ArticleExperimental brain research2012
Hypnotizability and haptics: visual recognition of unimanually explored 'nonmeaningful' objects.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cognitive trait of hypnotizability modulates sensorimotor integration and mental imagery. In particular, earlier results show that visual recognition of 'nonmeaningful', unfamiliar objects bimanually explored is faster and more accurate in subjects with high (Highs) than with low hypnotizability (Lows). The present study was aimed at investigating whether Highs exhibit a similar advantage after unimanual exploration. Recognition frequency (RF) and Recognition time (RT) of correct recognitions of the explored objects were recorded. The results showed the absence of any hypnotizability-related difference in recognition frequencies. In addition, RF of the right and left hand was comparable in Highs as in Lows, while slight differences were found in RT. We suggest that hemispheric co-operation played a key role in the better performance of Highs in the bimanual task previously studied. In the unimanual exploration, the task's characteristics (favoring the left hand), hypnotizability-related cerebral asymmetry (favoring the right hand in Highs) and the possible preferential verbal style of recognition in Lows (favoring the right hand in this group) antagonize each other and prevent the occurrence of major differences between the performance of Highs and Lows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22760585What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.