Clinical Hypnosis and Hypnotherapy: Scientific Foundations, Brain Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and Future Directions

Over the past several decades, clinical hypnosis and hypnotherapy have moved from being treated as a curious phenomenon to becoming a field of serious study within psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral medicine. Leading professional organizations such as the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, the British Society of Clinical and Academic Hypnosis, and Division 30, the Society of Psychological Hypnosis within the American Psychological Association, recognize hypnosis as a distinctive psychological state that may support the regulation of cognition, emotion, behavior, and subjective human experience.

Modern hypnosis is not mind control, nor is it a loss of consciousness, as popular myths often suggest. It is more accurately understood as a state of selective focused attention, reduced cognitive noise, and increased receptivity to structured, goal-directed information. Professor David Spiegel of Stanford University School of Medicine, one of the world’s leading experts on hypnosis, has emphasized that hypnosis was “the first Western conception of psychotherapy,” yet throughout its history it has often been misunderstood, underestimated, and pushed to the margins.

Part I: What Is Hypnosis? A Scientific Definition

1.1. Definitions from Professional Organizations

According to the American Psychological Association, hypnosis is defined as:

“Hypnosis is a state of consciousness involving focused attention and reduced peripheral awareness characterized by an enhanced capacity for response to suggestion.”

In other words, hypnosis is a state of consciousness marked by intensified attention, reduced awareness of peripheral stimuli, and an increased ability to respond to directed suggestions.

This definition highlights four core elements of hypnotic experience. The first is focused attention. Unlike daydreaming or drifting, hypnosis requires intentional orientation toward a specific object, sensation, image, or idea. The second is reduced peripheral awareness. Stimuli from the surrounding environment may still be present, but they are no longer processed as priority signals. The third is increased responsiveness to suggestion. This does not mean loss of control; rather, it refers to a state in which the brain becomes more open to structured guidance aligned with a person’s goals. The fourth, and equally important, is that the person in hypnosis remains conscious and retains the capacity for choice. They are not being “controlled,” and they may reject any suggestion that conflicts with their values, beliefs, or wishes.

1.2. Hypnosis Is Not Sleep

One of the most common misunderstandings is the idea that hypnosis is the same as sleep. The word “hypnosis” comes from the Greek “Hypnos,” the god of sleep, a historical legacy from the nineteenth century when early pioneers such as James Braid were still trying to understand the phenomenon. Modern science, however, has made it clear that hypnosis and sleep are different states.

During sleep, conscious awareness is significantly reduced, responsiveness to external stimuli is suppressed, and the brain moves through characteristic non-REM and REM cycles, often involving slower delta and theta rhythms. A sleeping person cannot usually process complex information or intentionally follow structured instructions.

In hypnosis, awareness remains present. The hypnotized person can still hear, understand, and respond. They continue processing information, but with a more selective and focused pattern of attention. They can remain goal-directed, and suggestions given during hypnosis may be received and acted upon. Electroencephalography studies suggest that brain activity during hypnosis is not simply the slow-wave pattern of sleep, but rather reflects distinctive forms of focused mental activity, including altered gamma and theta activity depending on the individual and hypnotic task.

1.3. Four Core Components of Hypnosis

A recent scientific review on hypnosis in the self-regulation of feeling states identifies four core components of hypnotic experience, based on decades of experimental research.

The first component is absorption. Absorption is the capacity to become deeply immersed in a cognitive or imaginative experience. When someone is highly absorbed, the boundary between what is happening externally and what is being vividly imagined can become more flexible. Reading a powerful book and forgetting the passage of time, or watching a film so intensely that one feels inside the story, are ordinary forms of absorption. Hypnosis brings this natural capacity into a more intentional and structured form.

The second component is dissociation. Dissociation is the ability to separate aspects of experience that are normally processed together. In hypnosis, a person may observe pain as if from a third-person position rather than being overwhelmed by it. They may separate bodily sensation from emotional reaction, or separate self-awareness from surrounding stimuli. This dissociation is not loss of control. It is a mechanism that allows the brain to process information with greater flexibility.

The third component is suggestibility. This refers to an increased tendency to respond constructively to hypnotic guidance. It is important to stress that suggestibility does not mean blindly accepting every suggestion. Research shows that suggestions conflicting with a person’s values, core beliefs, or life goals are often rejected, even in deep hypnosis. Increased suggestibility mainly applies to information that aligns with the participant’s own desired direction of change.

