Comparison of Experimental Pain Modulation by Hypnosis, Virtual Reality and Virtual Reality Hypnosis in Healthy Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypnosis (H) and virtual reality (VR) are effective behavioural interventions to influence acute pain perception. Hypnotic suggestions have also been shown to modulate the nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR), suggesting the activation of descending modulatory mechanisms affecting spinal nociceptive activity. The combination of these techniques, virtual reality hypnosis (VRH), may reduce pain, but research on their comparative efficacy and mechanisms requires further experimental investigation. This study compared the effects of relaxation hypnosis, VR and VRH on pain perception and nociceptive physiological responses. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy participants were tested at baseline followed by three experimental conditions (relaxation hypnosis, VR, VRH) in a counterbalanced order. Pain intensity and unpleasantness, as well as NFR amplitude evoked by noxious transcutaneous electrical stimulation, were measured. Bayesian statistics assessed evidence for analgesic effects on each variable. RESULTS: The strength of evidence in favour of our hypotheses was categorised as follow: BF = 1-3: anecdotal evidence; BF = 3-10: moderate evidence and BF > 10: strong evidence. For NFR values, Bayesian paired-sample T-tests provided anecdotal support for the efficacy of relaxation hypnosis (BF + 0 = 2.11) and stronger evidence for VR (BF + 0 = 10.94) and VRH (BF + 0 = 14). For pain intensity, moderate evidence supported reductions with relaxation hypnosis (BF + 0 = 9.18), while strong evidence was found for VR (BF + 0 = 27.99) and low to moderate for VRH (BF + 0 = 5.88). Similarly, unpleasantness showed anecdotal reduction with hypnosis (BF + 0 = 1.9), and moderate evidence supported VR (BF + 0 = 4.86) and VRH (BF + 0 = 7.18). Across all measures, no significant differences were found between hypnosis, VR and VRH. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that these techniques did not differentially affect NFR, pain intensity, or unpleasantness. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The strength of this fundamental study is to directly compare hypnosis, VR, and VRH on both pain perception and physiological responses. It shows that VR alone is effective, while adding hypnosis does not always lead to better results and the combination could even create interference in some cases. This article helps to nuance the existing literature and common assumptions about the tool's use. These findings help clarify how VRH works and to propose guidance for clinical practices and further VRH development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".