SAKARI KALLIO

ANTERIOR
BRAIN
ETFUNCTIONS
AL.
AND HYPNOSIS

ANTERIOR BRAIN FUNCTIONS

AND HYPNOSIS:
A Test of the Frontal Hypothesis
1

SAKARI KALLIO, ANTTI REVONSUO,

2
HEIKKI HMLINEN, AND JAANA MARKELA
University of Turku, Finland

JOHN GRUZELIER
Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, London, UK

Abstract: Neuropsychological frontal lobe tests were used to compare

individuals with high (n = 8) and low (n = 9) hypnotizability during
both baseline and hypnosis conditions. Subjects were assessed on two
hypnotic susceptibility scales and a test battery that included the
Stroop test, word fluency to letter- and semantic-designated categories,
tests of simple reaction time and choice reaction time, a vigilance task,
and a questionnaire of 40 self-descriptive statements of focused attention. Effects for hypnotic susceptibility and hypnosis/control conditions were scant across the dependent variables. High hypnotizables
scored higher on the questionnaire at baseline, and their performance
on the word-fluency task during hypnosis was reduced to a greater
extent than lows. Findings indicate that although the frontal area may
play an important role regarding hypnotic response, the mechanisms
seem to be much more complex than mere general inhibition.

The definition of hypnosis as a specific state of consciousness with

neuropsychological and neurophysiological correlates is controversial.
Both hemispheres of the brain have been suggested as crucial for hypnosis, but so far the results have been rather contradictory (Jasiukaitis,
Nouriani, Hugdahl, & Spiegel, 1997). The hypothesis of attentional differences between high and low hypnotizable subjects has, however,
been supported by several experiments (for a review, see Crawford,
1994). Because neuropsychological studies suggest that the frontal lobe
and attentional functions have a close relation (Stuss, Eskes, & Foster,
1994), it is very tempting to associate frontal lobe functions with hypnosis. Pribram and McGuinness (1975) proposed a model of attention
Manuscript submitted December 10, 1998; final revision received April 25, 2000.
1
This research was supported by the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation. A. R. and
H. H. are financially supported by the Academy of Finland (projects nr. 36106 and 31364).
We are grateful to Dr. Antero Kallio for commenting on the manuscript.
2
Address correspondence to Sakari Kallio, University of Turku, Department of Psychology, FIN 20014 Turku, Finland, or shakal@utu.fi.
The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Vol. 49, No. 2, April 2001 95-108
2001 The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis

95

96

SAKARI KALLIO ET AL.

explaining that the prefrontal cortex controls the limbic system in the
gating of sensory stimuli arriving from the periphery. The model was
supported by Crawfords (Crawford, Gur, Skolnick, Gur, & Benson,
1993) event-related potential (ERP) studies that demonstrated the
involvement of the prefrontal cortex in the conscious perception of pain.
Crawford et al.s studies also revealed an increased cerebral blood flow
in the orbitofrontal cortex during hypnotic analgesia, which is interpreted as a sign of increased attentional efforts (Crawford, 1994). On the
other hand, recent studies using positron emission tomography (PET) to
measure regional cerebral blood flow have suggested changes in much
wider areas of the brain during hypnosis (Maquet et al., 1999; Rainville
et al., 1999).
Gruzelier (1988, 1990) and Crawford and Gruzelier (1992) have introduced a neuropsychophysiological model of hypnosis based on
neuropsychological and neurophysiological experiments. It is hypothesized that the differences in hypnotizability are partly due to the dissimilar attentional abilities of different individuals. These differences would
be seen between lows and highs not only after an induction of hypnosis
but also in the nonhypnotic, baseline condition (Crawford et al., 1993).
Gruzelier and Warren (1993) have proposed that in highly hypnotizable
individuals frontal lobe functions become engaged through instructions
to focus attention during the hypnotic induction procedure. This
engagement is followed by the inhibition of other typical frontal functions such as reflective consciousness, monitoring, and self-awareness.
Norman and Shallice (1986) and Shallice and Burgess (1991) have
characterized frontal functions in terms of different control systems.
Basic cognitive operations are carried out in modules controlled by programs called schemata. These schemata are, even when complex, standard and routine. When automatic routines do not produce an appropriate outcome, a general executive component, labeled the supervisory
system, controls the function of schemata. It functions by top-down activation or inhibition of schemata. The supervisory system can further be
fractionated into component supervisory processes, which, in different
ways, control the appropriate function of schemata. Stuss, Shallice,
Alexander, and Picton (1995) present a new model where this approach
is applied to attentional functions and postulate that the control of attention is shown in seven types of tasks: sustaining, concentrating, sharing,
suppressing, switching, preparing, and the setting of attention. They
also suggest anatomical correlates to these tasks fixing them even more
closely to the frontal area.
In the present experiment, we focused on these attentional differences
in the baseline situation and on the inhibition of the frontal regions during hypnosis. We chose to focus on three controlling processes of the
attentional system: suppressing, concentrating, and sustaining, which
were investigated using four different neuropsychological tests.