The fourth component is automaticity. This is the feeling that a response is happening naturally, effortlessly, or outside ordinary conscious effort. In deep hypnosis, a person may experience the arm becoming lighter, or pain decreasing, as though these changes are occurring by themselves rather than being forced. This sense of automaticity distinguishes hypnosis from ordinary relaxation techniques, where the participant may still feel that they are consciously “doing” the process.

These four components do not operate separately. They interweave and support one another, creating a distinctive cognitive state in which change may occur more quickly and deeply than in ordinary states of consciousness.

Part II: The Architecture of Mind and Automatic Behavior

2.1. The Two-System Model of Processing

To understand why hypnosis may be effective, it is first necessary to understand the structure of the human mind, especially the distinction between conscious and unconscious processing systems.

Modern cognitive psychology, especially the work of Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, describes a two-system model. System 1 operates quickly, automatically, habitually, emotionally, and with little conscious energy. System 2 operates slowly, analytically, logically, intentionally, and with greater effort.

System 1 is responsible for much of daily behavior. When you drive along a familiar road and barely remember the intersections you passed, that is System 1. When your hand automatically reaches for your phone after a notification, that is System 1. When you eat another piece of cake even though you are already full simply because it is in front of you, that is System 1.

Studies estimate that a large proportion of daily human behavior occurs automatically, without deliberate conscious decision-making. The exact percentage varies depending on context and measurement method, but the essential point remains: much of what people do is not truly “decided” in the reflective sense.

2.2. The Gap Between Knowing and Doing

The two-system model helps explain a familiar paradox: why do people repeatedly do things that contradict what they know to be right?

A person knows smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, yet continues smoking. A person knows staying up late damages health, yet still does it. A person knows procrastination creates stress, yet continues delaying. A person knows eating too much sugar is harmful, yet keeps eating.

This is not mainly a problem of lacking knowledge. The smoker often knows the risks very well, perhaps even more than the non-smoker. The problem is that knowledge belongs largely to System 2, while automatic behavior is governed by System 1.

To change an automatic behavior, it is not enough to consciously understand that the behavior is harmful. The underlying program beneath conscious awareness must be modified. It is similar to a software error: one cannot repair the source code by shouting at the screen. One must access the code itself.

2.3. Narrative as the Central Structure of Selfhood

Another important research direction, discussed in a recent article in the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, suggests that human beings do not only possess behavioral habits. They also live inside self-narratives: internal stories through which they define themselves, interpret the past, and anticipate the future.

David S. Alter argues that hypnosis works through a form of interactive reciprocity between therapist and client, using the brain’s neuroplastic potential. From this perspective, hypnotic suggestions help modify self-reinforcing narratives to which the client has subscribed. Suggestions activate unconscious aspects of the self, while the conscious mind experiences the resulting changes as natural, effortless, or automatic.

Most importantly, Alter emphasizes that the self is not a fixed object. It is a structure maintained by an internal narrative that can be revised, although not always easily and not always without support. Self-narrative revision is one of the central changes that hypnosis seeks to facilitate and embody.

This helps explain why sustainable change is rarely achieved through simple positive thinking or shallow affirmations. Statements such as “I am confident” may have little effect if a person’s deeper self-narrative remains “I am not good enough.” That deeper story may have been built over years of experience, supported by emotional evidence recorded by the nervous system and stored in neural connections and automatic predictive models.

Part III: The Neural Foundations of Hypnosis

3.1. Three Brain Networks Altered in Hypnosis

Modern brain-imaging studies, including functional magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and electroencephalography, have provided important insights into the neural mechanisms of hypnosis. A recent review in the International Review of Neurobiology summarizes findings showing that hypnosis does not affect only one brain region, but changes the interaction among three major cognitive networks.

The first is the Default Mode Network. The Default Mode Network is active when we are not focused on a specific external task, such as when we daydream, remember the past, imagine the future, or think about ourselves and others. It is closely linked with self-referential thought, rumination, anxiety, and negative recall. Studies show that during hypnosis, activity in the Default Mode Network decreases, especially in the posterior cingulate cortex, an important hub of this network.

This reduction may explain why people in hypnosis often report that the mind becomes quieter, with less internal dialogue and less wandering into past or future concerns. This quieting is one of the important conditions that allows new guidance and suggestions to be received.

The second is the Executive Control Network. This network supports higher cognitive functions such as intentional attention, response inhibition, planning, and decision-making. During hypnosis, the Executive Control Network, especially the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, functions in a distinctive way. David Spiegel and colleagues at Stanford have shown increased functional connectivity between the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the insula, a brain region important in emotion and bodily sensation.

