Hypnotic Coupling
Hypnosis as a Distinct Dyadic State of Consciousness
Author’s Note: This article is different from the others here at The Hypnotherapist’s Internal Monologue. Hypnotic coupling is a theory. It still needs to be tested. It may or may not be correct, in whole or in part. As this article is not a formal academic paper, the list of references is non-exhaustive, but provides evidence to support the plausibility of what is proposed herein. Thoughtful debate and dialogue are encouraged.
Hypnosis has a big definition problem. Hypnosis, or hypnotism, is derived from Hypnos, the Greek god of sleep. Today, we know hypnosis is not sleep…but despite having shared language for hypnosis, there’s no consensus on meaning. Some definitions of hypnosis are spiritually informed, while others are so inclusive that it seems to have little that separates it from non-hypnotic influence.
Ultimately, though, most serious discussions around defining hypnosis today fall on one of two sides of the debate. The first, known as the state theory, defines hypnosis as a distinct state of consciousness. The problem is while we’ve been able to identify certain areas of the brain such as the anterior cingulate cortex where there are distinct changes during hypnosis, it’s hard to distinguish from being really relaxed. On top of that, we don’t even have consensus on how to define consciousness beyond human experience. This incompleteness brought rise to the non-state theory, which rightly pointed out the gaping holes in the state theory. It posits that hypnosis is a social phenomenon, rather than a state. The problem with the non-state theory is it seems the non-state theorists pointed out the short-comings in the state theory, declared victory, and clocked out for the day. Ultimately, I believe they’re both incomplete. However, the state theorists are slowly heading in the right direction.
Let’s start with what we do know (I know there are more technical discoveries in the brain’s magnetic fields and other regions and in response to specific suggestions, but for the purposes of this article, this list is not exhaustive):
There are notable changes in neurological activity in the anterior cingulate cortex during hypnosis
There are notable changes in neurological activity in the default mode network during hypnosis
There are notable changes in neurological activity in the executive control network during hypnosis
There are notable changes in neurological activity in the salience network during hypnosis
Overall beta band activity is decreased relative to waking baseline in hypnotic subjects.
Overall Theta and Delta band activity is increased relative to waking baseline in hypnotic subjects.
Gamma band activity in the midline frontal area may be decreased in hypnosis relative to waking baseline depending on hypnotic depth in hypnotic subjects.
These notable changes are not necessarily specific to hypnosis by themselves.
These changes are less pronounced in less hypnotizable subjects
The problem is that these findings often struggle to demonstrate specificity and reliability across the spectrum of hypnotizability to define the hypnotic state. I propose that rather than proof hypnosis is not a state of consciousness, these findings reveal a gaping hole in the research. Most research into the hypnotic state operates under the assumption that researching the hypnotic state only requires studying the subject — not the hypnotist. That means only the brain of the subject was actually studied in almost all of the literature to date. Before I get too harsh, it’s not unreasonable to start with the hypothesis that the hypnotic state is a monadic state of the subject and part of the reason the hypnotist’s brain has not been extensively simultaneously studied was a technological limitation that has only been overcome in recent years through a new method known as hyperscanning.
There is a well-known neurological phenomenon that occurs in most relational interactions known as neural synchronization. This is not telepathy, but if you’ve ever felt like you could finish your spouse’s sentences or felt like you were on the same wavelength as a friend or coworker in the moment, you may have experienced this. In fact, you may have literally been on the same wavelength. Through our body language, our tone, our choice of words, our emotional expression, even physical touch…we communicate information about ourselves and in these interactions, our brain waves can independently synchronize based on these sensory inputs we receive from interacting with one another. Apparently, if we are to believe the research, hypnosis is the one giant exception. To me, that sounds silly.
While the state theory and non-state theory both include relevant points, the former assumes it’s a monadic state of consciousness, while the latter assumes it’s a social phenomenon. I theorize that hypnosis is actually a dyadic state I refer to as hypnotic coupling (HC) — essentially a form of inter-brain neuro-oscillatory coupling. In hypnotic coupling, this means the hypnotist induces the hypnotic state by creating a specific synchronization-asynchronization profile in the areas of the brain mentioned earlier already implicated in the genesis of hypnosis. In theory, this is what the hypnotic induction ritual establishes.