ANTERIOR BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND HYPNOSIS

97

Table 1
Neuropsychological Tests (Modified from Stuss et al., 1995)
Neuropsychological Test
Stroop
Simple Reaction Time
(SRT)
Choice Reaction Time
(10-CRT)
The Vigilance Task
(Vigilance)
Fluency to Letters
(LetFlu)
Fluency to Categories
(CatFlu)

Possible
Anatomical Basis

Attentional
Task

Dorsolateral
Cingulate

Suppressing
Concentrating

Cingulate

Concentrating,
Suppressing
Sustaining

Right frontal
Left frontal

Left frontotemporoparietal

A neuropsychological test where suppressing is required is the Stroopcolor-naming task (Stroop, 1935). The subject is presented with stimuli
including incongruous features, and response to only one feature is
required. The task requires the active suppressing of a salient feature,
which is inappropriate to task requirements. The Stroop effect previously has been studied in association with hypnosis, but the results have
been somewhat controversial. In some studies, hypnosis has led to prolonged reaction times (increased Stroop-effects) in highly hypnotizable
subjects (e.g., Sheehan, Donvan, & MacLeod, 1988), and in some studies
no differences were found in the Stroop-effect in either waking or hypnosis conditions (Kaiser et al., 1997; Nordby, Hugdahl, Jasiukaitis, &
Spiegel, 1999).
The concentrating of attention is needed when the task is demanding,
and responses are occurring too quickly rather than too slowly (Stuss
et al., 1995). Asimple reaction time (SRT) task was included in the battery
as a basic test of concentration. A choice reaction time (10-CRT) task was
also included since adding more stimuli and reaction options the task
requires also suppressing of the rapid response schema. A third computer
task was a typical vigilance task. Sustaining attention is required when
the relevant events occur at a relatively slow rate over prolonged periods
of time (Stuss, Eskes, & Foster, 1995).
We also added two fluency tasks to the test battery, because impairment in generating words beginning with a specific letter has often been
described after frontal lobe damage. Gruzelier and Warren (1993)
reported a reduction in the letter fluency task with highly hypnotizable
subjects during hypnosis, and the absence of the effect with a category
fluency task. In this study, these tasks were repeated. Table 1 presents the
neuropsychological tests used according to which attentional task they

98

SAKARI KALLIO ET AL.

engage and their possible anatomical basis, according to Stuss et al.

(1995).
The subjects also were given the Finnish translation of the Differential
Attentional Processes Inventory (DAPI; Crawford, 1993), which consists
of 40 self-descriptive statements about experiences of focused attention
and ignoring distractions, as well as experiences of carrying out two tasks
simultaneously. Crawford et al. (1993) found an interaction between
hypnotizability and self-reports of extreme, focused attentional skills in
which one loses awareness of surrounding environments. This is particularly measured by a subscale of extreme, focused attention on the DAPI.
The aim of this study was to test the frontal hypothesis of Gruzelier
(1988, 1990) and Crawford and Gruzelier (1992) and to further build connections between theories of attention in cognitive neuroscience and
hypnosis. The a priori hypotheses were: (a) in the nonhypnotic condition, the highs will perform better than the lows in neuropsychological
tests measuring anterior attentional functions; (b) following hypnotic
induction, the reduction in performance in attentional tests will be
greater for highs than for lows; (c) in highs, a reduction following a hypnotic induction will be greater in the generation of letter-designated categories than in the generation of semantically designated categories; (d)
the highs will obtain higher scores than lows on the DAPI and especially
on the subscale measuring extreme focused attention.

METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were selected from a pool of 15 highs, as defined by scoring 9
through 12 on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form
A (HGSHS:A; Shor & Orne, 1962) in a Finnish translation (Kallio, 1996),
and 10 lows, scoring 0 through 5 on the HGSHS:A. All of the subjects
were right-handed students (mean age, 22.4, SD = 0.87 years). These subjects were further tested with the Barber Suggestibility Scale (BSS; Barber, 1927/1969; Finnish translation, Kallio, 1997). The criterion for inclusion in the study was a BSS score of 13 points or more for highs and 4
points or less for lows and an appropriate response to an additional challenge test that was carried out together with the BSS.3 Due to the character of the tasks required during the experiment, it was important to
assess the extent to which subjects continued to respond hypnotically.
3

Because the experiment itself took about 45 minutes to perform, a simple motor inhibition test (not being able to stand up) was chosen for monitoring susceptibility. After finishing the suggestions on the BSS, the subject was asked to open his eyes, and a motor inhibition test was given: Now you will feel so heavy that you are not able to stand up from the
chair no matter how hard you try. After this, the suggestion of lightness and ability to
move again was given and the subject was asked to try to stand up and sit again. This preliminary test was done twice, thus simulating the experiments situation of performing
neuropsychological tests between the monitoring of suggestibility.

ANTERIOR BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND HYPNOSIS

99

This test was used for this purpose during the experiment (see Procedure). A total of 19 (out of 25) subjects passed the criteria and participated in the study: 9 highs (3 males, 6 females; HGSHS:A, M = 11.2, SD =
0.67; BSS, M = 14.3, SD = 1.3) and 10 lows (2 males, 8 females; HGSHS:A,
M = 3.0, SD = 0.94; BSS, M = 2.1, SD = 1.2).
All subjects gave their informed consent for participation in the study,
which was described to the subjects as an experiment where the effects of
relaxation/hypnosis w o u ld b e t e st e d w it h a b at t e r y o f
neuropsychological tests.
Neuropsychological Tests
The Stroop task In the Stroop task, the subjects were given a handout
presenting the control stimuli on one side and an identical set of incongruent stimuli on the other side. The subjects were instructed to name
aloud as fast as possible the color of each letter string, starting with nonsense xxxx-strings (control) and after that the other side with letter
strings, including the classical incongruity of the meaning and the color
of the letter strings. The responses of the subjects were tape-recorded,
and the time required to complete the task was measured.
Fluency tasks (LetFlu and CatFlu). In the letter fluency task, the individual letter frequency at the start of a word was taken from unpublished
computerized norms of Laine and Virtanen (1996), which include 22.7
million word tokens from a major Finnish newspaper. In the first session, the subjects were given 90 seconds per letter category to produce
aloud as many words as possible beginning with the letters S (frequency
percentage = 8.58), V (frequency percentage = 7.69), and O (frequency
percentage = 7.33) and in the next session the letters M (f frequency percentage = 7.94), J (frequency percentage = 7.46), and P (frequency percentage = 7.23). The subjects were instructed not to use human proper names
or repetitions of the same word with different suffixes. All responses
were tape recorded. If proper names or repetitions were used, they were
subtracted from the total score. In the category fluency task, the procedure was the same as in the LetFlu task. Both sets had two category
groups: native wild animals and fruits in the first session and foreign
wild animals and vegetables in the second session.
Reaction time tasks (SRT and 10-CRT). A standard IBM-compatible computer with a 486 processor and a color screen was used to display the
stimuli, record the subjects responses, and measure the manual reaction
times. The stimuli were presented in the center of the screen with a character size of 5 5 mm. The responses to the target stimuli were recorded
to the nearest millisecond. The RT and vigilance tasks were taken from
the CogniSpeed software (Revonsuo & Portin, 1995; for earlier studies of
these tasks, see Koivisto et al., 2000).

100

SAKARI KALLIO ET AL.

