by Donato Giuseppe Leo, PhD
The portrayal of hypnosis as a mysterious force capable of taking control over individuals’ free will has shaped public perception for centuries. Stage performances and media have reinforced this myth through sensationalized depictions and imaginative portrayals. However, contemporary research in neuroscience has begun to reframe hypnosis in a more grounded, scientific framework.[1] Rather than viewing it as a form of mind control, researchers increasingly see it as a window into how the brain constructs perceptual reality. In this article, I use predictive processing[2] as a framework for interpreting hypnosis and related phenomena.
At the core of this perspective is the idea that the brain is not a passive receiver of the world, but an active predictor of it.[2,3] Perception is not simply about detecting reality, but about interpreting it.[3] This interpretation is shaped by cognitive processes such as expectations, prior experiences, environmental context, and sociocultural influences.[4] Within this framework, hypnosis can be understood as a tool that operates in specific social and cultural contexts to reshape subjective experience.
The brain as a predictive machine
The brain does not passively reflect the external world as it is. Instead, it continuously generates predictions about incoming sensory information.[2] These top-down processes (such as attention and expectation) interact with bottom-up sensory signals.
The brain constantly balances its predictions with incoming data, updating its internal model when discrepancies arise.[2,3] What we experience, then, is not a direct reflection of the world, but the brain’s best guess about what is out there.[3,5]
During hypnosis, attention is often narrowly focused on specific stimuli, such as the hypnotist’s voice or a visual target.[6] This focused attention reduces distraction from competing inputs, making suggestible individuals more responsive to suggestion.[1] In this context, the brain’s predictive system may become more flexible, potentially involving altered precision weighting that shifts the balance between prior expectations and sensory evidence.[3,7] This helps explain why hypnotic suggestions and mental imagery can feel so vivid.[8] Suggested experiences can engage neural processes that overlap with those involved in perception, allowing hypnosis to reshape how sensory information is experienced and interpreted.[6,9]
Importantly, this process is not uniform across individuals. Hypnotic responsiveness varies, reflecting differences in attentional control, imaginative capacity, expectations, and openness to experience.[10,11]
It is also useful to situate the hypnotic state within a broader spectrum of absorption states, ranging from everyday absorption (such as being deeply immersed in a book), through guided relaxation and imagery, to more intense and highly suggestible experiences where internal representations become particularly vivid and compelling.
Attention, expectation, and control
A key mechanism in hypnosis is the modulation of attention.[6] Attention determines which signals the brain prioritizes, effectively adjusting the “precision” or importance assigned to certain inputs or predictions.[2,7] Hypnotic techniques guide attention toward specific internal or external cues while filtering out distractions, increasing the influence of suggestions on experience.[12]
In everyday life, we typically experience ourselves as the agents of our actions; a phenomenon known as the sense of agency.[13] Hypnosis appears to alter this experience in some individuals. Research suggests that hypnotic states can alter the sense of voluntary control, leading individuals to experience actions or perceptions as automatic or involuntary.[14]
By changing the degree to which high-order evaluative processes (e.g., reflective monitoring, error checking) constrain or endorse ongoing perceptual and action representations, hypnosis temporarily alters the balance between monitoring and control systems that usually operate in close integration.[2,6,15]
From a cognitive perspective, hypnosis can also be understood as a temporary reduction in coupling between executive monitoring systems and ongoing perceptual and action representations, leading to experiences that feel automatic or externally generated.[16]
Meaning, patterns, and “synchronicity”
The brain has a natural tendency to constantly detect structure and meaning in the world.[17,18] When our internal model is shaped by specific concerns, goals, or emotions, we become more likely to notice external events that appear to align with it.[19] These meaningful coincidences, which feel deeply connected despite lacking a causal link, are what Carl Jung described as “synchronicity.” In cognitive science, they are often interpreted as pattern detection and confirmation biases rather than evidence of non-causal connections.[18,19] In altered-state frameworks, this same increase in pattern salience may also reflect a temporary shift in how internally generated predictions are privileged over external causal structure.[20]
We also tend to experience our thoughts as if they could directly shape reality (a Freudian concept referred to as the “omnipotence of thoughts”)[21]. From a predictive processing perspective, this can be reframed: although thoughts do not influence the external world in a causal sense, they strongly shape what we perceive, notice, and interpret as meaningful.[2,3]
Pain, perception, and the power of suggestion
Within a predictive framework, pain is not merely a direct signal from the body, but a constructed experience based on both sensory input and prior expectations.[22] Prior expectations and past experiences influence whether a stimulus is perceived as painful and how intense that pain feels.
By altering expectations, hypnosis can modulate this process.[23] If the brain predicts reduced pain, this can be associated with reduced activity in networks involved in the affective and evaluative aspects of pain, including regions such as the insula and anterior cingulate cortex.[24]
The physical stimulus does not disappear, but its interpretation changes.
