Neuroplasticity and Clinical
Hypnosis: Advancing Therapeutic Prospects in Neuropsychological Health and
Well-being
*Corresponding Author E-mail: menonsheila@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT:
KEYWORDS: Neuroplasticity, hypnosis non-pharmacological tool, clinical hypnosis psycho-neurological retrieval, the brain’s ability in formation of new neural connections, mental health conditions, and reinforcing long-term behavioural change.
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY:
The concept of neuroplasticity was first introduced by Polish neuroscientist Jerzy Konorski in the mid-20th century, marking a significant shift in our understanding of the brain's functional capacity. In his ground-breaking publication in 1948, Konorski challenged the longstanding belief that the adult brain was anatomically fixed, proposing instead that it retained the ability to reorganise itself through the formation of new neural connections across the lifespan.¹ Konorski proposed that this adaptive restructuring, was central to the brain’s potential to recover from injury, the ability to acquire new knowledge, and the ability to adapt or recover from psychological and neurological challenges. His work laid the conceptual foundation for contemporary neuroscience and opened new avenues for therapeutic innovation—most notably, non-pharmacological interventions such as clinical hypnotherapy, which align closely with the principles of experience-driven neural change.
Prior to this the widely held scientific belief was that the adult brain was largely immutable following early developmental stages. The prevailing view maintained that neuroplasticity—if present at all—was restricted to childhood. However, early pioneers such as Santiago Ramón y Cajal, often regarded as the father of modern neuroscience, challenged this notion by proposing that synaptic connections could be strengthened or weakened over time, depending on experience and learning.² His insights laid the conceptual groundwork for a more dynamic understanding of brain function. In the latter half of the 20th century, researchers such as Paul Bach-y-Rita provided empirical support for this evolving view. Through his work on sensory substitution devices, Bach-y-Rita demonstrated that the adult brain possesses the capacity to reorganise both structurally and functionally in response to environmental demands, thus offering compelling evidence for lifelong neuroplasticity (Bach-y-Rita & Kercel, 2003).³
NEUROPLASTICITY AND CLINICAL HYPNOTHERAPY:
The term clinical hypnosis or clinical hypnotherapy in this study describes the use of hypnosis in systematic clinical intervention. The techniques involve guiding individuals into a relaxed, trance-like state, during which time a therapist directs targeted suggestions to the subconscious mind to positively influence thoughts, emotions, and behaviours as revealed in the study by Sheila Menon (2024) 4
Clinical hypnotherapy applies the principles of neuroplasticity to facilitate adaptive modifications in neural architecture, supporting long-term cognitive and behavioural change. Hypnotherapy produces a trance-like state that improves focus and adaptability by employing precise instructions and visual imagery. Newer more adaptable brain pathways are reinforced while older neural pathways associated with harmful behaviors or mental states are diminished. According to Doidge (2007), the repetitive nature of hypnotherapeutic suggestions' encourages the formation of these new connections and helps them become more deeply embedded in the structure of the brain.5 According to studies, neuroplasticity allows the brain to gradually remodel itself by removing outdated, inactive neural pathways and forming new ones.
This flexibility suggests that the structure of the brain can be physically altered by a range of factors, including lived experiences, behavioural patterns, thoughts and ideas and even sustained cognitive processes. By keeping in mind and applying the principles of neuroplasticity therapeutic approaches such as clinical hypnotherapy can be utilised to foster lasting positive changes in neural connectivity and brain architecture.
REVOLUTIONISING THE THERAPEUTIC LANDSCAPE.
The concept of neuroplasticity has revolutionized the therapeutic landscape. Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience confirm that the brain retains plastic potential throughout the lifespan. This reflects the ability of the human brain to change and adapt throughout an individual’s lifetime.
Neuroplasticity, also termed neural plasticity or brain plasticity, is an innate activity of brain that enables new synaptic pathways and generates new neurons. This capacity underpins the brain’s ability to reorganize its structural and functional frameworks. In addition, patterns of neuronal activity and external stimuli influence the strength and efficiency of these synaptic connections, contributing to the brain’s ongoing adaptability and functional optimization.
