From: nosoammm@spamno.it   
      
    ha scritto nel messaggio   
   news:1129857760.546748.314290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   about  binaural :   
      
           Binaural-Beat Induced Theta EEG ActivityBinaural-Beat Induced Theta   
   EEG Activity   
           and Hypnotic Susceptibility   
           D. Brian Brady   
           Northern Arizona University   
                 May 1997   
      
   ABSTRACT   
      
   Six participants varying in degree of hypnotizability (two lows, two   
   mediums,   
   and two highs) were exposed to three sessions of a binaural-beat sound   
   stimulation protocol designed to enhance theta brainwave activity. The   
   Stanford   
   Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C) was used for pre and   
   post-stimulus measures of hypnotic susceptibility. Time-series analysis was   
   used   
   to evaluate anterior theta activity in response to binaural-beat sound   
   stimulation over baseline and stimulus sessions. A protocol designed to   
   increase   
   anterior theta activity resulted in a significant increase in theta measures   
   (%   
   activity) between pre-stimulus baseline and stimulus observations for five   
   of   
   six participants. Hypnotic susceptibility levels remained stable in the   
   high-susceptible group, and increased moderately in the low and medium   
   susceptible groups.   
      
   INTRODUCTION   
   Differential individual response to hypnosis, has, captured the attention of   
   hypnosis practitioners and researchers since the time of Mesmer, in the late   
   18th century. Despite the long recognized importance of individual variation   
   in   
   hypnotizability, efforts to modify or increase individual hypnotic   
   susceptibility have proven to be problematic and controversial.   
   Part of the difficulty in addressing the nature of hypnotizability has been   
   the   
   lack of consensus regarding the basic phenomena of hypnosis. The central   
   issue   
   has been whether observed hypnotic responses are due to an altered stated of   
   consciousness or merely the product of psychosocial factors.   
   Considering hypnosis as either an altered state or as a purely psychosocial   
   phenomenon served to provide two opposing factions into which most theories   
   of   
   hypnosis could be grouped. Contemporary hypnosis researchers tend to hold   
   less   
   extreme positions, realizing the benefit of a perspective which is comprised   
   of   
   the strengths of both the special-process (i.e., altered state of   
   consciousness)   
   and the social-psychological theoretical domains.   
      
   Theoretical Perspectives of Hypnosis   
   The 1960's witnessed the advent of standardized hypnotic susceptibility   
   measurements. Reliable standardized instruments have been developed for use   
   with   
   groups and individuals. Early work with the electroencephalogram (EEG)   
   designed   
   to identify hypnotic susceptibility also began around this time. More recent   
   EEG   
   / hypnosis research has focused on electrocortical correlates of both the   
   state   
   of, and differential individual response to, hypnosis. The concept of a   
   reliable   
   electrocortical correlate of hypnotic susceptibility draws attention to the   
   recent applications of neurofeedback therapy, which has employed a number of   
   protocols designed for individual brainwave modification. Recent advances in   
   the   
   application of binaural-beat technology and the associated EEG frequency   
   following response, which can be either relaxing or stimulating, have   
   demonstrated efficacy of brainwave modification in areas such as enriched   
   learning, improved sleep, and relaxation (Atwater, 1997). In consideration   
   of   
   recent EEG / hypnosis research along with the recently demonstrated efficacy   
   of   
   EEG neurofeedback training research and the binaural-beat technology   
   applications, it would seem that the lingering question of hypnotizability   
   modification can now be addressed by utilizing brainwave modification within   
   a   
   systematic protocol.   
   As mentioned earlier, it has often been the case in the past to view the   
   field   
   of hypnosis as being dominated, theoretically, by two opposing camps; the   
   special-process and the social-psychological. In general, the   
   special-process   
   view holds that hypnosis induces a unique state of consciousness; whereas,   
   the   
   social-psychological view maintains that hypnosis is not a distinct   
   physiological state.   
   Popular authors of the post-Mesmeric period (i.e., mid 19th century), such   
   as   
   James Braid, proposed psychophysiological and sometimes neurophysiological   
   explanations for the hypnotic phenomenon (Sabourin, 1982). In fact, Braid   
   adopted the term "neuro-hypnology" to describe the phenomenon and is   
   credited as   
   the originator of the term "hypnosis" (Bates, 1994, p. 27). The work of   
   other   
   English physicians, such as John Elliotson and James Esdaile, on surgical   
   anesthesia and clinical pain relief in the mid-19th century (Soskis, 1986),   
   are   
   indicative of the psychophysiological zeitgeist of hypnosis in that time.   
   This   
   physiologically-oriented perspective is reflected in Hilgard's   
   neodissociation   
   model (Hilgard, 1986), which suggests that hypnosis involves the activation   
   of   
   hierarchically arranged subsystems of cognitive control. This dissociation   
   of   
   consciousness is clearly manifested in the realm of hypnotically induced   
   analgesia. Hilgard's conception of a "hidden observer" (Hilgard, 1973) as a   
   dissociated part of consciousness, a part that is always aware of   
   nonexperienced   
   pain and can be communicative with the therapist, is exemplified in his   
   description of a hypnotically analgesic individual whose hand and arm were   
   immersed in circulating ice water as follows:   
      
   All the while that she was insisting verbally that she felt no pain in   
   hypnotic   
   analgesia, the dissociated part of herself was reporting through automatic   
   writing that she felt the pain just as in the normal nonhypnotic state. (p.   
   398)   
      
   In Hilgard's model, the hidden observer is the communication of the above   
   described subsystem not available to consciousness during hypnosis. It is   
   reasonable to assume, considering hypnosis research with pain control, that   
   such   
   a dissociative effect of cognitive functioning (i.e., cortical inhibition)   
   would   
   have, as a substrate, some neuropsychophysiological correlate.   
   Often the social-psychological or social-learning position sees hypnotic   
   behaviors as other complex social behaviors, the result of such factors as   
   ability, attitude, belief, expectancy, attribution, and interpretation of   
   the   
   situation (Krisch & Lynn, 1995). The influence of such variables as learning   
   history and environmental influences are described by Barber (1969). In this   
   influential discourse, Barber presents a framework in which hypnotic   
   responding   
   is related to antecedent stimuli, such as expectations, motivation,   
   definition   
   of the situation, and the experimenter-subject relationship. Diamond (1989)   
   proposed a variation of the social-psychological view which emphasized the   
   cognitive functions associated with the experience of hypnosis, as described   
   in   
   the following:   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)