Hypnotic deafness: a cross‐paradigm analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study compared responses to a deafness suggestion amongst subjects administered one of three conditions: hypnosis and suggestion (i.e. reals), simulating instructions (i.e. simulators), or the suggestion alone without hypnosis (i.e. cognitives). Reals and simulators were administered a hypnotic induction, followed by a unilateral, left‐ear deafness suggestion and the cognitive group was given the unilateral deafness suggestion without a hypnotic induction. All subjects were administered the Stenger Test of Audition (Stenger, 1907) during the deafness trial, and again on a final post‐deafness trial. The Stenger Test is designed to assess the degree and veracity of deafness reports. Reported changes in deafness levels were indistinguishable amongst high‐reals, low‐cognitives and high‐cognitives; all three of these groups reported lower levels of deafness compared to the simulating group. The latter demonstrated a pattern of response consistent with faking deafness, a response for which the Stenger Test is designed to measure. The findings lend support to the hypothesis that deafness does not uniquely characterize highly suggestible hypnotized subjects. In addition, the differences between reals and simulators reflect contextual demands on real subjects to report their deafness experience accurately. Copyright © 2004 British Society of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".