Elektromyographische Untersuchungen zur hypnotischen Armlevitation

Peter, Burkhard; Schiebler, Philipp; Piesbergen, Christoph und Hagl, Maria (Oktober 2012): Elektromyographische Untersuchungen zur hypnotischen Armlevitation. Unterschiede zwischen willkürlichem Armheben und unwillkürlicher Armlevitation. In: Hypnose: Zeitschrift für Hypnose und Hypnotherapie, Bd. 7, Nr. 1+2: S. 99-124

Abstract

Zweck: Ziel dieser explorativen Studie war es, die Technik der hypnotischen Armlevitation auf physiologischer und subjektiver Ebene zu untersuchen. Verglichen wurden drei Bedingungen von Muskelaktivität: unwillkürlich-ideomotorische Armlevitation in Hypnose; willkürliches Halten desselben Arms in gleicher Höhe ohne Hypnose; und Imagination der Hebung des Armes ohne Hypnose und ohne diese Bewegung tatsächlich auszuführen. Methode: In einem Within-Subjekt-Design durchliefen 33 Vpn die drei jeweils dreiminütigen Bedingungen (unwillkürlich, willkürlich und imaginativ) in zufälliger Reihenfolge. Abgeleitet wurden die Aktivitäten von 6 Muskeln des rechten Arms und der rechten Schulter (Trapezius, Deltoideus, Extensor Digitorum Communis, Flexor Digitorum Profundus, Bizeps Brachii und Trizeps Brachii). Als abhängige Variablen wurde die elektrische Muskelaktivität mittels Elektromyogra - phie (EMG) und die von den Vpn empfundene Anstrengung erhoben. Resultate: Während der hypnotischen Armlevitation war die Gesamtmuskelaktivität im rechten Arm um 13% (p<.008), die Aktivität des Deltoideus um 27% (p<.001) niedriger als beim willkürlichen Halten des Armes ohne Hypnose. Die hypnotische Armlevitation wurde von den Probanden als weniger (p<.027) anstrengend empfunden. Ohne Hypnose korrelierte die subjektiv empfundene Anstrengung mit der gemessenen Muskelspannung (r=.31, p<.006), nicht jedoch in Hypnose (r=.08). Die durch nicht-hypnotische Imagination erzeugte Muskelaktivtät überstieg deutlich den Ruhetonus, blieb jedoch niedriger als in den anderen beiden Bedingungen (p<.001). Es konnte keine Korrelation zwischen der im Vortest erhobene Suggestibilität (HGSHS:A) und den Muskelaktivitäten gefunden werden. Schlußfolgerung: Mit der Technik der hypnotischen Armlevitation ist es möglich, die subjektiv empfundene Anstrengung sowie die Muskelaktivität im erhobenen Arm zu verringern. Unter Hypnose zeigt die subjektiv empfundene Anstrengung jedoch keinen Zusammenhang mehr mit der tatsächlichen Muskelaktivität.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this pilot study was to examine the technique of the hypnotic arm levitation with subjective and physiological measures. An arm lifted and hold up unvoluntarily through ideo-motoric arm levitation in hypnosis was compared with that arm lifted and hold up voluntarily without hypnosis. In addition the subjects performed an non-hypnotic imagined arm lifting, without actually lifting it. Method: 33 psychology students underwent a within subject design with three conditions: hypnotic arm levitation, holding up the arm voluntarily without hypnosis, and imagined arm lifting without hypnosis in randomised order. Six muscles were measured simultaniously (trapecius, deltoideus, extensor digitorum communis, flexor digitorum profundus, biceps brachii and triceps brachii). Felt strain and muscle activity (electro - myography, EMG) during lifting and holding up the right arm for 3 min were used as dependent variables. Results: During hypnotic arm levitation the total muscle activity in the right arm was 13% lower (p < .008) than during holding it up voluntarily; moreover, the activity in the deltoideus was 27% lower (p < .001). The hypnotic arm levitation was subjectively felt less strenuous (p < .027). Without hypnosis the muscle activity showed a positive correlation with the felt strain (r = .31; p < .006). However, there was no such correlation in the condition of hypnotic, involuntary arm levitation (r = .08). The muscle activity generated through non-hypnotic imagination was lower than in the other conditions but higher than base line muscle activity (p < .001). No correlation was found between pre-test HGSHS:A and muscle activity. Conclusion: It is possible to reduce as well the subjectively felt strain as the objectively measured muscle activity in an uplifted arm through hypnotic arm levitation. During hypnosis the felt strain shows no correlation with the measured muscle activity.

