Hypnosis and event-related potential correlates of error processing in a stroop-type paradigm: A test of the frontal hypothesis

International Journal of Psychophysiology

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 215-222

  Kaiser, Jochen ^a   Barker, Robert ^a   Haenschel, Corinna ^a   Baldeweg, Torsten ^a   Gruzelier, John H ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Error negativity; Error positivity; Frontal functions; Hypnosis; Stroop paradigm

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; BRAIN DEPTH STIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EVOKED CORTICAL RESPONSE; FEMALE; FRONTAL CORTEX; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HYPNOSIS; HYPNOTIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; FRONTAL LOBE; HUMANS; HYPNOSIS; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

EID: 0031458324     PISSN: 01678760     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8760(97)00055-X     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bench, C.J., Frith, C.D., Grasby, P.M., et al., 1993. Investigations of the functional anatomy of attention using the Stroop test. Neuropsychologia 31, 907-922.
2. Crawford, H.J., Allen, S.N., 1983. Enhanced visual memory during hypnosis as mediated by hypnotic responsiveness and cognitive strategies. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 112, 662-685.
3. Crawford, H.J., Gruzelier, J.H., 1992. A midstream view of the neuropsychophysiology of hypnosis: Recent research and future directions. In: Fromm, E., Nash, M. (Eds.), Contemporary Hypnosis Research, Guilford, London, pp. 227-266.
4. Crawford, H.J., Brown, A., Moon, C., 1993a. Sustained attentional and disattentional abilities: Differences between low and highly hypnotizable persons, J. Abnorm. Psychol. 102, 534-543.
5. Crawford, H.J., Gur, R.E., Skolnick, B., Ceut, R.E., Benson, D.B., 1993b. Effects of hypothesis on regional cerebral blood flow during schemic pain with and without suggestions of hypothic analgesia. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 15, 181-185.
6. Crawford, H.J., Corby, J.C., Kopell, B.S., 1996. Auditory event-related potentials while ignoring tone stimuli: Attentional differences reflected in stimulus intensity and latency responses in low and highly hypnotizable persons. Int. J. Neurosci. 85, 57-69.
7. Dehaene, S., Posner, M.I., Tucker, D.C., 1994. Localisation of a neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychol. Sci. 5, 303-305.
8. Donchin, E., Coles, M.G.H., 1988. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behav. Brain Sci. 11, 406-417.
9. Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., Blanke, L., 1990. Effects of errors in choice reaction tasks on the ERP under focused and divided attention. In: Brunia, C.H.M., Gaillard, A.W.K., Kok, A. (Eds.), Psychophysiological Brain Research. Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, pp. 192-195.
10. Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., Blanke, L., 1991. Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. II. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 78, 447-455.
11. Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., 1995. Event-related potential correlates of errors in reaction tasks. In: Kamos, G., Molnár, M., Csépe, V., Czigler, I., Desmedt, J.E. (Eds.), Perspectives of event-related potentials research (EEG Supplement 44), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 287-296.
12. Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., in press. Differential processing of motor errors.
13. Gehring, W.J., Goss, B., Coles, M.G.H., Meyer, D.E., Donchin, E., 1993. A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychol. Sci. 4, 385-390.
14. Graffin, N.F., Ray, W.J., Lundy, R., 1995. EEG concomitants of hypnosis and hypnotic susceptibility. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 104, 123-131.
15. Gruzelier, J.H., 1988. The neuropsychology of hypnosis. In: Heap, M. (Ed.), Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental and Forensic Practices. Croom Helm, London, pp. 68-76.
16. Gruzelier, J.H., 1990. Neuropsychophysiological investigations of hypnosis: Cerebral laterality and beyond. In: van Dyck, R., Spinhoven, P.H., van der Does, A.J.W. (Eds.), Hypnosis: Theory, Research and Clinical Practice. Free University Press, Amsterdam, pp. 37-51.
17. Gruzelier, J.H., 1996. The state of hypnosis: Evidence and applications. Q. J. Med. 89, 313-317.
18. Gruzelier, J.H., 1997. A neuro-psychophysiological model of cortical and limbic influences on hypnosis. Contemp. Hypn. (in press).
19. Gruzelier, J.H., Warren, K., 1993. Neuropsychological evidence of reductions on left frontal tests with hypnosis. Psychol. Med. 23, 93-101.
20. Gruzelier, J.H., Brow, T.D., Perry, A., Rhonder, J., Thomas, M., 1984. Hypnotic susceptibility: A lateral predisposition and altered cerebral asymmetry under hypnosis. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2, 131-139.
21. Gruzelier, J.H., Hancock, J., Maggs, R., 1991. EEG topography during word versus face recognition memory in high and low susceptibles in baseline and hypnosis. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 11, 36.
22. Hilgard, E.R., Morgan, A.H., MacDonald, H., 1975. Pain and dissociation in the cold pressor test: A study of hypnotic analgesia with 'hidden reports' through automatic key pressing and automatic talking. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 84, 280-289.
23. Mészáros, I., Crawford, H.J., Szabó, C., Nagy-Kovács, A., Révész, M.A., 1989. Hypnotic susceptibility and cerebral hemisphere preponderance. In: Gorghui, V., Netter, P., Eysenck, H., Rosenthal, R. (Eds.), Suggestion and Suggestibility: Theory and Research. Springer, Berlin, pp. 191-203.
24. Mészâros, I., Révész, M.A., 1990. Hemispheric EEG activity and hypnosis. Paper presented at the 5th International Congress of Psychophysiology, Budapest, Hungary.
25. Pardo, J.V., Pardo, P.J., Janer, K.W., Raichle, M.E., 1990. The anterior cingulate cortex mediates processing selection in the Stroop attentional conflict paradigm. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 256-259.
26. Posner, M., Peterson, S., 1990. The attention system of the human brain. Ann. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 25-42.
27. Sabourin, M.E., Cutcomb, S.D., Crawford, H.J., Pribram, K., 1990. EEG correlates of hypnotic susceptibility and hypnotic trance: Spectral analysis and coherence. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 10, 125-142.
28. Shallice, T., Burgess, P., 1991. Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain 114, 727-741.
29. Sheehan, P.W., Donovan, P., MacLeod, C.M., 1988. Strategy manipulation and the Stroop effect in hypnosis. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 97, 455-460.
30. Shor, R.E., Orne, E.C., 1963, Norms on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility Form A. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn. 12, 34-46.
31. Vendrell, P., Junqué, C., Pujol, J., Jurado, M.A., Molet, J., Grafman, J., 1995. The role of prefrontal regions in the Stroop task. Neuropsychologia 33, 341-352.