Motion in Response to the Hypnotic Suggestion of Arm Rigidity:<i>A Window on Underlying Mechanisms</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among hypnotized subjects passing a challenge suggestion of arm rigidity, how might patterns of motor activity (strategies) contribute to the illusion that the elbow cannot be bent? Kinematic analyses of upper limb and trunk were performed. Nonhypnotized subjects carefully enacted a set of prescribed strategies typifying responses possibly adopted by a hypnotized subject. Profile analysis showed striking heterogeneity of response in hypnotic subjects. Half of participants showed no perceivable strategy consistent with the hypothesis that subjects hallucinate the suggestion and so do not engage the motor periphery. Equally common were subtle oscillations or trembling of the arm implying that motion resembling difficulty in bending was initiated. This can be misperceived as unintentional and thus evidence of inability to bend. The lack of a motor strategy is more consistent with dissociated-control theory, whereas the trembling response is more consistent with social-cognitive and dissociated-experience theories.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".