Recent advancements in neuroimaging techniques, including real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and neurofeedback, have provided compelling evidence for the brain’s capacity to undergo neuroadaptive changes related to mood regulation and cognitive control. Studies by Deeley et al., 2016 and Gruzelier, 2012 studies have demonstrated measurable shifts in neural activity that reflets the brains responsiveness to therapeutic interventions.6 &7
Building on this foundation, author of the study Sheila Menon contributes clinically evidenced insights and perspective, suggesting that the principles of neuroplasticity have introduced transformative possibilities in the field of behavioural health, psychotherapy and neurological rehabilitation. Neuroplastic processes are increasingly recognised for their role in modulating emotional regulation, attentional control, memory reconsolidation and mindfulness-based outcomes.
Within this conceptual framework, clinical hypnosis emerges as a valuable therapeutic modality that not only leverages on neuroplastic mechanisms but actively promotes neuroadaptive processes. The hypnotherapeutic process often involves the intentional activation and reprocessing of emotionally salient memories, which through specific guided therapeutic strategies can be rendered transiently labile. This induced state of neural malleability (plasticity) presents a critical opportunity for re-encoding experiences and fostering the formation of new, adaptive synaptic connections. By engaging the brain's inherent capacity for structural and functional reorganisation, clinical hypnosis supports both psychological flexibility and emotional resilience, positioning it as a meaningful contributor to the evolving neuroplasticity landscape.
Moreover, clinical hypnosis is shown to enhance both neural adaptability and emotional stability, enabling individuals to develop and maintain psychological well-being through the strengthening of neuroplastic mechanisms.
This study by Sheila Menon presents a comprehensive literature-based investigation into the role of clinical hypnosis as a facilitator of neuroplastic processes, with specific focus on its therapeutic potential in both neurological and psychological domains. The review highlights the capacity of clinical hypnosis to support post-stroke rehabilitation, specifically by promoting the reorganisation of neural pathways and enhancing functional recovery. In addition, the study examines the clinical efficacy of hypnosis in the treatment of trauma-related disorders, anxiety disorders, and depression, where neural flexibility plays a central role in emotional regulation and cognitive restructuring.
Emphasis is placed on the synergistic potential of clinical hypnosis when integrated with evidence-based interventions such as Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR), Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), and mindfulness-based interventions. The convergence of these modalities is proposed to augment therapeutic efficacy by engaging multiple neuroplastic mechanisms simultaneously, thereby offering a comprehensive, multidimensional framework for psychological recovery and neurological rehabilitation.
This research article synthesizes contemporary findings with the authors' clinical expertise to develop an innovative and conceptually grounded framework for understanding the role of clinical hypnosis in facilitating neuroplastic adaptation. The study positions clinical hypnosis as more than a complementary or adjunctive intervention showing its potential as a therapeutic modality capable of modulating neural pathways across both mental health and rehabilitative treatment contexts. Drawing on a qualitative integrative review of 20 peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2024, the study examines the therapeutic potential of hypnosis as a neuroadaptive tool and proposes a model for its clinical application in supporting cognitive, emotional, and neurological recovery.
The results support the positioning of clinical hypnosis as a foundational neurotherapeutic modality within integrative health frameworks. This study further explores the convergence of clinical hypnosis with complementary interventions and evaluates their collective impact on contemporary therapeutic practice.
CLINICAL HYPNOSIS IN ADVANCING NEUROPLASTICITY:
Recent conceptual models propose that clinical hypnosis engages neural circuits associated with self-awareness, emotional regulation and executive cognitive control. Emerging evidence from neuroimaging studies have provided empirical support for these associations highlighting the neurobiological substrates underlying hypnotic processes. For example, studies conducted by, Hölzel et al., 2011 and a Tang et al., 2020 study utilising structural MRI and EEG neurofeedback, and neuroimaging methodologies, all reported significant neural adaptations following mindfulness-based interventions, particularly within brain regions associated with cognitive integration and emotional modulation. 8&9 The structural and functional changes observed in these studies offer a theoretical basis for drawing parallels with clinical hypnosis, particularly in relation to shared mechanisms such as attentional control, emotional processing and neuroplastic adaptation.
Investigations by Casiglia et al., 2021 and McGeown et al., 2015 reported increases in cortical thickness and enhanced functional connectivity in the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex — regions critically involved in the regulation of executive functioning and emotional processing - following mindfulness therapy.