Hypnotic modulation of pain can also be viewed as an example of a state-dependent alteration of experience, in which the evaluative and affective components of perception become more dissociable from the sensory input with which they are typically integrated.[23]
Expectancy, culture, and authority
Hypnosis is shaped not only by cognitive processes, but also by sociocultural context.[14,25] Personal expectations, cultural beliefs, and perceived authority all influence how suggestions are received and experienced. Sociocultural factors may also shape cognitive processes involved in agency attribution and perceptual monitoring, influencing how experiences are integrated into a sense of self.[26]
People approach hypnosis with pre-existing beliefs about what will happen.[25] These beliefs, shaped by prior experience and cultural narratives, become part of the brain’s predictive model. For example, if someone expects that hypnosis will cause their arm to move involuntarily, that expectation can actively shape their experience.
Across cultures and historical periods, hypnotic phenomena have been interpreted in different ways.[27] Cultural narratives provide the framework through which these experiences are understood: whether as entertainment, therapeutic intervention, or even spiritual possession. These interpretations influence how open individuals are to hypnosis.
Authority also plays a significant role. When a hypnotist is perceived as knowledgeable or credible, their suggestions may carry greater weight, increasing their influence on the individual’s experience. Similarly, contextual factors such as setting and presentation shape how suggestions are interpreted and enacted.[6]
In this sense, hypnosis is not just an individual cognitive process, but a socially embedded one. The brain provides the predictive mechanisms, while culture provides meaning, expectation, and interpretation. Individual differences in attention, absorption, belief, and openness further contribute to variability in hypnotic responsiveness.[28]
Guided imagery and the structuring of experience
Through guided imagery, individuals are led to construct mental scenarios that often involve vivid sensory details and emotionally charged content, organized through a narrative progression.[29] This can be understood as a controlled form of top-down simulation, in which the brain generates internally consistent experiences in the absence of direct external input.[2,3] As a mentally constructed representation, guided imagery can recruit many of the same neural systems involved in actual perception, allowing imagined experiences to feel vivid, meaningful, and emotionally powerful.[30] By actively shaping the brain’s expectations, guided imagery can influence ongoing perception, emotion, and bodily states.
In altered states of consciousness such as hypnosis, imagery may shift processing toward internally generated representations, with reduced weighting of external sensory input and increased top-down influence on experience. The narrowing of attention and the progressive construction of the scenario reduce cognitive interference while supporting sustained engagement with a specific internal model.[27] This, in turn, allows expectations to build and enables internally generated content to be experienced as coherent and immersive. This process is not purely passive: the individual actively participates in shaping and sustaining the imagery, making it a collaborative interaction between suggestion and imagination. Guided imagery can then be seen as a deliberate way of training the brain’s predictive processing systems through structured internal experiences.
Language and self-suggestions matter
Repeated thoughts and internal narratives act as ongoing suggestions, shaping expectations over time.[31] The way we talk to ourselves feeds into the brain’s predictive model. Negative self-talk can be especially influential in this process, as a negative view of ourselves does not only reflect a state of mind but actively contributes to shaping it. Each repetition reinforces a predictive pattern, biasing attention toward confirming evidence that amplifies struggles and a sense of failure. This can increase the likelihood that the brain interprets ambiguous situations as potential threats.[32]
Reframing is not intended to promote unrealistic positivity, but rather to adjust predictions in a way that, while still acknowledging challenges, reduces anticipatory stress. This helps sustain internal patterns that influence not only how we feel, but also what we notice and what stands out as meaningful.
Rethinking reality
The brain’s predictions are constrained by the structure of the external world and continuously refined through feedback. Yet our experience of reality remains flexible, dynamic, and influenced by both internal and external factors.
Although it may seem counterintuitive, we do not experience the world exactly as it is. Instead, perception can be understood as a constructed experience shaped by the brain’s predictions but anchored in sensory input.
By altering attention, expectations, and context, hypnosis offers a unique tool for exploring the flexibility of perception. It also provides a way to investigate (and potentially reshape) the mental processes underlying beliefs, experiences, and behavior.
It is important to note, however, that predictive processing does not imply that reality is infinitely malleable. Pain cannot be eliminated through expectation alone, nor can deeply ingrained patterns be overridden instantly. Sensory input, physical constraints, and external conditions still play a critical role. What can be influenced, instead, is how strongly certain signals are weighted, how situations are interpreted, and how we respond to them.
This perspective is explored in greater depth in my new book “Waves of Consciousness – How the Mind Constructs Extraordinary Experiences”. The book expands on the idea of the mind as an active, predictive system, examining how perception, attention, memory, and expectation continuously shape what we experience as reality, and how we interpret experiences that feel out of the ordinary. It also looks at how practices such as hypnosis, meditation, and rituals can systematically modulate these processes, giving rise to altered states of consciousness that feel profound, vivid, or even transformative. Rather than framing these experiences as supernatural or dismissing them as anomalies, the book approaches them as meaningful variations of ordinary cognitive mechanisms, offering a framework that connects neuroscience, subjective experience, and cultural context.