In the SRT test, the number character 0 (zero) appeared in the center
of the screen, and the subject was instructed to press the big number key
0 (located on the right-hand side of a standard IBM-compatible PC
keyboard) with the right index finger as quickly as possible when the
stimulus appeared. The stimulus reappeared with a random delay ranging from 1 to 4 seconds. The test contained 40 trials.
In the 10-CRT task, the procedure was the same as above except that
the number character varied randomly from 0 to 9. The subject was
instructed to press the corresponding number key located in the
right-hand side on a standard IBM-compatible PC keyboard. The interval between the pressing of the button and the next target number was 1
second. The test contained 40 trials.
The vigilance task (Vigilance). The visual vigilance task is designed to
measure sustained attention for a 15-minute period. Different letters (5
5 mm) were randomly presented on a computer screen and the subject
was instructed to react to a target stimulus by pressing the space bar as
quickly as possible. The subjects were given two target letters (Y and L),
which were 20% of the total amount of stimuli, and instructed to keep the
right hand on the spacebar and press it as soon the target stimulus
appeared. The presentation time of the letters was 200 ms, and the interval between the stimuli varied from 300 to 3000 ms. The subjects were
also informed that the computer would record all correct responses,
omissions, and false alarms. The number of false alarms, omissions, and
reaction times served as dependent variables.
DAPI questionnaire. The subjects were also given the DAPI (Crawford,
1993; Grumbles & Crawford, 1981). Subjects are asked to rate themselves
on a 7-point scale as to the degree to which they typically carry out activities, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (always). Crawford reports a DAPI
test-retest reliability of .90 (of a college sample) for 4 weeks; Cronbachs
alpha for two testing periods equaled .91 and .94.
Procedure
The subjects were pooled into two groups, Groups A (5 highs and 5
lows) and B (4 highs and 5 lows), according to the counterbalanced order
of baseline and hypnosis. The test was delivered on two separate sessions with a time interval of 1 week between the sessions. Both sessions
consisted of six different tests which followed each other in the same
order. The tests were delivered by two different investigators, one of
whom executed the testing in the hypnosis condition (S. K.) and the
other in the baseline condition (J. M.). The instructions were the same for
all subjects at both times and were read verbatim for each test during
both sessions. The study was performed using a 2 2 within-subjects
crossover experimental design. For Group A, the first session began with
a 10-minute standard induction (S.K.), and after this the subject

ANTERIOR BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND HYPNOSIS

101

performed Tasks 1 (Stroop), 2 (LetFlu), and 3 (CatFlu). A standard waking procedure followed, and a break of 10 minutes was held. After the
break the other investigator took over and the subjects performed the
computerized Tasks 4 (RT), 5 (10-CRT,) and 6 (Vigilance) in a row. The
second session was identical except that this time Tasks 1 through 3 were
conducted by J. M.. After a pause of 10 minutes, the second half began
with the same 10-minute induction by S. K. and Tasks 4 through 6 were
conducted. For Group B, the procedure was identical, but the sessions
were done in the reverse order.
The subjects ability to sustain hypnotic response across tasks was
monitored with the motor inhibition test which was performed after
each individual test during the sessions where hypnosis was involved.
The test was performed first after the induction procedure and then after
each task: 1 (Stroop), 2 (LetFlu), and 3 (CatFlu). In the other session, continued hypnotic responding was monitored first after the induction and
then after Tasks 4 (SRT), 5 (10-CRT), and 6 (Vigilance). All highs had to
pass this test every time and all lows had to fail the same challenge every
time during the experiment.
Statistics
The data was analyzed with a repeated measures 2 2 2 (Condi tion Group Order) ANOVA, with hypnotizability (high vs. low) as a
between-subjects variable, and condition (baseline vs. hypnosis) and
test as within-subject variables. Further characterization of differences
was done with a two-tailed Students t Distribution test as appropriate.

RESULTS
While performing the actual experiment, one high and one low subject failed the additional motor inhibition test and were excluded from
the analysis. The following analyses are therefore based on the remaining 8 high hypnotizables and 9 low hypnotizables. Regarding the order
effects, there was a significant main effect when comparing the first and
second session of the LetFlu task, F(1.15) = 14.3, p < 0.05). This indicated
that either the given letter cues were more difficult the first time or that
the subjects were more at ease with the test and could come up with
more responses in the second session. However, this did not interact
with any other factor in the ANOVA. No other order effects were found.
Stroop
In baseline, the highs and lows performed very similarly in both the
congruent and incongruent situations. The Stroop interference effect
was highly significant in both the baseline, F(1, 15) = 84.2, p < .001, and
hypnosis conditions, F(1, 15) = 50.1, p < .001. There was some suggestion
that the effect decreased with hypnosis for lows and increased for highs,
but the interaction was not significant, F(1, 15) = 2.5, p = .13. Both groups

102

Figure 1.

SAKARI KALLIO ET AL.

