You can’t tickle yourself...or can you? The effect of a hypnotic suggestion on sensory attenuation phenomenon

Shamsideen Yusuf

Abstract


The internal motor simulation mechanism is widely believed to generate anticipatory sensory outcomes on the basis of the efferent copy of the motor commands. What is currently unknown is whether the motor prediction mechanism can integrate non-motor inputs such as a hypnotic suggestion in generating sensory predictions. Seventy-two undergraduate students (M=12, F=60) were recruited via Plymouth University participation pool, to undergo a randomised hypnotic suggestion (IV) of either an alien- hand or an alien-foot. The participants were asked to apply tactile stimulation to their left palm (DV) before and after the suggestion and report the tickling sensations. The results revealed an unexpected trend, which just fell short of statistical significance, not only did the control participants get more ticklish over time, but also some participants in the test group felt more in control as a result of alien-hand suggestion. This study found no evidence to support the idea of higher-level functioning forward model. The discussion explores possible explanations for the unexpected findings and highlights a couple of limitations. Finally, implications of the findings are noted with scope of direction for future studies exploring action control theories. 


Full Text:

PDF

References


Avikainen, S., Forss, N., & Hari, R. (2002). Modulated activation of the human SI and SII cortices during observation of hand actions. NeuroImage, 15, 491–500.

Blakemore, S. J., Oakley, D. A., & Frith, C. D. (2003). Delusions of alien control in the normal brain. Neuropsychologia, 41(8), 1058-1067.

Blakemore, S. J., Wolpert, D., & Frith, C. (2000). Why can't you tickle yourself?. Neuroreport, 11(11), R11-R16.

Blakemore, S.J., Frith, C. D., & Wolpert, D. M. (2001). The cerebellum is involved in predicting the sensory consequences of action. NeuroReport, 12, 1879–1884.

Buehner, M. J. (2012). Understanding the past, predicting the future causation, not intentional action, is the root of temporal binding. Psychological science, 0956797612444612.

Buehner, M. J. and Humphreys, G. R. (2009). Causal binding of actions to their effects. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1221-1228.

Chaumon, M., Drouet, V., & Tallon-Baudry, C. (2008). Unconscious associative memory affects visual processing before 100 ms. Journal of vision, 8(3), 10.

Coltheart, M. (2007). The 33rd Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Cognitive neuropsychiatry and delusional belief. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 60, 1041–1062.

Cox, R. E., Barnier, A. J., & Scott, A. (2014). An hypnotic analogue of alien control: Modeling the delusion and testing its impact on behavior and self monitoring. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(4), 407.

Deeley, Q., Oakley, D. A., Walsh, E., Bell, V., Mehta, M. A., & Halligan, P. W. (2014). Modelling psychiatric and cultural possession phenomena with suggestion and fMRI. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 53, 107– 119.

Desantis, A., Roussel, C., & Waszak, F. (2011). On the influence of causal beliefs on the feeling of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 1211-1220.

Doherty JR, Rao A, Mesulam MM, Nobre AC. (2005). Synergistic effect of combined temporal and spatial expectations on visual attention. J Neurosci. 25(36): 8259-8266.

Frith, C. D., Blakemore, S., & Wolpert, D. M. (2000). Explaining the symptoms of schizophrenia: Abnormalities in the awareness of action. Brain Re- search Reviews, 31, 357–363.

Gentsch, A., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Endrass, T., & Kathmann, N. (2012). Dysfunctional forward model mechanisms and aberrant sense of agency in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Biological psychiatry, 71(7), 652-659.

Haggard, P., & Clark, S. (2003). Intentional action: Conscious experience and neural prediction. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 12(4), 695-707.

Haggard, P., & Clark, S. (2003). Intentional action: conscious experience and neural prediction. Consciousness and cognition, 12(4), 695-707.

Haggard, P., Cartledge, P., Dafydd, M., & Oakley, D. A. (2004). Anomalous control: when ‘free-will’ is not conscious. Consciousness and cognition, 13(3), 646-654.