• Dokumententyp: Zeitschriftenartikel
• Publikationsform: Publisher's Version
• Keywords: Hypnose, Armlevitation, Willkürlichkeit, Unwillkürlichkeit, Imagination, Muskelaktivität, Elektromyographie, Hypnotisierbarkeit, hypnosis, arm levitation, voluntariness, involuntariness, imagination, muscle activity, electromyography, hypnotizability
• Fakultät: Psychologie und Pädagogik > Department Psychologie > Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie
• Themengebiete: 100 Philosophie und Psychologie > 150 Psychologie
• ISSN: 1862-4731
• Sprache: Deutsch

Literaturliste

Arnold, M. B. (1946). On the mechanism of suggestion and hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 107-128.

Balshan, I. D. (1962). Muscle tension and personality in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 7, 436-447.

Barber, T. X. (1961). Physiological effects of "hypnosis". Psychological Bulletin, 58, 390-419.

Barber, T. X. (1969). Hypnosis: A scientific approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Bergmann, J. (1894/95). Ist Hypnose ein physiologischer Zustand? Zeitschrift für Hypnotismus, 3, 169-176.

Bernheim, H. (1888). Die Suggestion und ihre Heilwirkung, übers. von Sigmund Freud. Leipzig und Wien: Franz Deuticke.

Bernheim, H. (1911). De la suggestion. Paris: Albin Michel.

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

Bowers, K. S. (1981). Do the Stanford scales tap the "classic suggestion effect"? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29(1), 42-53.

Bowers, P. (1982). The classic suggestion effect: Relationships with scales of hypnotizability, effortless experiencing, and imagery vividness. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 30(3), 270-279.

Braid, J. (1855/1882). Zur Physiologie des Bezauberns. In W. Preyer (Ed.), Der Hypnotismus. Ausgewählte Schriften von J. Braid (pp. 257-264). Berlin: Paetel.

Cheek, D. B. (1960). Removal of subconscious resistance to hypnosis using ideomotor questioning techniques. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 3, 103-107.

Cheek, D. B. (1994). Hypnosis. The applicaton of ideomotor techniques. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

Crasilneck, H. B., & Hall, J. A. (1959). Physiological changes associated with hypnosis: A review of the literature since 1948. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 7(1), 9-50.

Damsbo, A. M. (1986). Ideomotor Signaling. In W. C. Wester, II (Ed.), Clinical Hypnosis. A case management approach (pp. 18-29). Cincinnati, Ohio: Behavioral Science Center.

Davis, R.C. (1940). Set and muscular tension. Indiana University Publications, Science Series, No. 10, 123-125.

Diamond, M. J. (1986). The veracity of ideomotor signals. In B. E. Zilbergeld, M.G.; Aaroz, D.L. (Ed.), Hypnosis: Questions and answers. New York: Norton.

Döllken, A. (1896). Beiträge zur Physiologie der Hypnose. Zeitschrift für Hypnotismus, 4, 65-111.

Erickson, M. H. (1961/1995). Historische Anmerkungen zur Handlevitation und anderen ideomotorischen Techniken. In E. L. Rossi (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften von Milton H. Erickson (Vol. 1, pp. 198-203). Heidelberg: Carl Auer.

Erickson, M. H. (1964). Pantomime techniques in hypnosis and the implications. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 7, 64-70.

Erickson, M. H., & Rossi, E. L. (1976-1978/1996). Indirekte Suggestionsformen bei der Handlevitation. In E. L. Rossi (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften von Milton H. Erickson (Vol. 2, pp. 139-154). Heidelberg: Carl Auer.

Ewin, D. M., & Eimer, B. N. (2006). Ideomotor signals for rapid hypnoanalysis. A how-to-do manual. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.

Farthing, G. W., Brown, S. W., & Venturino, M. (1983). Involuntariness of response on the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 31(3), 170-181.

Goldstein, I.B. (1972). Electromyography. N.S. Greenfield & R.A. Sternbach (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 329-365). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Goldstein, Y. (1981). The effect of demonstrating to a subject that she is in a hypnotic trance as a variable in hypnotic interventions with obese women. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29(1), 15-23.

Gorton, B. E. (1949). The physiology of hypnosis. Psychiatric Quarterly, 23, 317-343, and 457-485.

Hilgard, E. R., Crawford, H. J., & Wert, A. (1979). The Stanford Hypnotic Arm Levitation Induction and Test (SHALIT): A six minute hypnotic induction and measurement scale. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 27(2), 111-124.

Hilgard, E. R., & Tart, C. T. (1966). Responsiveness to suggestions following waking and imagination instructions and following induction of hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 196-208.

Hull, C. L. (1933). Hypnosis and suggestibility: An experimental approach. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company.

Jacobson, E. (1941). The physiological conception and treatment of certain common psychoneuroses. American Journal of Psychiatry, 98, 219-226.

