Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33526790›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Hypnotic suggestions of safety reduce neuronal signals of delay discounting.

Barbara Schmidt, Clay B Holroyd

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Barbara SchmidtInstitute of Psychology, University of Jena, Am Steiger 3, Haus 1, 07743, Jena, Germany. schmidt.barbara@uni-jena.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6828-5546
Clay B HolroydDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University · BEJena University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Waiting for delayed rewards is important to reach long-term goals, yet most people prefer immediate rewards. This tendency is called delay discounting. Evidence shows that people are more willing to wait for delayed rewards when they believe that the delayed reward is certain. We hypothesized that feeling safe makes delayed outcomes subjectively more certain, which should in turn reduce neuronal signals of delay discounting. We hypnotized 24 highly suggestible participants and gave them a suggestion to feel safe. We then used EEG to measure their brain responses to immediate and delayed rewards while they played a delayed gratification game. As compared to a control condition without hypnosis, participants that were suggested to feel safe under hypnosis reported feeling significantly safer. Further, their reward-related brain activity differentiated less between immediate and delayed rewards. We conclude that feeling safe makes delayed outcomes subjectively more certain and therefore reduces neuronal signals of delay discounting.

Indexed as

HypnosisSuggestionAdultBrainDelay DiscountingElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleNeuronsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33526790
PMCPMC7851403
OpenAlexW3127277841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.