Author's Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is provided for general information and for educational purposes only. Although the author has made every effort to ensure that the information here reported was correct at press time, the author assumes no responsibility for errors, inaccuracies, omissions, or any other inconsistencies herein and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause. The information here provided is not meant as a substitute for direct expert assistance. If expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
References
1 - Landry, M., Lifshitz, M. & Raz, A. Brain correlates of hypnosis: A systematic review and meta-analytic exploration. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 81, 75-98 (2017).
2 - Clark, A. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and brain sciences 36, 181-204 (2013).
3 - Hohwy, J. The predictive mind, Oxford University Press, (2013).
4 - Seth, A. K. Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self. Trends in cognitive sciences 17, 565-573 (2013).
5 - Knill, D. C. & Richards, W. Perception as Bayesian inference. (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
6 - Oakley, D. A. & Halligan, P. W. Hypnotic suggestion and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in cognitive sciences 13, 264-270 (2009).
7 - Feldman, H. & Friston, K. J. Attention, uncertainty, and free-energy. Frontiers in human neuroscience 4, 215 (2010).
8 - Pearson, J. The human imagination: the cognitive neuroscience of visual mental imagery. Nature reviews neuroscience 20, 624-634 (2019).
9 - Jensen, M. P. et al. Mechanisms of hypnosis: toward the development of a biopsychosocial model. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 63, 34-75 (2015).
10 - Braffman, W. & Kirsch, I. Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability: an empirical analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology 77, 578 (1999).
11 - Glisky, M. L. & Kihlstrom, J. F. Hypnotizability and facets of openness. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 41, 112-123 (1993).
12 - Lifshitz, M., Aubert Bonn, N., Fischer, A., Kashem, I. F. & Raz, A. Using suggestion to modulate automatic processes: from Stroop to McGurk and beyond. Cortex 49, 463-473 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.08.007
13 - Haggard, P. Sense of agency in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 18, 196-207 (2017).
14 - Lynn, S. J., Laurence, J.-R. & Kirsch, I. Hypnosis, suggestion, and suggestibility: An integrative model. American Journal of clinical hypnosis 57, 314-329 (2015).
15 - Haggard, P. Conscious intention and motor cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences 9, 290-295 (2005).
16 - Hilgard, E. R. Divided consciousness: Multiple controls in human thought and action. (1977).
17 - Liu, J. et al. Seeing Jesus in toast: neural and behavioral correlates of face pareidolia. Cortex 53, 60-77 (2014).
18 - Shermer, M. Patternicity: Finding meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Scientific American 299, 48 (2008).
19 - Nickerson, R. S. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2, 175-220 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
20 - Carhart-Harris, R. L. & Friston, K. J. REBUS and the anarchic brain: toward a unified model of the brain action of psychedelics. Pharmacological reviews 71, 316-344 (2019).
21 - Freud, S. Totem and taboo. (Routledge, 2012).
22 - Wiech, K. Deconstructing the sensation of pain: the influence of cognitive processes on pain perception. Science 354, 584-587 (2016).
23 - Jensen, M. P. & Patterson, D. R. Hypnotic approaches for chronic pain management: clinical implications of recent research findings. American psychologist 69, 167 (2014).
24 - Tracey, I. & Mantyh, P. W. The cerebral signature for pain perception and its modulation. Neuron 55, 377-391 (2007).
25 - Kirsch, I. Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. American psychologist 40, 1189 (1985).
26 - Wegner, D. M. The illusion of conscious will. (MIT press, 2017).
27 - Lifshitz, M., van Elk, M. & Luhrmann, T. M. Absorption and spiritual experience: A review of evidence and potential mechanisms. Conscious Cogn 73, 102760 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.05.008
28 - Tellegen, A. & Atkinson, G. Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (" absorption"), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of abnormal psychology 83, 268 (1974).
29 - Ji, J. L., Heyes, S. B., MacLeod, C. & Holmes, E. A. Emotional mental imagery as simulation of reality: Fear and beyond—A tribute to Peter Lang. Behavior Therapy 47, 702-719 (2016).
30 - Kosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G. & Thompson, W. L. Neural foundations of imagery. Nature reviews neuroscience 2, 635-642 (2001).
31 - Morin, A. Possible links between self-awareness and inner speech theoretical background, underlying mechanisms, and empirical evidence. Journal of Consciousness Studies 12, 115-134 (2005).
32 - Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D. Bad is stronger than good. Review of general psychology 5, 323-370 (2001).
About the Author
Donato Giuseppe Leo, PhD, is a researcher and expert in hypnosis, altered states of consciousness, and embodied experience. Donato is a Certified Hypnotist and a member of the International Hypnosis Association. His work explores consciousness, perception, and cultural practices, integrating perspectives from physiology, psychology, and cultural analysis. He is also a public speaker, presenting on topics related to consciousness, hypnosis, and extraordinary human experiences.
Donato is also the author of the book “Waves of Consciousness – How the Mind Constructs Extraordinary Experiences”. The book is available on Amazon: https://amzn.eu/d/0gFblrii
Insta: @d.g.leo
LinkedIN: @donato-giuseppe-leo
E-mail: leodonato.g@gmail.com