Heinks-Maldonado, T.H., Mathalon, D.H., Houde, J.F., Gray, M., Faustman, W.O., and Ford, J.M. (2007). Relationship of impreci1se corollary discharge in schizophrenia to auditory hallucinations. Arch Gen Psychiatry 64, 286-296.

Hughes, G., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2013). Mechanisms of intentional binding and sensory attenuation: The role of temporal prediction, temporal control, identity prediction, and motor prediction. Psychological bulletin, 139(1), 133.

Kaiser, J., Barker, R., Haenschel, C., Baldeweg, T., & Gruzelier, J. H. (1997). Hypnosis and event-related potential correlates of error processing in a Stroop-type paradigm: A test of the frontal hypothesis. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 27(3), 215-222.

Kok, P., Rahnev, D., Jehee, J. F., Lau, H. C., & de Lange, F. P. (2011). Attention reverses the effect of prediction in silencing sensory signals. Cerebral Cortex, bhr310.

Lifshitz, M., Bonn, N. A., Fischer, A., Kashem, I. F., & Raz, A. (2013). Using suggestion to modulate automatic processes: From Stroop to McGurk and beyond. Cortex, 49(2), 463-473.

Lynn, S. J., Laurence, J. R., & Kirsch, I. (2015). Hypnosis, Suggestion, and Suggestibility: An Integrative Model. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 57(3), 314- 329.

Miall, R. C., & Wolpert, D. M. (1996). Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural networks, 9(8), 1265-1279.

Oakley, D. A., & Halligan, P. W. (2013). Hypnotic suggestion: opportunities for cognitive neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(8), 565-576.

Obhi, S. S., & Hall, P. (2011). Sense of agency in joint action: Influence of human and computer co-actors. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 663–670.

Pareés, I., Brown, H., Nuruki, A., Adams, R. A., Davare, M., Bhatia, K. P., & Edwards, M. J. (2014). Loss of sensory attenuation in patients with functional (psychogenic) movement disorders. Brain, awu237.

Poonian, S. K., & Cunnington, R. (2013). Intentional binding in self-made and observed actions. Experimental brain research, 229(3), 419-427.

Press, C., Berlot, E., Bird, G., Ivry, R., & Cook, R. (2014). Moving time: The influence of action on duration perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1787.

Rahmanovic, A., Barnier, A. J., Cox, R. E., Langdon, R. A., & Coltheart, M. (2012). “That's not my arm”: A hypnotic analogue of somatoparaphrenia. Cognitive neuropsychiatry, 17(1), 36-63.

Raz, A., & Campbell, N. K. (2011). Can suggestion obviate reading? Supplementing primary Stroop evidence with exploratory negative priming analyses. Consciousness and cognition, 20(2), 312-320.

Saeb, S., Weber, C., & Triesch, J. (2009). Goal-directed learning of features and forward models. Neural Networks, 22(5), 586-592.

Sato, A., & Yasuda, A. (2005). Illusion of sense of self-agency: discrepancy between the predicted and actual sensory consequences of actions modulates the sense of self- agency, but not the sense of self-ownership. Cognition, 94(3), 241-255.

Shadmehr, R., Smith, M. A., & Krakauer, J. W. (2010). Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. Annual review of neuroscience, 33, 89-108.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental psychology, 18(6), 643.

Thomas, R., Sink, J., & Haggard, P. (2013). Sensory effects of action observation: Evidence for perceptual enhancement driven by sensory rather than motor simulation. Experimental psychology, 60(5), 335.

Vercher, J. L., & Gauthier, G. M. (1992). Oculo-manual coordination control: ocular and manual tracking of visual targets with delayed visual feedback of the hand motion. Experimental Brain Research, 90(3), 599-609.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. (1962). Stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale, form C (Vol. 27). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Wolpert, D. M. (1997). Computational approaches to motor control. Trends in cognitive sciences, 1(6), 209-216.

Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K., & Kawato, M. (2003). A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 358, 593–602.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

ISSN 1754-2383 [Online] ©University of Plymouth