Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42657176›Full record

ArticleNeuroscience of consciousness2026

Magnetoencephalography monitoring of hypnosis-induced modulation of event-related brain responses by hypnosis.

Hafid Sid-Ahmed, Julie Alayrangues, Lilia Langar, Nelly Richard, Véronique Albaladejo, Stéphane Pezzani, Virginie Brun, Daniel Anglade, Vincent Auboiroux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Hafid Sid-AhmedCEA, Leti, Clinatec, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, F-38000 Grenoble, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4429-5548
Julie AlayranguesCEA, Leti, Clinatec, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Lilia LangarGrenoble University Hospital, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Nelly RichardGrenoble University Hospital, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Véronique AlbaladejoGrenoble University Hospital, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Stéphane PezzaniGrenoble University Hospital, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Virginie BrunCEA, Leti, Clinatec, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Daniel AngladeGrenoble University Hospital, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Vincent AuboirouxCEA, Leti, Clinatec, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, F-38000 Grenoble, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6385-3233

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hypnosis is increasingly used in a medical context. However, the hypnotic process is dynamic, and we currently lack specific and reliable biomarkers to diagnose and rigorously monitor the patient's response to hypnotic suggestions. Here, we aimed to identify physiological biomarkers by investigating cerebral event-related responses in an oddball paradigm using a magnetoencephalography-based method. Twenty volunteers with different suggestibility levels were exposed to standard and deviant sounds as part of an oddball paradigm. Subjects were monitored in three distinct conditions: critical consciousness, while distracted by listening to a story, and during hypnotic trance. In each condition, event-related responses were analyzed in both a source space (auditory cortex and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex) and a sensor space in a minimalistic scenario (two sensors). The statistical analysis revealed significant reductions in amplitudes in the auditory cortex and in sensor measurements during hypnotic trance and distraction relative to critical consciousness. These reductions in amplitudes were observed for both standard and deviant stimuli, regardless of the level of hypnotic suggestibility. In particular, this study aimed to determine whether auditory responses are reduced even without explicit suggestions of induced deafness. A more subtle, but nevertheless statistically significant, difference was also found between the distraction and the hypnotic conditions in the source space. The modulation of the cortical response to auditory stimuli during hypnosis could be used as a physiological marker of the hypnotic process. Hypnotic trance and distraction do not appear to differ significantly, as both seem to induce a similar alteration of critical consciousness.

Indexed as

auditorybiomarkerhypnosismagnetoencephalographyMEGoddball

Identifiers

PMID42657176
PMCPMC13513767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.