The percentage change in relation to baseline condition ( indicates reduction and

+ indicates improvement) in performance in highs and lows after the induction of
hypnosis.

used more time for the task in hypnosis, both in congruent, F(1, 15) = 4.8,
p < .05, and incongruent trials, F(1, 15) = 4.5, p = .05.
Figure 1 about here
Word Fluency
The ANOVA for the letter task showed a significant main effect for
condition, F(1, 15) = 7.27, p < .05, such that fluency was poorer with hypnosis. This effect was not found for the category task, F(1, 15) = 2.79, p =
.12. There was no main effect of hypnotizability in either letter, F(1, 15) =
.86, p = .36, or category, F(1, 15) = 1.2, p = .28, tasks. The analysis between
hypnotizability and condition revealed a significant difference between
highs and lows in the LetFlu task, F(1, 15) = 8.47, p < .05) but not in the
CatFlu task. Elucidating this further with t tests disclosed that whereas
at baseline highs and lows did not differ (M = 48.7, SD = 10.1 and M =
45.0, SD = 10.2, respectively), hypnosis led to a significant difference
between the groups, t(16) = 2.4, p < .05, in the direction of poorer letter
fluency in high susceptibles.
RT tasks
In the SRT task, there was a main effect for condition, F(1, 15) = 9.5, p <
.01, indicating that after instructions of hypnosis reaction times
increased for both groups. There was no difference between highs and
lows nor was there an interaction between hypnotizability and condition, F(1, 15) = 1.5, p = .24. In the 10-CRT task, there were no significant
effects.
Vigilance
In the Vigilance task, the RTs also increased during hypnosis. The
main effect for condition was similar to the SRT task and approached

ANTERIOR BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND HYPNOSIS

103

statistical significance, F(1, 15) = 4.4, p = .054, and there was no interaction between hypnotizability and condition. High susceptibles showed
an increase in the amount of omissions during hypnosis, F(1, 15) = 3.8, p
= .069, ns. Although the interaction on omissions did not reach statistical
significance, we noted that at baseline highs seemed to make fewer
omissions during the 15-minute period, t(16) = 2.4, p < .03. It must be
noted that the ANOVA does not allow for group comparison under these
conditions.
DAPI Questionnaire
On the DAPI, the answers of highs and lows differed significantly on
the whole scale, F(1, 15) = 2.4, p < .03).

DISCUSSION
The baseline attentional abilities were measured with four different
tasks conceptualized as associated with different attentional abilities:
the Stroop test (suppressing), SRT (concentrating), 10-CRT (concentrating, suppressing), Vigilance (sustaining), as well as with the DAPI questionnaire. With regard to planned analyses, the results indicate that
hypnotizability was associated only with the DAPI self-report questionnaire measure. Further, support for a reduction in performance in high
susceptibles with hypnosis was found for word fluency to letter designated categories. There was some suggestion in the data that low
hypnotizables might be less vigilant, at least with regard to omission
errors.
In the Stroop task, contrary to the hypothesis, the main effect of
hypnotizability was not significant in either the baseline or hypnosis
condition. Our null results lend no support to the findings of Dixon and
Laurence (1992) who inferred that in a baseline situation highs showed
greater discrepancies between reaction times of congruent and incongruent trials than moderate or low susceptibles. There was, however, a
nonsignificant trend consistent with Sheehan et al. (1988), who found
that hypnosis increased the Stroop-effect. These results are also consistent with the results of Nordby et al. (1999), who similarly found a
nonsignificant trend indicating that high hypnotizables had longer reaction times than lows and also significantly more errors in hypnosis. Kaiser et al. (1997) found no increased Stroop effect in either waking or hypnotic condition. These results are difficult to compare with one another
because studies differ in the way they were performed and how the subjects were selected. Nevertheless, it would seem difficult to interpret the
effect of hypnosis per se as merely hampering the function of the supervisory system.
The verbal fluency task results are consistent with a previous report
(Gruzelier & Warren, 1993) regarding both the reduction in letter fluency
of high hypnotizables and the absence of the effect in the category task.

104

SAKARI KALLIO ET AL.

