4.7 Article

Beyond imagination: Hypnotic visual hallucination induces greater lateralised brain activity than visual mental imagery

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 239, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118282

关键词

Hypnosis; Hypnotic suggestion; Hallucination; Mental imagery; Visual perception; Face perception

资金

  1. ANID/CONICYT at the University of Edinburgh
  2. Karolinska Institutet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypnotic suggestions can induce a variety of perceptual experiences, including hallucinations. Visual hypnotic hallucinations differ from regular mental images in terms of their automaticity, vividness, and realism. Research suggests that the neural signatures distinguishing hypnotically hallucinated faces from imagined faces lie in the right hemisphere of the brain.
Hypnotic suggestions can produce a broad range of perceptual experiences, including hallucinations. Visual hypnotic hallucinations differ in many ways from regular mental images. For example, they are usually experienced as automatic, vivid, and real images, typically compromising the sense of reality. While both hypnotic hallucination and mental imagery are believed to mainly rely on the activation of the visual cortex via top-down mechanisms, it is unknown how they differ in the neural processes they engage. Here we used an adaptation paradigm to test and compare top-down processing between hypnotic hallucination, mental imagery, and visual perception in very highly hypnotisable individuals whose ability to hallucinate was assessed. By measuring the N170/VPP event-related complex and using multivariate decoding analysis, we found that hypnotic hallucination of faces involves greater top-down activation of sensory processing through lateralised neural mechanisms in the right hemisphere compared to mental imagery. Our findings suggest that the neural signatures that distinguish hypnotically hallucinated faces from imagined faces lie in the right brain hemisphere.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据