The evidence from these EEG and fMRI studies 10,11 suggests that clinical hypnotherapy elicits neurophysiological changes comparable to those observed in mindfulness-based and cognitive interventions. Research conducted by Landry et al., 2017 and Jensen et al., 2021 identified increased activation in brain regions associated with suggestibility, sensory integration, and attentional control, indicating that hypnotherapeutic processes may engage overlapping neural mechanisms with other evidenced based therapies (notably mindfulness and cognitive-based therapies) 10-13 These findings reinforce the potential of clinical hypnosis as a neuroplastic intervention capable of modulating both structural and functional integrity of key cognitive affective networks.
The integration of clinical hypnosis with established evidence-based modalities such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) has expanded its therapeutic applicability across diverse clinical domains. This is evidenced in the field of psycho-oncology where research by Montgomery et al., 2017 and Schneider P, et al., has demonstrated the efficacy of combined approaches in enhancing emotional regulation, facilitating cognitive restructuring, and promoting psychological adaptation and recovery.14 -15 These interventions are associated with improved patient outcomes, notably through their capacity to modulate affective responses and strengthen the mental resilience required to cope with cancer-related stress and treatment demands.
The macroscopic neuroanatomical features associated with neuroplasticity and perceptual modulation particularly in the contexts of ageing and musical experience, have been identified as significant markers of musical aptitude. Recent advancements in developmental neuroscience support a neurodevelopmental model of the human auditory system that emphasises the dynamic interaction between innate biological predispositions (nature) and experience-driven plasticity (nurture). Within this integrative framework, the maturation of auditory processing structures is conceptualised not as a function of genetic or anatomical factors alone but as a process substantially influenced by environmental stimulation, including musical training. 15 As such, the auditory system exemplifies a bidirectional model of neurodevelopment with structural and functional adaptability arising from the continuous interplay between genetically guided maturation and learning-induced neuroplastic modifications.
Neuroplasticity is increasingly recognised as a core mechanism underpinning therapeutic change across a range of psychological and neurological interventions. Empirical studies examining Zen meditation and mindfulness-based practices have demonstrated sustained structural and functional brain changes, including increases in grey matter density and enhanced attentional control. These findings reported by Pagnoni and Cekic 200716 and Valentine and Sweet 1999,17 provide substantive evidence for the long-term neuroplastic benefits associated with sustained contemplative practice.
This conceptual framework, posits clinical hypnosis to facilitate bottom-up regulatory processes, primarily through the activation of limbic system structures, while mindfulness-based practices are associated with top-down modulation mediated by prefrontal executive networks. When integrated, these modalities engage complementary neural pathways, establishing a neurocognitive milieu that supports emotional resolution, cognitive restructuring, and behavioural adaptation. The simultaneous activation of these dual regulatory systems is theorised to create optimal conditions for neural reorganisation and therapeutic change. Clinical observations indicate that the combined application of hypnosis and mindfulness-based interventions is associated with enhanced therapeutic outcomes, including accelerated treatment progress, heightened client responsiveness, and more durable psychological improvements over time.
Contemporary neurocognitive models increasingly conceptualise hypnosis as a dynamic state engaging a bidirectional regulatory system, integrating both top-down and bottom-up neural processes. Top-down mechanisms, primarily mediated by the prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex, are implicated in the modulation of attention, attribution of meaning, and executive cognitive control. Conversely, bottom-up mechanisms facilitate access to somatic and emotional information originating from subcortical and primary sensory processing regions. This dual regulatory architecture enables the therapeutic reprocessing of emotionally salient material within a psychologically safe and modulated context.
Within this framework, hypnosis is positioned as a transitional cognitive-affective state in which top-down inhibitory processes are temporarily attenuated, permitting more direct engagement with bottom-up sensory and affective inputs. Such dual engagement promotes the restructuring of maladaptive emotional responses and supports neuroadaptive reorganisation. These theoretical propositions are substantiated by convergent findings from neuroimaging and electrophysiological studies18-19 which consistently demonstrate altered activation patterns across distributed brain networks associated with attentional regulation, suggestibility, and emotional modulation.