This increased connectivity allows the person in hypnosis to remain highly focused on guidance while also observing bodily sensations and emotional states more intentionally.

The third is the Salience Network. This network detects and prioritizes important signals from the environment and from within the body. A key region of this network is the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. Spiegel’s research shows that activity in this region decreases during hypnosis. This means the brain becomes less reactive to distracting stimuli and less likely to treat irrelevant signals as alarms.

At the same time, there is increased inverse functional connectivity between the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex. This reflects the intentional suppression of spontaneous Default Mode Network activity by executive control systems, a mechanism important for selective attention.

Evidence from multiple brain-imaging methods converges on the same picture: hypnosis does not “turn off” the brain. It reorganizes brain activity in a structured way, supporting heightened focus, reduced noise, and increased flexibility in information processing.

3.2. fNIRS Research on Functional Connectivity in Hypnosis

A recent study published in Frontiers in Psychology in 2025 used functional near-infrared spectroscopy, an optical method for measuring brain activity, to examine changes in functional connectivity during hypnosis compared with resting states.

The results showed that hypnosis increased functional connectivity in specific frontal brain regions. In particular, increased connectivity was observed involving Brodmann Area 46, part of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, as well as bilateral connectivity involving Brodmann Area 10 in the prefrontal cortex. These findings provide further evidence that hypnosis changes not only the activity of individual regions but also how brain regions communicate with one another.

The authors concluded that resting-state functional connectivity analysis is a valuable tool for hypnosis research and that future studies may combine multiple imaging methods to produce a more comprehensive picture of the neural correlates of hypnosis.

3.3. Neural Mechanisms of Hypnotic Pain Reduction

Pain is one of the most extensively studied areas in hypnosis research. A review in the International Review of Neurobiology in 2025 summarized findings on the neural mechanisms of hypnotic hypoalgesia.

Brain-imaging studies show that hypnotic pain reduction involves altered activity in multiple regions involved in pain processing, including the anterior and medial cingulate cortices, the thalamus, the primary sensory cortex, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and the insula. Changes in these regions correlate with both dimensions of pain experience: sensory intensity and emotional unpleasantness.

Functional connectivity analyses suggest increased interaction among the anterior cingulate cortex, the periaqueductal gray, and the insula during preparation for hypnotic suggestion compared with control conditions. This indicates that hypnosis does not merely affect pain-processing regions directly. It also engages top-down pain modulation systems. Studies also suggest that hypnosis influences autonomic nervous system function, reducing sympathetic arousal and increasing parasympathetic tone.

However, the effect of hypnosis depends on several factors, including individual hypnotizability, the induction method used, and the structure of the suggestions.

Part IV: Scientific Evidence for Clinical Effectiveness

4.1. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Hypnosis in Invasive Medical Procedures

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research in March 2025 evaluated the effectiveness of hypnosis as a non-pharmacological intervention in invasive medical procedures.

The study searched major databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify randomized controlled trials assessing hypnosis during invasive procedures. Twenty randomized controlled trials involving 1,250 patients were included in the analysis. The procedures included various forms of medical intervention, from surgery to invasive diagnostic procedures.

For anxiety, hypnosis produced a statistically significant reduction compared with standard care, with a standardized mean difference of -0.43, a 95% confidence interval from -0.58 to -0.28, and p < 0.001. This reduction was clinically meaningful, indicating that patients experienced a clear difference in anxiety levels.

For pain, hypnosis also produced a statistically significant reduction compared with standard care, with a standardized mean difference of -0.35, a 95% confidence interval from -0.50 to -0.20, and p < 0.001. This effect was observed across different types of procedures, including those involving acute procedural pain.

Physiological stress markers, including heart rate and blood pressure, also improved in hypnosis groups compared with standard care. This supports the nervous-system calming effect of hypnosis, consistent with mechanistic findings on autonomic regulation.

Subgroup analyses showed that hypnosis enhanced by virtual reality and hypnosis designed specifically for high-anxiety procedures produced the greatest benefits.

Adverse effects were minimal. Hypnosis was confirmed as safe when performed by properly trained practitioners. The authors concluded that hypnosis is effective and safe in reducing anxiety and pain during invasive medical procedures, while also calling for standardized protocols and further research to optimize clinical application.

4.2. Evidence from Leading Medical Institutions

Mayo Clinic, one of the world’s most respected medical centers, recognizes hypnosis as a supportive method in pain management, stress reduction, anxiety, behavioral change, sleep issues, smoking cessation, overeating control, and certain side effects associated with cancer treatment. Mayo Clinic emphasizes that people do not lose control during hypnosis, a critical point in correcting common misconceptions.

Harvard Medical School has also supported research and clinical applications of hypnosis in pain management and stress-related disorders. Harvard-related work suggests that hypnosis can alter how the brain processes pain signals and may reduce the need for pain medication in some patients.

4.3. Practical Application: Stanford’s Reveri Program

Professor David Spiegel and his Stanford research team developed Reveri, a digital interactive hypnosis application designed to make hypnosis more widely accessible. As of April 2025, Reveri reportedly had approximately 850,000 downloads across 130 countries, with 27,000 active users at any given time.

Data from the application indicate striking effects: four out of five users report immediate reduction in pain and stress after one use, and one out of four users reportedly quit smoking after one use of the smoking cessation program. These figures come from self-reported data within a commercial app context, so they should be interpreted cautiously, but they point to the potential of hypnosis when delivered widely and personalized at scale.

In his 2025 lecture “Tranceformation: Hypnosis in Mind, Brain and Body” at the University of Padova, Spiegel argued that hypnosis should be released from the “prison of misunderstanding” and that its proven benefits should be made more widely available.

4.4. Hypnosis and Emotional Regulation

A review chapter in the International Review of Neurobiology in 2025 summarized clinical and neuroimaging evidence on the role of hypnosis in emotional regulation.

The authors concluded that hypnosis has demonstrated effectiveness in managing acute pain, including in surgical contexts through hypnosedation, as well as chronic pain. In chronic pain, hypnosis supports emotional regulation by reducing anxiety and depression, improving beliefs related to pain, and increasing the patient’s sense of control over symptoms.

Importantly, the authors emphasize that hypnosis helps patients engage more deeply with their emotional states, making them more active in the process of regulation. This is an important distinction from passive interventions such as sedative medication. Hypnosis does not only temporarily calm symptoms; it may help patients learn a lifelong self-regulation skill.

Part V: Hypnosis and Neuroplasticity

5.1. Basic Principles of Neuroplasticity

Neuroplasticity is the brain’s ability to change its structure and function in response to experience. For many decades, neuroscientists believed that the adult brain was largely fixed. This view has been overturned by research from the 1980s onward.

The work of Michael Merzenich, Norman Doidge, and many others has shown that the brain continuously reorganizes itself. Every time we learn a new skill, imagine an action, or experience an emotion, the brain changes at the microscopic level. Synaptic connections are strengthened or weakened, groups of neurons form new networks, and some brain regions may even be functionally reassigned.

5.2. Hypnosis as a Tool for Accelerating Neuroplasticity

A 2025 review by Menon and Bhagat examined the relationship between neuroplasticity and clinical hypnosis. The authors argue that hypnosis may promote neural reorganization by creating cognitive states favorable to learning and change.

Hypnosis may use neuroplasticity in at least four ways.

First, hypnosis creates vivid experience. One of the most important factors in activating neuroplasticity is the intensity and vividness of experience. A dull experience without emotion leaves a weak neural trace. A vivid experience involving imagery, emotion, and bodily sensation activates broader neural networks and strengthens new connections. Hypnosis, through absorption and imagination, can make internal experiences much more vivid than ordinary thought.

Second, hypnosis intensifies emotion. Emotion acts as a kind of glue for memory. Research shows that emotionally charged events are remembered more deeply and for longer than neutral events. Hypnosis, by activating emotional networks, especially the interaction between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the insula, creates an environment in which new experiences are emotionally encoded and therefore more likely to be stored and reinforced.

Third, hypnosis increases absorption. Absorption is one of the strongest predictors of change. When a person is deeply immersed in an experience, the brain may not sharply distinguish between what is physically happening and what is vividly imagined. Brain-imaging studies show that when someone imagines an action, corresponding motor regions can still activate even without actual movement. Hypnosis enhances this capacity, allowing imagined experiences to have neural effects closer to real experience.

Fourth, hypnosis can temporarily reduce defensive resistance. One of the greatest barriers to change is the brain’s automatic defense system: skepticism, resistance to change, and attachment to the familiar. During hypnosis, with reduced activity in the Default Mode Network and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, these defenses may temporarily soften. This creates a window of opportunity in which the brain is more open to new information and less dominated by old models.

5.3. Narrative and Neural Change

The relationship between narrative and neuroplasticity is an emerging field. Alter argues that internal stories are not merely abstract psychological constructions. They are embedded in specific neural networks. When a person changes their story from “I am a victim” to “I am a survivor,” or from “I am not good enough” to “I am learning and growing,” corresponding changes may occur in the activity and connectivity of brain regions involved in self-awareness and emotional processing.

From this perspective, hypnosis can facilitate self-narrative revision. By guiding a person into deep focus, reducing cognitive noise, and increasing receptivity, the therapist can help the person experiment with a new story of self. More importantly, hypnosis may help that new story become encoded into neural networks through mechanisms of neuroplasticity.

Part VI: Misunderstandings and Boundaries

6.1. Common Misunderstandings About Hypnosis

The first misunderstanding is that hypnosis means losing control. This is perhaps the most dangerous misconception and one reason hypnosis has been stigmatized for decades. The truth is the opposite: a person in hypnosis remains aware, hears, understands, and decides. They cannot be forced to do anything that violates their values, beliefs, or wishes. If a suggestion feels wrong, they can reject it by simply not following it or by ending the hypnotic state. When cooperation occurs in hypnosis, it is intentional collaboration, not loss of autonomy.

The second misunderstanding is that hypnosis is sleep. As discussed earlier, EEG studies show that hypnosis and sleep are different states. A hypnotized person still processes information, can respond, and exhibits brain activity associated with focused attention rather than the slow waves of sleep.

The third misunderstanding is that everyone can be hypnotized and controlled in the same way. Hypnotizability differs between individuals. Approximately 10 to 20 percent of the population may be highly hypnotizable, another 10 to 20 percent may be low in hypnotizability, and the rest fall somewhere in the middle. Even people with lower hypnotizability may still benefit from hypnosis when suitable methods are used. Stanford’s Reveri data suggest that with appropriate technology and personalization, effects may be achievable in a broader range of people than laboratory estimates based on rigid standardized protocols might suggest.

The fourth misunderstanding is that hypnosis can cure everything. There is no scientific evidence that hypnosis can make cancer tumors disappear, replace surgery, or cure serious physical disease through suggestion alone. Hypnosis is a supportive tool. It may help manage symptoms, regulate emotion, change behavior, and enhance the effectiveness of other medical interventions. It is not a miracle, and any claim beyond the available evidence crosses the boundary of scientific integrity.

6.2. Safety Boundaries

Clinical hypnosis, when performed by properly trained practitioners, is generally safe and associated with a low rate of adverse effects. Rare reactions may include mild dizziness, headache, sleepiness, or temporary anxiety, which usually resolve after the session.

However, some cases require special caution. Hypnosis may not be suitable for individuals with severe uncontrolled psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, because deep focused states may worsen symptoms in some cases. For individuals with a history of epilepsy, hypnosis is often considered safe, but coordination with a medical specialist is advisable. In severe addiction, especially substances with dangerous withdrawal syndromes such as alcohol or benzodiazepines, hypnosis should be used only as part of a comprehensive treatment program, not as the sole intervention.

Most importantly, hypnosis should never replace medical care. Cancer patients still require chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, or other treatments as indicated by medical specialists. Hypnosis may help manage anxiety, pain, and side effects, but it cannot replace evidence-based medical treatment.

6.3. The Role of the Therapist and Professional Ethics

Professional organizations such as the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis and the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis maintain strict ethical standards. Members are not permitted to use hypnosis merely for entertainment, exaggerate its effectiveness, or work outside their professional scope. They are also encouraged to collaborate with other healthcare professionals when needed, especially in complex cases.

One essential principle is informed consent. Hypnosis should never be performed without the participant’s informed agreement. The participant should understand the nature of hypnosis, what will happen, and their rights, including the right to stop at any time.

Part VII: Conclusion and Future Directions

7.1. Summary of the Evidence

Synthesizing findings from brain imaging, clinical trials, and systematic reviews, several conclusions can be drawn about clinical hypnosis.

First, hypnosis is a real and measurable state of consciousness with distinctive neural correlates. It is not merely fantasy, self-deception, or placebo, although placebo and expectation may contribute to some clinical outcomes.

Second, hypnosis is effective in reducing pain and anxiety across many clinical contexts, including invasive medical procedures, as supported by meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Third, hypnosis works by altering the activity of brain networks involved in attention, emotion, and pain processing, especially through reduced Default Mode Network activity and increased connectivity between executive control regions and the insula.

