Does Phase-Modulation of Applied 40-Hz Transcerebral Magnetic Fields Affect Subjective Experiences and Hypnotic Induction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
12 men and 12 women were exposed to a sham-field, a 5-Hz sine-wave magnetic field, a 40-Hz sine-wave magnetic field, or the latter field-phase modulated five times per sec. (5-Hz) for 30 min. between two administrations of the Spiegel's Hypnotic Induction Profile. To replicate the geometry that has produced significant increases in these scores in previous studies, the weak (1 microT) magnetic fields were applied over the right parietotemporal region through a modified helmet. The hypothesis that the enhanced suggestibility previously observed was due to an intrinsic phase-modulation of the fields was not supported. However, the ratings of overall pleasantness of the experiences were negatively correlated (r = -.36) with global geomagnetic activity at the time of the experiment. The pleasantness was ranked significantly greater by subjects exposed to the 40-Hz field (explaining 41% of the variance) relative to subjects exposed to the 5-Hz field who also reported more visual experiences within their left peripheral visual fields. The percentages of time alpha rhythms were measured over the temporal lobes (but not frontal or occipital lobes) during the treatments were moderately and positively correlated with scores on questionnaires administered before the experiment, from which the capacity to imagine, temporal lobe signs, and religious (but not exotic) beliefs were inferred. The groups exposed to either the 5-Hz or 40-Hz/5-Hz phase-modulated field displayed greater durations of alpha rhythms over the temporal lobes than the other two groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".