Furthermore, the modulation of these neural systems during hypnosis is consistent with established mechanisms of experience-dependent neuroplasticity, thereby reinforcing the conceptualisation of clinical hypnosis as a neurotherapeutic intervention capable of facilitating enduring changes in neural connectivity and functional integration.20 As such, hypnosis may not only serve as an effective psychological tool but also contribute substantively to brain-based recovery and behavioural transformation.
The convergence of empirical evidence positions hypnosis not merely as a method of psychological influence but, as proposed by Raz and Shapiro (2002), 21 as a neurologically grounded therapeutic modality capable of engaging biologically coherent pathways within the brain. Accordingly, hypnosis merits recognition as a neurotherapeutic process, offering measurable clinical benefits through its ability to activate and support brain-based mechanisms underlying healing, adaptation, and functional reorganisation.
Despite ongoing debate regarding its position within mainstream clinical practice, clinical hypnosis is increasingly supported by a growing body of empirical literature as an effective, non-pharmacological, and cost-efficient therapeutic modality. The evidence suggests that hypnotherapeutic interventions can yield significant clinical benefits across a broad spectrum of health conditions, including chronic pain, anxiety, mood disorders, sleep disturbances, and psychophysiological responses to medical and surgical procedures. Additionally, clinical hypnosis has demonstrated efficacy in the management of treatment-related side effects in oncology and functional gastrointestinal disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome as noted by Anbar and Slothower, 2006; McCann and Landes, 2010.22,23
As clinical research continues to expand, clinical hypnosis is being repositioned beyond its traditional role as an adjunctive technique, to a potentially integrative tool within the broader framework of behavioural and mind–body medicine.
CASE FOR CLINICAL HYPNOSIS:
Historically, hypnosis has been conceptualised as an altered state of consciousness, often characterised by a sleep-like appearance and typically induced by an external agent. Within this framework, hypnosis has been utilised to facilitate memory retrieval and to modify behavioural responses, particularly under conditions of heightened suggestibility, as discussed by Wagstaff, 2013.24
Emerging modern theoretical perspectives have broadened the traditional understanding of hypnosis by linking its therapeutic mechanisms to underlying neuroplastic processes. During the hypnotic state, previously encoded memories may become transiently malleable, permitting their reactivation, modification, and reconsolidation into more adaptive forms. This neurocognitive process facilitates the restructuring of neural pathways, thereby supporting enduring psychological change and enhancing emotional regulation.
Although the complete neurophysiological mechanisms underlying clinical hypnosis remain an area of ongoing inquiry, recent neuroimaging research provides compelling evidence that hypnotic suggestion is associated with the modulation of specific brain networks. Subjective alterations in cognition and perception during hypnosis have been correlated with changes in neural activity within regions implicated in executive functioning, emotional regulation, and sensorimotor integration, and associated with specific psychological function identified in literature studies by Demertzi et al.,2015; and Jensen et al. , 2017.25&26 Functional connectivity analyses have demonstrated that hypnosis can induce state-dependent reorganisation of large-scale brain networks, suggesting a dynamic shift in neural communication patterns, as reported by Jiang et al. (2017). 27
Beyond functional neural modifications, emerging evidence suggests that hypnosis may also exert effects at the epigenetic level. In a pioneering study, Cozzolino et al., 202128&29 identified alterations in gene expression patterns related to stress regulation following hypnotic intervention. These findings introduce the possibility that hypnosis may not only restructure psychological and neural processes but also modulate gene-environment interactions, thereby reinforcing its potential as a neurobiologically-integrated therapeutic modality.
Recent contributions by Alter (2020, 2025)30&31 builds on earlier theoretical frameworks by clarifying the central role of narrative structure and metaphor as therapeutic mechanisms within clinical hypnosis. Alter posits that these linguistic forms are not merely stylistic devices, but function as active neurocognitive tools that engage the brain’s emotional, cognitive, and social systems to promote neuroplastic adaptation.
In his most recent study, Once Upon a Time: Narrative Storytelling, Hypnosis, and the Brain, Alter emphasises that narrative storytelling within the hypnotic context facilitates the reconstruction of self-perception and the modification of entrenched behavioural patterns. Through the strategic use of metaphor and symbolic representation, narrative-based hypnosis is shown to stimulate both psychological transformation and physiological regulation, activating neurobiological pathways associated with memory reconsolidation, emotional regulation, and self-identity processing—each underpinned by mechanisms of experience-dependent neuroplasticity.