Generation of word lists with a letter cue has been reported to be maximally impaired after left dorsal lateral or medial frontal lobe damage but
not after orbital frontal damage (Benton, 1968). In contrast, word fluency
to designated categories may not be as pure a frontal task as the letter fluency task, because it is also impaired with lesions in the temporal and
parietal regions. So that, if frontal regions are inhibited, compensation
may occur from these other regions (Newcombe, 1969). The
within-group dissociation in the fluency tasks is also important from the
perspective of psychosocial theories of hypnosis. If the results were to be
explained by factors like expectancies of the effects of hypnosis (Kirsch,
1991), it would have been expected to affect both fluency tasks.
The results in different studies focusing on neuropsychology/
neurophysiology and hypnosis are still quite variable. One of the reasons may be the lack of standardization in the way subjects are selected
for these studies. Indeed, the definition of hypnotizability varies significantly, with some investigators applying more stringent criteria for group
assignment than others. For example, Gruzelier and Warren (1993)
divided a cohort of volunteers into two groupshighs and lowsusing
the Barber scale. Kaiser et al. (1997) used a scale where the subjects
responded to traditional hypnotic challenges. In some studies (Dixon &
Laurence, 1992; Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962), the threshold value for
high hypnotizability was a score of 8 or more on the SHSS:C
(Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962). Whereas other researchers have used a
score of 9 or more on the same scale (Dixon, Brunet, & Laurence, 1990), or
10 or more (Sheehan et al., 1988) on the HGSHS:A (Shor & Orne, 1962).
The main limitation of this study is its small sample size and the
resulting compromised statistical power. Thus, rigorously testing
hypotheses with a minimum probability of type II error is at issue.
Relatedly, this study examined only a few subjects over many variables.
Thus, when statistical significance was obtained, we must entertain the
notion of type I error due to multiple comparisons across essentially 10
variables. Hence, although this study provides some interesting leads, it
is most properly understood as a preliminary pass at the notion of something broad and dramatic about frontal involvement with hypnosis.
Also, the understanding of cognitive processes carried out in the
brain, and particularly by the prefrontal cortex, is still rather limited.
Regions of the brain have extensive connections, and there are many
controversial hypotheses concerning the functions, for example, of the
frontal lobe (Stuss, Eskes, & Foster, 1994). Thus, it is obvious that the
so-called frontal tests may be heavily loaded with other nonfrontal processes, and there are also regional differences within the frontal lobes.
Taken together, we found scant evidence for frontal differences
between high and low hypnotizable subjects across 8 indices of functions posited to operate frontally. We did, however, confirm that the
hypothesized inhibition of frontal functions in high hypnotizable

ANTERIOR BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND HYPNOSIS

105

subjects (during hypnosis) was supported by a finding of less verbal fluency to letter-designated categories, a task suggested to be associated
with the left dorsolateral area. Some aspects of attention and vigilance
show promise as well. Our results do not support the view that hypnosis
and hypnotizability are associated with dramatic and generalized inhibition of frontal lobe functions. Indeed, the frontal lobe may have a more
subtle and yet important role in explaining hypnotizability and hypnotic
phenomena. But, if it does, investigations using more powerful designs
and testing more specific hypotheses are needed.

REFERENCES
Barber, T. X. (1969). Hypnosis: A Scientific Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
(Original work published 1927)
Benton, A. L. (1968). Differential behavioral effects in frontal lobe disease.
Neuropsychologia, 6, 53-60.
Crawford, H. J. (1993). Differential Attentional Processes Inventory: Sustained and dual
attentional styles inventory that discriminates between hypnotic susceptibility level. Unpublished manuscript.
Crawford, H. J. (1994). Brain dynamics and hypnosis: attentional and disattentional processes. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 42, 204-32.
Crawford, H. J., Brown, A. M., & Moon, C. E. (1993). Sustained attentional and
disattentional abilities: differences between low and highly hypnotizable persons. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 534-43.
Crawford, H. J., & Gruzelier, J. H. (1992). A midstream view of the neuropsychophysiology
of hypnosis: Recent research and future directions. In E. Fromm & M. R. Nash (Eds.),
Contemporary Hypnosis Research (pp. 227-266). London: Guilford.
Crawford, H. J., Gur, R. C., Skolnick, B., Gur, R. E., & Benson, D. M. (1993). Effects of hypnosis on regional cerebral blood flow during ischemic pain with and without suggested
hypnotic analgesia. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 15, 181-95.
Dixon, M., Brunet, A., & Laurence, J. -R. (1990). Hypnotizability and automaticity: toward
a parallel distributed processing model of hypnotic responding. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 99, 336-43.
Dixon, M., & Laurence, J. -R. (1992). Hypnotic susceptibility and verbal automaticity: automatic and strategic processing differences in the Stroop colour-naming task. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 101, 344-7.
Grumbles, D., & Crawford, H. J. (1981, October). Differential attentional skills and
hypnotizability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, Portland, OR.
Gruzelier, J. H. (1988). The neuropsychology of hypnosis. In M. Heap (Ed.), Hypnosis: Current clinical, experimental, and forensic practices (pp. 68-76). London: Croom Helm.
Gruzelier, J. H. (1990). Neurophysiological investigations of hypnosis: Cerebral laterality
and beyond. In R. van Dyck, P. H. Spinhoven, & A. J. W. van der Toes (Eds.), Hypnosis:
Theory, research and Clinical Practice (pp. 37-51). Amsterdam: Free University Press.
Gruzelier, J., & Warren, K. (1993). Neuropsychological evidence of reductions on left frontal tests with hypnosis. Psychological Medicine, 23, 93-101.
Jasiukaitis, P., Nouriani, B., Hugdahl, K., & Spiegel, D. (1997). Relateralizing hypnosis: or,
have we been barking up the wrong hemisphere? International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 45, 158-77.
Kaiser, J., Barker, R., Haenschel, C., Baldeweg, T., & Gruzelier, J. H. (1997). Hypnosis and
event-related potential correlates of error processing in a Stroop-type paradigm: A test
of the frontal hypothesis. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 27, 215-22.

