Neurophysiology and neuropsychology of hypnosis recent advances and future perspectives: Part 2.

In recent years, hypnosis has become increasingly popular in health care and education (De Benedittis, 2020; Hauser, Hagl, Schmierer, & Hansen, 2016). However, the role of hypnosis has not been fully explored, and the mechanisms of action are not well understood. This Special Issue represents Part 2 of an outstanding effort of the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis to explore and elucidate the neurophysiological and neuropsychological underpinnings of hypnotic processes and responses, in order to improve understanding of hypnotic practices. For Part 2 we invited six additional leading researchers and clinicians from all over the world to contribute their perspectives, research, and recommendations for future work. The articles in this special issue address some crucial questions, such as: the role of hypnotizability and, particularly, of medium-responders, which represent the majority of the general population; clinical pain and neural correlates in patients suffering from TemporoMandibular Disorder (TMD); the real essence of hypnosis and its axiological uncertainty; the effects of hypnotic relaxation response on psychophysical indices of ANS activity; the role of the anterior cingulate cortex in mediating neurocognitive and somatosensory aspects of the hypnotic experience; and the effects of hypnotic suggestions in modulating the pain matrix activity in chronic pain patients. These peer-reviewed articles provide fascinating insights into hypnosis processes and responses. Critical analysis, cutting-edge research, emerging perspectives, and future directions for research and practice are presented, filling the gap between basic research and clinical practice. In taking stock of the papers in this issue, Perri critically addresses one of the major methodological issues of hypnosis research which is that clinical and experimental investigations on hypnosis utilize dichotomous comparison between highs and lows while neglecting the medium responders who represent the majority of the general population. The main risk of this medium-neglecting bias is to overshadow the most common hypnotic effects. In addition, methodological reasons suggest that the within-subjects design should be preferred over the between-subjects research design. Abrahmsen and Naish comparatively evaluate experimentally induced pain, clinical pain, and neural correlates (i.e., blink reflex) in patients suffering from TemporoMandibular Disorder (TMD). Patients were able to reduce their chronic self-reported pain, reduce self-reported experimental pain, produce changes in brain responses, and demonstrate hardly any involvement of brainstem reflex pathways, suggesting a top-down rather than a bottom-up mechanism. Hypnotic analgesia effects in both conditions showed little, or even no correlation, with the measured hypnotic susceptibility, possibly due to limitations of the standard susceptibility scales, that contain items with sensory-motor behavioral responses, but not experiential, subjective items (Acunzo & Terhune, 2021). The authors argue that right cerebral hemisphere and anxiety might have a significant role in differentially modulating the pain experience. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS 2021, VOL. 64, NO. 1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2021.1953309