Recent exploratory research has expanded the current understanding of hypnosis by suggesting that its therapeutic effects may extend beyond functional neural alterations to encompass epigenetic modulation—the regulation of gene expression in response to psychological and environmental stimuli. Cozzolino et al. (2021) demonstrated that hypnotic interventions can influence the transcriptional activity of genes associated with stress adaptation and emotional resilience, thereby providing a biological mechanism through which language-driven therapies may exert enduring neuroplastic effects. Within this framework, the narrative strategies articulated by Alter not only activate higher-order neural networks but also function as conduits through which neural reorganisation and gene-environment interactions converge.
This emerging interdisciplinary field, referred to as psycho-epigenetics, supports the proposition that the influence of hypnosis extends beyond neural activity to include the regulation of gene expression regulation. According to the author Sheila Menon, clinical hypnosis can be increasingly conceptualised as a multidimensional neurotherapeutic modality, capable of inducing change through symbolic language, neural circuitry, and epigenetic plasticity, particularly in the management of pain, trauma, and affective dysregulation.
CONCLUSION:
Clinical hypnosis is increasingly recognised as a promising and integrative frontier in contemporary therapy, facilitating the application of neuroplastic principles to promote enduring recovery across medical, psychological, and behavioural health domains. By engaging neuroplastic mechanisms, modulating gene expression, facilitating emotional regulation, and supporting cognitive restructuring, clinical hypnosis offers a compelling, biologically informed approach to both clinical and rehabilitative care. Its cost-effectiveness, adaptability, and demonstrated impact on neural function further underscore its potential to transform models of psychological healing, neurorehabilitation, and behavioural health interventions.
Emerging empirical evidence and advancing neurobiological insights support the application of clinical hypnosis in the treatment of trauma-related disorders, chronic pain syndromes, and a spectrum of mental health conditions. This review advances structured frameworks for clinical hypnosis and emphasises the need for professional training, ethical practice, and empirical research, to position hypnosis as a substantive contributor to the evolving landscape of psychoneurological care.
Advancing this field holds the potential to position clinical hypnosis as a core component of evidence-based neurorehabilitation and mental health strategies, contributing to more personalised, effective, and biologically informed therapeutic models. Nevertheless, rigorous interdisciplinary research is essential to further delineate the specific neural, cognitive, and epigenetic mechanisms underpinning hypnotic interventions. Future investigations integrating neuroimaging, electrophysiological, and molecular methodologies are critical to establishing a comprehensive understanding of its therapeutic actions. With continued empirical validation and methodological innovation, clinical hypnosis holds the potential to become a cornerstone of personalised, biologically grounded therapeutic strategies in 21st century healthcare.
REFERENCES:
1. Kanjorski J. Conditioned Reflexes and Neuron Organization. CUP Archive; 1948.
2. y Cajal SR. The Structure and Conations of Neurons.1906.
3. Bach-y-Rita P, Kercel SW. Sensory substitution and the human–machine interface. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2003 Dec 1; 7(12): 541-6.
4. Sheila Menon, Vidya Bhagat. Integrating Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Clinical Hypnotherapy: Establishing EFET as a Credentialed Framework for Enhanced Clinical Outcomes in Anxiety Treatment. Research J. Pharmacy and Technology. 2025; 18(2): 935-943
5. Doidge N. The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science. Penguin. 2007 Mar 15.
6. Deeley, Q., et al. Enhancing cognitive behavioral therapy using hypnotic modulation of affective networks. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11, 580233.
7. Gruzelier, J.H.. EEG-neurofeedback addressing psychotherapeutic goals. Clinical Psychology Review. 2012; 32(4): 386–395.
8. Hölzel BK, et al. Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density. Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging. 2011 Jan 30; 191(1):36-43.
9. Tang YY, Hölzel BK, Posner MI. The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2015 Apr; 16(4): 213-25.
10. Casiglia, E., et al. Hypnosis and brain activity: The state of the art and future perspectives. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2021; 69(3): 289–308.
