Exploring Electrophysiological Responses to Hypnosis in Patients with Fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Hypnosis shows great potential for managing patients suffering from fibromyalgia and chronic pain. Several studies have highlighted its efficacy in improving pain, quality of life, and reducing psychological distress. Despite its known feasibility and efficacy, the mechanisms of action remain poorly understood. Building on these insights, this innovative study aims to assess neural activity during hypnosis in fibromyalgia patients using high-density electroencephalography (EEG) and self-reported measures. Methods: Thirteen participants with fibromyalgia were included in this study. EEG recordings were done during resting state and hypnosis conditions. After both conditions, levels of pain, comfort, absorption, and dissociation were assessed using a numerical rating scale. Time perception was collected via an open-ended question. The study was prospectively registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov public registry (NCT04263324). Results: Neural oscillations showed increased theta power during hypnosis in the left parietal and occipital electrodes, increased beta power in the frontal and left temporal electrodes, and increased slow-gamma power in the frontal and left parietal electrodes. Functional connectivity using pairwise-phase consistency measures showed decreased connectivity in the frontal electrodes during hypnosis. Graph-based measures, the node strength, and the cluster coefficient were lower in frontal electrodes in the slow-gamma bands during hypnosis compared to resting state. Key findings indicate significant changes in neural oscillations and brain functional connectivity, suggesting potential electrophysiological markers of hypnosis in this patient population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".