106

SAKARI KALLIO ET AL.

Kallio, S. (1996). Harvardin hypnoosiherkkyysasteikko ryhmien arviointiin, Muoto A [Finnish

version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A; Shor and Orne,
1962]. Publication of the Society for Scientific Hypnosis, Finland.
Kallio, S. (1997). Barberin suggestioherkkyysasteikko [Finnish translation of the Barber Susceptibility Scale, 1969]. Unpublished manuscript.
Kirsch, I. (1991). The social learning theory of hypnosis. In S. J. Lynn & J. W. Rhue (Eds.),
Theories of hypnosis: Current models and perspectives (pp. 439-465). New York: Guilford.
Koivisto, M., Revonsuo, R., Krause, C., Haarala, C., Sillanmki, L., Laine, M., &
Hmlinen, H. (2000). Effects of 902 MHz electromagnetic field emitted by cellular
telephones on response times in humans. NeuroReport, 11, 413-415.
Laine, M., & Virtanen, P. (1996). Turun Sanomat computerized lexical database. Unpublished
manuscript.
Maquet, P., Faymonville, M. E., Degueldre, C., Delfiore, G., Franck, G., Luxen, A., &
Lamy, M. (1999). Functional neuroanatomy of hypnotic state. Biological Psychiatry, 45,
327-33.
Newcombe, F. (1969). Missile Wounds of the Brain: A study of psychological deficits. London: Oxford University Press.
Nordby, H., Hugdahl, K., Jasiukaitis, P., & Spiegel, D. (1999). Effects of hypnotizability on
performance of a Stroop task and event- related potentials. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
88, 819-30.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed automatic control of behaviour. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1-8). New York: Plenum.
Pribram, K. H., & McGuinness, D. (1975). Arousal, activation, and effort in the control of
attention. Psychological Review, 82, 116-49.
Rainville, P., Hofbauer, R. K., Paus, T., Duncan, G. H., Bushnell, M. C., & Price, D. D. (1999).
Cerebral mechanisms of hypnotic induction and suggestion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 110-25.
Revonsuo, A., & Portin, R. (1995) CogniSpeed [Computer program]. Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
Shallice, T., & Burgess, P. W. (1991). Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe
damage in man. Brain, 114, 727-41.
Sheehan, P. W., Donovan, P., & MacLeod, C. M. (1988). Strategy manipulation and the
Stroop effect in hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 455-60.
Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: Form A. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 18, 634-662.
Stuss, D. T., Eskes, G. A., & Foster, J. K. (1994). Experimental neuropsychological studies of
frontal lobe functions. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of Neuropsychology (Vol.
9, pp. 149-184). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Stuss, D. T., Shallice, T., Alexander, M. P., & Picton, T. W. (1995). A multidisciplinary
approach to anterior attentional functions. J. Grafman & K. J. Holyoak, et al., (Eds.),
Structure and functions of the human prefrontal cortex. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, Vol. 769 (pp. 191-211). New York: New York Academy of Science.
Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. (1962). Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale: Form C.
Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