11. McCann BS, Landes SJ. Hypnosis in the treatment of depression: considerations in research design and methods. In. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2010 Mar 3; 58(2): 147-64.
12. Landry M, Lifshitz M, Raz A. Brain correlates of hypnosis: A systematic review and meta-analytic exploration. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2017 Oct 1; 81: 75-98.
13. Jensen MP, Adachi T, Tomé-Pires C, Lee J, Osman ZJ, Miró J. Mechanisms of hypnosis: toward the development of a biopsychosocial model. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2015 Jan 2; 63(1): 34-75.
14. Montgomery, G.H., et al. Hypnosis for symptom management in cancer care: A systematic review of controlled trials. Psycho-Oncology. 2017; 26(5): 593–607.
15. Schneider P, et al., Neuroanatomical disposition, natural development, and training-induced plasticity of the human auditory system from childhood to adulthood: A 12-year study in musicians and no musicians. Journal of Neuroscience. 2023 Sep 13; 43(37): 6430-46.
16. Pagnoni G, Cekic M. Age effects on gray matter volume and attentional performance in Zen meditation. Neurobiology of Aging. 2007 Oct 1; 28(10): 1623-7.
17. Valentine ER, Sweet PL. Meditation and attention: A comparison of the effects of concentrative and mindfulness meditation on sustained attention. Mental Health, Religion and Culture. 1999 May 1; 2(1): 59-70.
18. Oakley DA, Halligan PW. Hypnotic suggestion and cognitive neuroscience. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013; 17(10): 457–464.
19. Landry M, Lifshitz M, Raz A. Brain correlates of hypnosis: A systematic review and meta-analytic exploration. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017; 81: 75–98.
20. Jensen MP, Adachi T, Hakimian S. Brain oscillations, hypnosis, and hypnotizability. Am J Clin Hypn. 2015; 57(3): 230–253.
21. Raz A, Shapiro T. Hypnosis and neuroscience: a cross talk between clinical and cognitive research. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2002 Jan 1; 59(1): 85-90.
22. Anbar RD, Slothower MP. Hypnosis for treatment of insomnia in school-age children: a retrospective chart review. BMC Pediatrics. 2006 Dec; 6: 1-6.
23. McCann BS, Landes SJ. Hypnosis in the treatment of depression: considerations in research design and methods. Intl. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 2010 Mar 3; 58(2):147-64.
24. Wagstaff GF. Hypnosis and the law: Examining the use of hypnosis in criminal investigations. Psychol Crime Law. 2013; 19(6): 549–565.
25. Demertzi A, Antonopoulos G, Heine L, Voss HU, Crone JS, de Los Angeles C, Bahri MA, Di Perri C, Vanhaudenhuyse A, Charland-Verville V, Kronbichler M. Intrinsic functional connectivity differentiates minimally conscious from unresponsive patients. Brain. 2015 Sep 1; 138(9):2619-31.
26. Jensen MP, Jamieson GA, Lutz A, Mazzoni G, McGeown WJ, Santarcangelo EL, Demertzi A, De Pascalis V, Bányai ÉI, Rominger C, Vuilleumier P. New directions in hypnosis research: strategies for advancing the cognitive and clinical neuroscience of hypnosis. Neuroscience of Consciousness. 2017; 2017(1): nix004.
27. Jiang H, White MP, Grecians MD, Waelde LC, Spiegel D. Brain activity and functional connectivity associated with hypnosis. Cerebral Cortex. 2017 Aug 1; 27(8): 4083-93.
28. Cozzolino M, Gazzaroli D, Celia G, et al. Epigenetics, suggestibility and hypnosis: findings from an exploratory study. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2021; 69(1): 94–114.
29. Cozzolino M, Celia G. The psychosocial genomics paradigm of hypnosis and mind–body integrated psychotherapy: experimental evidence. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 2021 Dec 1; 64(2): 123-38.
30. Alter DS. Once upon a time: Narrative storytelling, hypnosis, and the brain. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis. 2025 Feb 2:1-8.
31. Alter DS. Hypnotic language and metaphor in therapeutic change: A biopsychosocial perspective. Am J Clin Hypn. 2020; 62(4): 352–366.