What are the deepest states of hypnosis?

Summary of deepest states of hypnosis

  1. Somnambulism (Somnambulistic or Somnambulic State)

  • Description: Historically considered the deepest classical hypnotic state. Marked by extensive dissociation, automatic behavior, strong amnesia for portions of the session, and high responsiveness to complex suggestions (including posthypnotic suggestion). Patients may show analgesia, sensory alterations, or full procedural cooperation. Clinically associated with high hypnotizability scores.

  • Key points: High responsiveness, capacity for anesthesia and complex behaviors; often used in older clinical literature as the prototypical “deep” trance.

  • Reference: Spiegel and Spiegel (2004); Kihlstrom (2008).[1][2]

  1. Hypnotic Analgesia / Surgical Hypnosis (Deep Analgesic State)

  • Description: A functional state where suggestion produces robust analgesia and reduced pain-related responses; depth judged by degree of analgesia and reduced physiological reactivity. Used clinically for pain control (dental, surgical, labor). Not all definitions require global somnambulistic features—analgesia can occur in lighter states in highly hypnotizable individuals.

  • Key points: Depth defined by clinical effects (pain suppression), not only by subjective trance depth.

  • Reference: Montgomery et al. (2000 review on clinical hypnosis for surgery); Patterson & Jensen (2003).[3][4]

  1. Dissociative / Dissociation-Dominant States

  • Description: Deep hypnotic states often show marked dissociation—separation of normally integrated mental processes (memory, identity, motor control). This overlaps with somnambulism but is emphasized in theoretical models (e.g., Hilgard’s neodissociation).

  • Key points: Theoretical framing that deep hypnosis reflects a breakdown or functional splitting of executive control, producing automatic or compartmentalized responses to suggestion.

  • Reference: Hilgard (1977), Kirsch (1991).[5][6]

  1. Trance with Automaticity / Automatic Writing or Motor Phenomena

  • Description: Deep trance can involve automatic motor behaviors (ideomotor responses), catalepsy, or complex automatic actions without conscious volition. Often observed in high-susceptible subjects and in historical somnambulistic cases.

  • Reference: Spiegel & Spiegel (2004); Lynn & Rhue (1991).[1][7]

  1. EEG-Identified Deep Hypnosis Patterns (Neurophysiological correlates)

  • Description: Research identifies correlates of “deep” hypnotic states—changes in EEG spectral power (increased theta, altered alpha), altered connectivity in default-mode and executive networks, and reduced frontal midline activity associated with reduced monitoring. These are not single EEG signatures but patterns that correlate with deeper subjective trance and higher hypnotizability.

  • Key points: No universally agreed single “deep-hypnosis” EEG fingerprint; findings are correlational and variable across studies.

  • Reference: Crawford et al. (1993); Kallio et al. (2011); Crawford & Gruzelier (1992); Oakley & Halligan (2009).[8][9][10][11]

  1. Hypnotic Age Regression / Regression States

  • Description: Deep states sometimes facilitate vivid age-regression experiences (reliving earlier memories) and strong imaginal immersion. Clinically controversial because of risks for confabulation; depth is judged by vividness and involuntariness of relived experience.

  • Reference: Barber (1969); Gabbard & Twemlow (1984).[12][13]

Important qualifiers and modern perspectives

  • Hypnosis depth is multi-dimensional, not a single linear scale. Modern research treats hypnotizability (trait), state factors (e.g., induction method), and specific response domains (analgesia, amnesia, motor control) separately. Many experts argue for describing specific response capacities (e.g., “high hypnotic analgesia”) rather than a single “deep hypnosis” label.[6][11]

  • Somnambulism remains a useful historical/clinical category for highly responsive, dissociative hypnosis, but not all deep therapeutic effects require somnambulistic features.[1][3]

  • Neurophysiological work shows correlates but no exclusive biomarker; depth should be defined by behavioral and subjective criteria plus physiological measures when available.[9][10]

Selected references (key sources cited above)

  1. Spiegel D, Spiegel H. Trance and Treatment: Clinical Uses of Hypnosis. 2nd ed. American Psychiatric Press; 2004.

  2. Kihlstrom JF. The domain of hypnosis, revisited. In: Cardeña E, Lynn SJ, Krippner S, editors. The Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. American Psychological Association; 2008:17–48.

  3. Montgomery GH, Weltz CR, Seltz G, Bovbjerg DH. The effectiveness of adjunctive hypnosis with surgical patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2000;90(1):70–6.

  4. Patterson DR, Jensen MP. Hypnosis and clinical pain. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(4):495–521.

  5. Hilgard ER. Divided Consciousness: Multiple Controls in Human Thought and Action. Wiley; 1977.

  6. Kirsch I. Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. Am Psychol. 1985;40(11):1189–202. (See Kirsch’s work on cognitive models of hypnosis.)

  7. Lynn SJ, Rhue JW. Theories of Hypnosis: Current Models and Perspectives. Guilford Press; 1991.

  8. Crawford HJ, Beaulieu J, Beaulieu D, et al. EEG and autonomic correlates of the hypnotic state. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1993;41(3):251–69.

  9. Kallio S, Revonsuo A, Koivisto M, et al. Hypnosis and brain functions: an integrative review. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011;136(3):331–40.

  10. Crawford HJ, Gruzelier JH. EEG and ERP correlates of hypnosis: a review. Int J Psychophysiol. 1992;13(1):9–21.

  11. Oakley DA, Halligan PW. Hypnotic suggestion and cognitive neuroscience. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009;13(6):264–70.

  12. Barber TX. Hypnosis: A Scientific Approach. Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1969.

  13. Gabbard GO, Twemlow SW. Hypnotic regression: an empirical investigation. Am J Clin Hypn. 1984;26(3):170–9.


Was this article helpful?