ANTERIOR BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND HYPNOSIS

107

Anterior Brain Functions and Hypnosis: A Test of the Frontal Hypothesis

Sakari Kallio, Antti Revonsuo, Heikki Hmlinen,
Jaana Markela und John Gruzelier
Zusammenfassung: Neuropsychologische Tests der Frontallappen wurden
angewendet, um Vpn. mit hoher (n = 8) und niedriger (n = 9) Suggestibilitt in
Baseline- und Hypnosebedingungen zu vergleichen Die Bewertung der Vpn.
erfolgte auf zwei Skalen der Hypnose-Suggestibilitt und durch folgende
Testbatterie: Stroop-Test, Aufgaben zur verbalen Flssigkeit (word-fluency to
letter and semantic-designated categories), Tests der einfachen Reaktionszeit
und der sog. Choice-Reaction-Time (Wahlmglichkeit zwischen zwei oder
mehr Reizen), eine Vigilanzaufgabe, und ein Fragebogen von 40 selbstbeschreibenden Aussagen zu fokussierter Aufmerksamkeit. Die Wirkungen fr
hypnotische Suggestibilitt und Hypnose/Kontrollbeding-ungen waren bei
den abhngigen Gren durchwegs gering. Die Baseline-Werte fr hoch- suggestible Vpn. auf dem Fragebogen waren hher, und ihre Ausfhrung bei der
Aufgabe zur Wortflssigkeit unter Hypnose war strker reduziert als bei den
niedrigsuggestiblen Vpn. Die Befunde deuten an, dass frontale Hirnareale
zwar eine wichtige Rolle bei hypnotischen Reaktionen spielen mgen, dass
jedoch die Mechanismen offensichtlich sehr viel komplexer als eine einfache
generelle Inhibition sind.
ROSEMARIE GREENMAN
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
Fonctions du cerveau antrieur: Un essai de lhypothse frontale
Sakari Kallio, Antti Revonsuo, Heikki Hmlinen,
Jaana Markela, et John Gruzelier
Rsum: Des essais neuropsychologiques effectus sur le lobe frontal ont t
employs pour comparer des individus de haute (n = 8) et bas (n = 9)
hypnotisabilit pendant la ligne de base et les tats dhypnose. Des sujets ont
t valus sur deux chelles de susceptibilit dhypnose et une batterie
dessai qui ont inclus lessai de Stroop, matrise de mot pour marquer avec des
lettres , puis tude smantique -ont montr des catgories, des essais de temps
de raction simple et de choix de temps raction, une tche de vigilance, et un
questionnaire de 40 tats auto-dcrits dattention focalise. Les effets sur la
susceptibilit hypnotique et les tats dhypnose / conditions de contrle
taient limits et dpendaient de certaines variables. Les sujet hautement
hypnotisables ont marqu plus de points sur le questionnaire de la ligne de
base, et lexcution de la tche de matrise de mot pendant lhypnose a t
rduite jusqu un plus grand degr par rapport aux sujet faiblement

108

SAKARI KALLIO ET AL.

hypnotisables. Les rsultats indiquent que bien que la zone frontale puisse
jouer un rle important dans la rponse hypnotique, les mcanismes
semblent tre beaucoup plus complexes que la seule inhibition molaire.
VICTOR SIMON
Psychosomatic Medicine & Clinical Hypnosis
Institute, Lille, France
Las funciones corticales anteriores y
la hipnosis: Una prueba de la hiptesis frontal
Sakari Kallio, Antti Revonsuo, Heikki Hmlinen,
Jaana Markela, y John Gruzelier
Resumen: Utilizamos pruebas neuropsicolgicas del lbulo frontal para
comparar a individuos con alta (n= 8) y baja (n= 9) hipnotizabilidad durante
condiciones de lnea base e hipnosis. Evaluamos a los participantes con dos
escalas de susceptibilidad hipntica y una batera de pruebas que incluy la
prueba Stroop, fluidez de vocablos en categoras semntica o de letra, pruebas
de tiempo de reaccin y de eleccin, una tarea de vigilancia, y un cuestionario
con 40 frases auto-descriptivas de foco de atencin. Los efectos de las condiciones hipnosis o control y de la susceptibilidad hipntica en las variables
dependientes fueron escasos. Personas con alta hipnotizabilidad tuvieron
puntuaciones ms altas en el cuestionario en lnas base, y su desempeo en la
fluidez de palabras disminuy ms que en aquellos poco hipnotizables
durante la hipnosis. Estos resultados indican que aunque el rea frontal puede
jugar un papel importante en la respuesta hipntica, los mecanismos parecen
ser mucho ms complejos que una mera inhibicin global.
ETZEL CARDEA
University of Texas, Pan American,
Edinburg, TX, USA