![]() ![]() ![]() Relying on such findings, we argue that research on the cognitive unconscious would benefit from including hypnosis paradigms. At least in part, this interest owes to the potent influence hypnotic and post-hypnotic suggestions wield over sensory, cognitive, and motor processing ( Nash and Barnier, 2008). Recovering from a volatile history plagued by quackery and charlatanism, hypnosis has become a viable venue of cognitive science ( Oakley and Halligan, 2009, 2013 Raz, 2011b). Here we draw upon the science of hypnosis – a technique with a long track record of study concerning the unconscious – and show how it can become a useful vehicle to complement and diversify existing empirical approaches. In their attempt to identify the underlying mechanisms subserving unconscious processing, researchers increasingly seek to diversify their critical inquiry. These inconsistencies not only call for caution when generalizing results from a single family of similar tasks, but also suggest that suppression mechanisms are mostly task-dependent ( Tsuchiya et al., 2006 Faivre et al., 2014 Fogelson et al., 2014 Izatt et al., 2014). Yet, despite such valuable methods, inconsistencies across tasks fuel a conundrum regarding the depth of processing of the cognitive unconscious – unconscious mental structures and processes that support thoughts and behaviors ( Kihlstrom, 1987). In the quest to understand the unconscious realm, various psychophysical techniques that suppress conscious access to sensory events largely frame our insights regarding the depth of unconscious processing and serve as a robust methodological backbone ( Kim and Blake, 2005). This fast-growing field offers novel perspectives concerning the powerful influence of the unconscious mind on thought and behavior ( Hassin et al., 2005). Pervasive even in popular science ( Mlodinow, 2012), the so-called “new” unconscious shares in the innovations and advances of consciousness research ( Dehaene et al., 2006 Kouider and Dehaene, 2007 Seth et al., 2008 Dehaene, 2011 Dehaene and Changeux, 2011). The unconscious mind fascinates and challenges human thinking ( Tallis, 2002). Our account provides a larger framework for complementing the results from core studies involving prevailing subliminal and preconscious techniques. ![]() Specifically, we provide an integrative synthesis of the advantages and shortcomings that accompany a top-down approach to probe the unconscious mind. Examining subliminal and preconscious methods, we demonstrate how instrumental hypnosis provides a reliable adjunct that supplements contemporary approaches. Drawing from a reliable taxonomy that differentiates subliminal and preconscious processing, we outline how an experimental trajectory that champions top-down suppression techniques, such as those practiced in hypnosis, is uniquely poised to further contextualize and refine our scientific understanding of unconscious processing. However, a top-down approach – for example via hypnotic suggestion – paves the road to experimental innovation and complementary data that afford new scientific insights concerning attention and the unconscious. Most researchers leverage bottom-up suppression to unlock the underlying mechanisms of unconscious processing. 3Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada.2Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.1Integrated Program in Neuroscience, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.Mathieu Landry 1 Krystèle Appourchaux 2 Amir Raz 2,3* ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |