds.), Advances in physiological sciences. Vol. 17. Brain and behaviour. Oxford: Pergamon.
Mészáros, I., Bányai, E.I., & Greguss, A.C. (1985). Evoked potential correlates of verbal versus imagery coding in hypnosis. In D. Waxman, P.C. Misra, & M.A. Basker (Eds.), Modern trends in hypnosis. New York: Plenum.
Mészáros, I., Bányai, E.I., & Greguss, A.C. (1986). Enhanced right hemisphere activation during hypnosis: EEG and behavioural task performance evidence. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 3rd international conference of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, Vienna, Austria.
Mészáros, I., Crawford, H.J., Nagy-Kovács, A., & Szabó, C. (1987). Asymmetry of EEG activity and verbal-imaginal discrimination as a consequence of hypnotic responsiveness and hypnotic state. Neuroscience, 22, [Suppl. 472].
Sabourin, M.E., Cutcomb, S.D., & Pribram, K.H. (1986). EEG correlates of hypnotic susceptbility and hypnotic trance: Spectral Analysis. Paper presented at the 3rd international conference of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, Vienna, Austria.
Shor, R.E., & Orne, E. (1962). Harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility, form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Spiegel, D., Cutcomb, S., Ren, C., & Pribram, K.H. (1985). Hypnotic hallucination alters evoked potentials. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 249–255.
Weitzenhoffer, A.M., & Hilgard, E.R. (1962). Stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale, form C. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mészáros, I., Crawford, H.J., Szabó, C., Nagy-Kovács, A., Révész, Z. (1989). Hypnotic Susceptibility and Cerebral Hemisphere Preponderance: Verbal-Imaginal Discrimination Task. In: Gheorghiu, V.A., Netter, P., Eysenck, H.J., Rosenthal, R. (eds) Suggestion and Suggestibility. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-73875-3_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-73875-3_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-73877-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-73875-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive