ライフサイエンスコーパス: hypnosis

1 04 (standard), -0.07 (attention), and -0.11 (hypnosis).

2 duration of etomidate- and propofol-mediated hypnosis.

3 es an acute resistance to isoflurane-induced hypnosis.

4 , like those accompanying anesthetic-induced hypnosis.

5 de psychotherapy, relaxation techniques, and hypnosis.

6 resulted in a savings of $338 per case with hypnosis.

7 ation with the cost of sedation with adjunct hypnosis.

8 n turn shed new light on the neural bases of hypnosis.

9 of Ca(V)3.3 channels in anaesthetic induced hypnosis.

10 s of hypnosis combined with training in self-hypnosis.

11 ose the use of app-based instruction in self-hypnosis.

12 Some clinical studies have explored hypnosis, although the current state of knowledge does n

13 y, a pattern of neuronal activity reflecting hypnosis, analgesia, amnesia and reflex suppression seem

14 on, and ketamine produce analgesia, but weak hypnosis and amnesia, by inhibiting glutamate and nicoti

15 behavior interventions such as gut directed hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy are now consid

16 Cognitive science has not fully exploited hypnosis and hypnotic suggestion as experimental tools.

17 mice, while the percent isoflurane at which hypnosis and immobility occurred was not different betwe

18 nce would provide insight into the nature of hypnosis and its underlying mechanisms.

19 omatology) also supports the assumption that hypnosis and pathological dissociation share an underlyi

20 ng techniques offer new opportunities to use hypnosis and posthypnotic suggestion as probes into brai

21 We assessed the impact of Ericksonian hypnosis and self-hypnosis on disinhibition of eating in

22 al synchronization during anesthetic-induced hypnosis and suggest that HCN1 channels might contribute

23 of Ca(V)3.3 channels in anaesthetic-induced hypnosis and underlying neuronal oscillations.

24 clinical profiles appear to induce amnesia, hypnosis, and immobility via different molecular targets

25 General anesthetics cause sedation, hypnosis, and immobilization via CNS mechanisms that rem

26 nd vomiting prophylaxis, multimodal sedation-hypnosis, and multimodal analgesia, along with avoiding

27 Hypnosis appears to reduce perceived hot flashes in brea

28 nctional networks change and interact during hypnosis are warranted.

29 reased 68% from baseline to end point in the hypnosis arm (P < .001).

30 cognitive neuroscience has scantily fostered hypnosis as a manipulation, neuroimaging techniques offe

31 , the recognition of analgesia, amnesia, and hypnosis as discrete elements comprising the sedated sta

32 In survivors post-treatment, yoga and hypnosis as well as exercise show promise for controllin

33 ure of the components of general anesthesia, hypnosis (bispectral index scale, entropy), immobility (

34 nd barbiturates produce profound amnesia and hypnosis, but weak immobility, by enhancing the activity

35 This study was designed to determine whether hypnosis can modulate color perception.

36 considerable evidence that controlled formal hypnosis can produce a variety of dissociations of aware

37 hypnosis training, recent work suggests that hypnosis can provide temporary pain relief to the majori

38 fficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy plus hypnosis (CBTH) to control fatigue in patients with brea

39 ude education (with coping skills training), hypnosis, cognitive behavioral approaches, and relaxatio

40 e hypnosis group, subjects had 8 sessions of hypnosis combined with training in self-hypnosis.

41 mized into either a 6-week self-administered hypnosis condition or a self-administered sham white noi

42 This study suggests that hypnosis delivered through self-administered audio files

43 zed brain networks are the top predictors of hypnosis depth.

44 disease states that include reduced arousal, hypnosis, drug intoxication, delirium, and psychosis.

45 Isoflurane-induced hypnosis following injections of TTA-P2 was accompanied

46 om randomised trials supporting the value of hypnosis for cancer pain and nausea; relaxation therapy,

47 dure times were significantly shorter in the hypnosis group (61 min) than in the standard group (78 m

48 6 weeks was greater for participants in the hypnosis group (baseline score, 88.7 [61.3] vs 6-week sc

49 this randomized clinical trial, the clinical hypnosis group experienced significantly greater reducti

50 2.8, 5.5; P < 0.001); 67.7% of adults in the hypnosis group had normalized their disinhibition (compa

51 sion and were included in the main analysis (hypnosis group, n = 41; control group, n = 39).

52 In the hypnosis group, subjects had 8 sessions of hypnosis comb

53 justed for baseline values were lower in the hypnosis group, with a mean between-group difference of

54 /15 min; p=0.0425), but remained flat in the hypnosis group.

55 0.001), and its 2 subscales also favored the hypnosis group.

56 gnificantly higher than in the attention and hypnosis groups (0.8 and 0.9 units, respectively).

57 The control and hypnosis groups received the same standard nutrition edu

58 Hypnosis had more pronounced effects on pain and anxiety

59 Clinical hypnosis has been shown to be an effective and safe nonh

60 Hypnosis has been used clinically for hundreds of years

61 inical settings, the checkered reputation of hypnosis has dimmed its promise as a research instrument

62 derstanding of the neural correlates of deep hypnosis, highlighting potential targets for future rese

63 Hypnosis, imagery, support groups, acupuncture, and heal

64 vivo, potentiating baclofen-induced sedation/hypnosis in DBA mice when administered either intraperit

65 t TTA-P2 facilitated isoflurane induction of hypnosis in the Ca(V)3.3 KO mice more robustly than in t

66 These results were obtained only during hypnosis in the left hemisphere, whereas blood flow chan

67 widespread and successful therapeutic use of hypnosis in the treatment of many dissociative symptoms

68 ommand' during imagination of exercise under hypnosis, in order to uncouple central command from peri

69 ot flashes were randomly assigned to receive hypnosis intervention (five weekly sessions) or no treat

70 were observed for patients who received the hypnosis intervention (P < .005) in comparison to the no

71 dy was developed to evaluate the effect of a hypnosis intervention for hot flashes.

72 Hypnosis is a psychological intervention that is commonl

73 These findings support the claim that hypnosis is a psychological state with distinct neural c

74 Hypnosis is an underutilized tool despite evidence of ef

75 d, reciprocally, provide a means of studying hypnosis itself.

76 Here we show that inducing analgesia through hypnosis leads to decreased responses to both self and v

77 in assays of sedation (loss of movement) and hypnosis (loss-of-righting reflex), TASK knock-out mice

78 Hypnosis may be recommended to patients who experience p

79 ousness (NSCs) despite increased interest in hypnosis, meditation, and psychedelics.

80 acupuncture (n = 1), support groups (n = 2), hypnosis (n = 1), relaxation/imagery (n = 2), and herbal

81 d sedation (n = 79) or sedation with adjunct hypnosis (n = 82).

82 the impact of Ericksonian hypnosis and self-hypnosis on disinhibition of eating in adults with obesi

83 One hypnosis patient became haemodynamically unstable compar

84 pect to the following variables: cost of the hypnosis provider, cost of room time for interventional

85 tion and study, the neural mechanisms behind hypnosis remain elusive.

86 ough hypnosis was known to reduce room time, hypnosis remained more cost-effective even if it added a

87 ships between hypnotisability and individual hypnosis scale items.

88 with the vehicle showed faster induction of hypnosis than wild-type (WT) mice, while the percent iso

89 Hypnosis, therapeutic touch, massage therapy, distractin

90 mptoms and conditions (and the potential for hypnosis to induce dissociative symptomatology) also sup

91 Self-hypnosis training may also be of benefit, although it ap

92 Regarding self-hypnosis training, recent work suggests that hypnosis ca

93 therapy, operant behavioral therapy and self-hypnosis training.

94 nitive function and for sedation, as well as hypnosis (unconsciousness) which is induced by general a

95 Treatment with hypnosis using a CD provides an attractive treatment opt

96 Although hypnosis was known to reduce room time, hypnosis remaine

97 l-coerulean complex, anesthetic sedation and hypnosis was prolonged 20-fold, thus illustrating the po

98 f-righting reflex, a behavioral correlate of hypnosis, was strongly reduced in HCN1 knock-out mice.

99 ges in subjective experience achieved during hypnosis were reflected by changes in brain function sim

100 ncluding perineural analgesia), and sedation-hypnosis, which are all central to timely recovery using

101 compared with $300 for sedation with adjunct hypnosis, which resulted in a savings of $338 per case w

102 Use of adjunct hypnosis with sedation reduces cost during interventiona