General hypnosis and NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) discussion

[Like Ra]

That's interesting! Posthypnotic amnesia (PHA) works!

Recognition in Posthypnotic Amnesia, Revisited

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...22162/#R84

Abstract

Three experiments studied recognition during posthypnotic amnesia (PHA) employing confidence ratings rather than the traditional yes/no format. As the criterion for recognition was loosened, an increase in hits was accompanied by an increase in false alarms, especially to distractor items that were conceptually related to, or semantically associated with, targets. Nevertheless, hits exceeded false alarms at every level of confidence. In addition, amnesic subjects had difficulty identifying the particular list on which recognized items were presented for study or the correct order in which targets appeared on the study list. Taken together, these findings support the conclusion that successful recognition during PHA is more likely to be mediated by a priming-based feeling familiarity than conscious recollection.

Geneal Discussion

Taken together, these three experiments, employing continuous confidence ratings instead of the usual dichotomous yes/no judgments, confirm that subjects experiencing PHA can recognize items that they cannot recall. However, they also indicate that recognition does not abolish PHA entirely. Compared to nonamnesic controls, amnesic subjects were less confident both in their recognition of items memorized during hypnosis and in their rejection of similar items that had not been studied earlier. Employing strict and moderate criteria for recognition, amnesic subjects still failed to remember all the words they had learned. Even under the most liberal criterion, recognition fell short of perfect, as the further increase in hits was accompanied by a substantial increase in false alarms—especially to conceptually or associatively related lures. The amnesic subjects were not merely guessing, however, because hits exceeded false alarms even when the lures were members of the same natural category (Experiments 1 and 2) or close semantic associates (Experiment 3).

. . .