Based on the theoretical model of hypnotic coupling and informed by the current literature, synchronization between hypnotist and subject is theorized to occur most prominently in theta and delta band waves in the areas of the brain previously mentioned. What is unique about hypnotic coupling, though, is that beta band activity may be simultaneously asynchronous in hypnosis, with the hypnotist maintaining higher beta band activity than the subject alongside synchronized theta and delta activity between hypnotist and subject. While the existence of gamma band frequency synchronization between hypnotist and subject is less clear, it cannot be ruled out at this point and there is evidence to suggest its downregulation may play a role in hypnotic depth in the subject.
Cumulatively, hypnotic coupling is defined as an emergent dyadic state characterized by beta wave asynchronicity (lower in subject than in hypnotist), combined with selective delta and theta neural synchronicity between hypnotist (real or implied) and subject — the neural conditions required to achieve hypnosis. Hypnotic coupling theorizes this neural signature is unique to the hypnotic state. The division of oscillatory roles in hypnotic coupling may in fact modulate precision-weighting of prediction errors, with the hypnotist providing high-confidence external signals and the subject down-regulating internally generated beta-mediated predictions.
Research has shown that beta activity also syncs in neural synchronization in normal social interaction and non-hypnotic influence, which would suggest the asynchronous beta activity is what makes the hypnotic state uniquely distinct from non-hypnotic influence such as persuasion and neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), as well as non-influential social interaction.
While hypnotic coupling thus far explains heterohypnosis (at least in theory), it can also explain self-hypnosis and hypnotic recordings. In hypnosis, there is a particular prosody and pacing common to what might be described as a hypnotic voice. Hypnotic prosody often includes a combination of a reduction in words per minute, vowel prolongation, restricted range of pitch with a descending directional bias, reduced intensity, and a regularized rhythm. This, via internal monologue or vocalized self-talk, is replicable in self-hypnosis. However, because one individual is playing both the hypnotist and subject roles simultaneously, it would stand to reason that a difference exists in beta band activity, more likely falling in between what is normally distributed between the hypnotist and subject in heterohypnosis. This means self-hypnosis may never match the effectiveness of heterohypnosis, as it requires the subject to guide himself or herself — limiting immersion in either role.
As for hypnotic recordings, there is no other hypnotist, but the hypnotist’s prosody as described earlier suffices as a phantom hypnotist embedded in the recording itself. While a pre-recorded hypnosis script is unlikely to produce the same attunement available in traditional heterohypnosis, it would stand to reason that a similar hypnotic coupling profile to heterohypnosis is achievable here, as the subject can immerse himself or herself fully in the subject role.
We can talk about theory all day, but if it’s not falsifiable, then it gets us no closer to understanding hypnosis than the state theory and non-state theory already have. The good news is that hypnotic coupling is falsifiable. While I have neither the funding, nor the equipment to be able to test it myself, it can be tested. Whether it’s fully on point, partially correct, or wholly incorrect remains to be seen.
Testing it would require simultaneous EEG using hyperscanning and video monitoring of both hypnotist and subject in real hypnotherapy sessions to look for neural synchronicity and asynchronicity across target brain regions and frequency bands. Once the specific frequency range profiles in hypnotic coupling are more specifically defined, the boundaries of the state need to be tested. If the subject’s beta activity is too high (stimulated either using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) or a cognitive task), the hypnotic state should break. If the hypnotist is prevented from maintaining sufficient beta activity to guide the client, the state should weaken — and with sufficient disruption, the state should break entirely. If theta/delta/gamma synchronicity is disrupted, the hypnotic state should weaken and if disrupted sufficiently, should break entirely. If all linguistic cues are matched, but hypnotic coupling is disrupted, NLP or other non-hypnotic influence should result —not hypnosis. While this is not a full research design, which would require large experimental and control groups and multiple trials, it does provide a starting point through which hypnotic coupling can be put to the test.
That being said, assuming this theory is correct, it could achieve the following:
Identify a unique neural signature of hypnotic influence distinct from persuasion, NLP, other forms of influence, and non-influential social interaction.
Explain why hypnosis feels different from other forms of influence, such as persuasion and NLP.
