Suggested deafness during hypnosis and simulation of hypnosis compared to a distraction and control condition: A study on subjective experience and cortical brain responses
Fig 2
(A) Grandaverage waveforms and 95% C.I. in control (CON), distraction (DIS), hypnosis (HYP), and simulation (SIM) for target, distractor, and standard at the posteriocentral electrode 29 for low (blue, n = 24) and highly susceptible (red, n = 24) participants. The grey rectangle marks the P3b time window (320–470 ms) used for statistical analysis of P3b amplitudes at sensor-level. (B) Topographical maps of scalp voltage at the peak latency of the target N1 (100 ms) and P3b (400 ms) depicted for condition and stimulus-type across all subjects. (C) Focused contrasts within the Topography-by-Time-Cluster-Analysis to disentangle the interaction of condition by stimulus-type. There were no significant amplitude differences for the distractor between DIS and HYP as well as HYP and SIM, and for the Standard between CON and DIS and between CON and SIM. The summary statistic scalp-time images were thresholded at p < .001 (uncorrected) with FWE correction at cluster-level, p < .0017 (two-tailed, Bonferroni-adjusted, n = 15), based on random field theory. The statistical parametric maps (SPMs) are displayed as Maximum Intensity Projection (MIP) of the 3D (scalp x time) summary statistic image. Blue dots mark the electrode sites. post = posterior; ant = anterior.