Fourth, hypnosis uses neuroplasticity to support the revision of self-narratives and automatic behavioral models.

Fifth, hypnosis is safe when conducted by properly trained professionals and has a low rate of adverse effects.

7.2. Future Research Directions

Researchers are developing several promising new directions.

Virtual reality hypnosis may open new clinical possibilities. Virtual reality can create deeper immersive environments, increase absorption, and allow more personalized experiences. Early studies suggest that virtual reality hypnosis may be especially useful in managing pain and anxiety during medical procedures.

Digital hypnosis and mobile applications are also expanding. Stanford’s Reveri app demonstrates that hypnosis can be delivered widely through digital platforms. Similar applications are being developed for stress management, smoking cessation, sleep improvement, and weight control. More research is still needed to determine how digital hypnosis compares with direct therapist-guided hypnosis.

Hypnosis in neurological rehabilitation is another emerging field. A clinical trial known as HYPNOVA is evaluating hypnosis as an adjunctive therapy for attention deficits and fatigue in patients with neurological conditions such as stroke, traumatic brain injury, and multiple sclerosis. The study uses EEG to compare hypnosis and sham hypnosis, aiming to identify neural correlates of improvement. This direction may open new applications for hypnosis in neurological rehabilitation, where treatment options remain limited.

Personalized hypnosis based on neural signatures may also become possible. As brain-imaging methods and machine learning advance, future protocols may be tailored to the structure and function of each individual’s brain. This could improve effectiveness and reduce variability in response.

7.3. Final Reflection

After more than two centuries of misunderstanding and marginalization, clinical hypnosis is increasingly being recognized within science and medicine. Evidence from cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral medicine converges on a clear conclusion: hypnosis is a distinctive state of focused attention that can increase cognitive flexibility and support behavioral change.

The true value of hypnosis does not lie in stage performances or exaggerated promises. It lies in its capacity to help people access automatic patterns operating beneath conscious awareness: patterns built over years of experience, repetition, emotional learning, and nervous-system adaptation. Hypnosis can create conditions for learning, emotional regulation, and the development of new behavioral responses more aligned with a person’s goals.

As David Spiegel has argued, it is time to release hypnosis from the prison of misunderstanding. With growing scientific evidence and new technological tools, hypnosis is beginning to earn its rightful place in modern medicine and psychology, not as a miracle, but as a safe, evidence-informed, supportive tool for human change.

References

Alter, D. S. (2025). Once upon a time: Narrative storytelling, hypnosis, and the brain. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 67(3), 200–217.

Brain mechanisms of hypnosis and hypnotic hypoalgesia: A review of electrophysiological and neuroimaging findings. (2025). International Review of Neurobiology, 184, 83–127.

Walter, N., Leyva, M. T., Hinterberger, T., Rupp, M., Loew, T., Lambert-Delgado, A., & Mena, A. E. C. (2025). Hypnosis as a non-pharmacological intervention for invasive medical procedures: A systematic review and meta-analytic update. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 192, 112117.

Zhang et al. (2025). Resting-state functional connectivity analysis of hypnosis using fNIRS. Frontiers in Psychology.

Menon, S., & Bhagat, V. (2025). Neuroplasticity and Clinical Hypnosis: Advancing Therapeutic Prospects in Neuropsychological Health and Well-being. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology, 18(5), 2371–2377.

Hypnosis in the self-regulation of feeling states. (2025). International Review of Neurobiology.

HYPNOVA: Hypnosis and Attention in Patients With a Neurological Disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT07256704.

Spiegel, D. (2025). Tranceformation: Hypnosis in Mind, Brain and Body. PNC Distinguished Lectures, University of Padova.

American Psychological Association. Hypnosis definition.

Mayo Clinic. Hypnosis overview.

Stanford Center for Integrative Medicine. Hypnosis research.

Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. Ethical guidelines.

Under the Vietnam Federation of UNESCO Associations, the center trains special methods to improve health, prevent and support treatment of physical and mental issues, and provides training in learning methods, thinking, and applied psychology for communication, business, negotiation, and sales.

© 2026 Trị Bệnh Không Dùng Thuốc. All rights reserved.

Heal your spirit

Contact

Address: Cultural and Sports Center, Yen Phu Ward, No. 1/15, Alley 189 An Duong Street, Tay Ho District, Hanoi.

Hotline: 0904.606.965