Lader, M.H., Mathews, A.M. (1971). Electromyographic studies of tension. Journal of psychosomatik research 15, 479-486.

Lamas, J. R. & Valle Inclan, F. (1992). Subjektiv empfundene Anstrengung während der Teilnahme an zwei Suggestibilitätstests. Experimentelle und Klinische Hypnose 8(1), 1-10.

Lehmann, D., Faber, P., Isatoni, T., & Wohlgemuth, P. (2001). Source Locations of EEG frequency bands during hypnotic arm levitation: A pilot study. Contemporary Hypnosis, 18(3), 120-127.

Levitt, E. E., & Brady, J. P. (1964). Muscular endurance under hypnosis and in the motivated waking state. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 12(1), 21-27.

Mann, B. J., & Sanders, S. (1995). The effects of light, temperature, trance length, and time of day on hypnotic depth. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 37(3), 43-53.

McConkey, K. M. (1983). Behaviour, experience, and effort in hypnosis. Australian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 11(2), 73-81.

Mesmer, F. A. (1812). Allgemeine Erläuterungen über den Magnetismus und den Somnambulismus. Als vorläufige Einleitung in das Natursystem. Halle und Berlin: Hallisches Waisenhaus.

Orne, M. T. (1954). Die Leistungsfähigkeit in Hypnose und im Wachzustand. Psychologische Rundschau, 5, 291-297.

Orne, M. T. (1979). On the simulating subject as a quasi-control group in hypnosis research: What, why, and how. In E. S. Fromm, E. Ronald (Ed.), Hypnosis: Developments in research and new perspectives (rev. 2nd Ed. ed., pp. 519-565). New York: Aldine.

Pajntar, M., Roskar, E., & Vodovnik, L. (1985). Some neuromuscular phenomena in hypnosis. In D. Waxman, P. C. Misra, M. Gibson & M. A. Basker (Eds.), Modern trends in hypnosis (pp. 181-206). New York: Plenum Press.

Peter, B. (2006). Einführung in die Hypnotherapie. Heidelberg: Carl Auer.

Peter, B. (2009a). Therapeutisches Tertium und hypnotische Rituale. In D. Revenstorf & B. Peter (Eds.), Hypnose in Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Medizin. Ein Manual für die Praxis (2 ed., pp. 69-77). Heidelberg: Springer.

Peter, B. (2009b). Ideomotorische Hypnoserituale. In D. Revenstorf & B. Peter (Eds.), Hypnose in Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Medizin. Ein Manual für die Praxis (2 ed., pp. 169-180). Heidelberg: Springer.

Reil, J. C. (1807). Ueber die Eigenschaften des Ganglien-Systems und sein Verhältniss zum Cerebral-Systeme. Archiv für die Physiologie, 7(2), 189-254.

Sarbin, T. R. (1956). Physiological effects of hypnotic stimulation. In R. M. Docus (Ed.), Hypnosis and its therapeutic applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sarbin, T. R., & Slagle, R. (1979). Hypnosis and psychophysiological outcomes. In E. S. Fromm, E. Ronald (Ed.), Hypnosis: Developments in research and new perspectives (rev. 2nd Ed. ed., pp. 273-304). New York: Aldine.

Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Spanos, N. P., Rivers, S. M., & Ross, S. (1977). Experienced involuntariness and response to hypnotic suggestion. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 296, 208-221.

Spanos, N. P., Weekes, J. R., & de Groh, M. (1984). The "involuntary" countering of suggested requests: A test of the ideomotor hypothesis of hypnotic responsiveness. British Journal of Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis, 1(3), 3-11.

Stern, D. B., Spiegel, H., & Nee, J. C. (1978-79). The Hypnotic Induction Profile: Normative observations, reliability and validity. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 21(2-3), 109-133.

Stevens, L., Brady, B., Goon, A., Adams, D., Rebarchik, J., Gacula, L., et al. (2004). Electrophysiological alterations during hypnosis for ego-enhancement: A preliminary Investigation. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 46(4), 323-344.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1974). When is an "instruction" an "instruction"? International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 22(3), 258-269.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1980). Hypnotic susceptibility revisited. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 22(3), 130-146.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M. (1996). Hypnotism and the eternal return: The case of ideomotor signaling. In B. Peter, B. Trenkle, F. C. Kinzel, C. Duffner & A. Iost-Peter (Eds.), Munich lectures on hypnosis and psychotherapy (pp. 87-102). München: www.MEG-Stiftung.de.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. (1959). Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Weitzenhoffer, A. M., & Hilgard, E. R. (1962). Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale Form C. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

West, L. J. (1960). Psychophysiology of hypnosis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 172, 672-675.

Williams, G. W. (1929). The effect of hypnosis on muscular fatique. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 24, 318-329.