Explain the classical suggestion effect and other hypnotic phenomena.
Explain differences in hypnotizability (and potentially, how to increase hypnotizability).
Explain why inductions matter.
Explain the function of the hypnotist.
Demonstrate the hypnotic state as a falsifiable phenomenon.
Explain why heterohypnosis is often more effective than self-hypnosis.
There are still a couple of significant areas in hypnotic coupling theory that remain unclear or are otherwise poorly defined and require further exploration before testing. What hypnotic coupling looks like across frequency bands and brain regions is still not entirely clear, but it would stand to reason that the regions already likely implicated in hypnosis remain highly suspect in both hypnotist and subject. While it is clear, at least in theory, that the subject’s beta band activity is down-regulated in hypnotic coupling, it remains unclear whether the hypnotist’s beta band activity is upregulated, down-regulated to a lesser degree than the subject, or experiences no change from baseline.
Even if hypnotic coupling remains theoretical for the moment, it is at least as close as anything I have found to defining hypnosis. In fact, it has practical implications for the way I practice as a hypnotherapist today. There is much debate over whether a hypnotherapist should allow themselves to enter a hypnotic state while they are guiding a client. Hypnotic coupling renders the debate irrelevant, as the hypnotic state by definition includes both hypnotist and subject. This turns the hypnotist’s own subjective experience into an additional metric for monitoring the client during session. This is something I do in my own sessions with clients at Heartwork Hypnosis™ and it’s worked out well for me and my clients so far.
If you are an academic researcher and are interested in collaboration or further development of hypnotic coupling theory, please leave a comment. I do read them.
References
Aboutorabi, R. (2025, March 17). Analysis of neural similarity between hypnotizer and hypnotized individuals using autoencoders and PCA [Preprint]. Preprints.org. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202503.1117
Baghdadi, G., & Nasrabadi, A. M. (2012). EEG phase synchronization during hypnosis induction. Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology, 36(4), 222–229. https://doi.org/10.3109/03091902.2012.668262
Chen, J., Leong, Y. C., Honey, C. J., Yong, C. H., Norman, K. A., & Hasson, U. (2017). Shared memories reveal shared structure in neural activity across individuals. Nature Neuroscience, 20, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4450
De Felice, S., Hakim, U., Gunasekara, N., & Pinti, P. (2024). Having a chat and then watching a movie: How social interaction synchronises our brains during co-watching. Oxford Open Neuroscience, 3, Article kvae006. https://doi.org/10.1093/oons/kvae006
De Pascalis, V. (2024). Brain functional correlates of resting hypnosis and hypnotizability: A review. Brain Sciences, 14(2), Article 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14020115
Farahzadi, Y., & Kekecs, Z. (2021). Towards a multi-brain framework for hypnosis: A review of quantitative methods. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 63(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.2020.1865129
Farahzadi, Y., Alldredge, C., & Kekecs, Z. (2024). Gamma power and beta envelope correlation are potential neural predictors of deep hypnosis. Scientific Reports, 14, Article 6329. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56633-x
Gélébart, J., Fouré, A., Quentin, R., & Debarnot, U. (2026). Decoding hypnotic consciousness: Neural and experiential insights into induced and ideomotor suggestions. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2026(1), Article niag019. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niag019
Hasson, U., Ghazanfar, A. A., Galantucci, B., Garrod, S., & Keysers, C. (2012). Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007
Jensen, M. P. (2017). New directions in hypnosis research: Strategies for advancing the cognitive and clinical neuroscience of hypnosis. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2017(1), Article nix004. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/nix004
Nastase, S. A., Gazzola, V., Hasson, U., & Keysers, C. (2019). Measuring shared responses across subjects using intersubject correlation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 14(6), 667–685. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsz037
Silbert, L. J., Honey, C. J., Simony, E., Poeppel, D., & Hasson, U. (2014). Coupled neural systems underlie the production and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43), E4687–E4696. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323812111
Zhu, T., Zhang, X., Jin, L., et al. (2025). Positive resonance: Successful interpersonal emotion regulation facilitated relationship closeness by enhanced inter-brain synchronization. NeuroImage, 307, Article 121042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121042