Hypnosis Enhances Executive Performance, Reduces Negative Memories Reactivity, Stress and Anxiety in Medical Students: A Network, Bayesian, Psychophysiological and Machine Learning Study

Hypnosis Enhances Executive Performance, Reduces Negative Memories Reactivity, Stress and Anxiety in Medical Students: A Network, Bayesian, Psychophysiological and Machine Learning Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Hypnosis Enhances Executive Performance, Reduces Negative Memories Reactivity, Stress and Anxiety in Medical Students: A Network, Bayesian, Psychophysiological and Machine Learning Study Luca Queirolo, Boscolo Annalisa, Cracco Tommaso, Moscardi Otello, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555017/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Stress and anxiety impair executive function and degrade performance, yet rapid and scalable interventions remain limited. This controlled study tested whether a single personalized hypnosis session could enhance stress regulation and cognitive performance during negative memory recall in medical students. Forty-nine final-year students were assigned to hypnosis or a breath-focused attention condition (control arm) ( ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT06778109). Executive function (Tower of London Revised),perceived stress and anxiety (VASs, VASa, PSS-10), were assessed before and after a repeated personal negative memory recall, while autonomic reactivity (heart rate, heart rate variability, electrodermal activity, skin conductance responses and percentage of time in sympathetic activation) before, during and after the repeated personal negative memory recall. Hypnosis yielded significantly greater improvements in executive functions (ANCOVA, p < 0.05, d = 0.62), reduced stress and anxiety, whereas stress increased in controls. Physiologically, hypnosis increased parasympathetic recovery (HRV), tonic sympathetic activity (EDA), while suppressing excessive phasic sympathetic surges (SCR/min) and reducing time spent in stress response. Bayesian analyses provided extreme evidence (Jeffreys’ scale) for psychophysiological effects. Network analysis identified electrodermal activity as a central hub linking stress responses and executive functions. A logistic model accurately classified group membership. In leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), the model retained strong performance (Accuracy = 90%, AUC = 0.91, Brier score = 0.0796). These findings are consistent with a hypnosis-related shift toward an adaptive challenge-like autonomic profile, suggesting improved cognitive resilience and flexibility in high-pressure contexts. Psychology Cognitive Neuroscience Executive function TOL hypnosis stress management HRV EDA medical students Machine Learning Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 INTRODUCTION Stress and anxiety are two related aspects of human beings that impact performance, executive functions, emotional well-being, and overall quality of life 1 – 4 . Medical doctors – especially those involved in invasive procedures, urgent and emergency care – often experience high levels of stress (probably due to an effort-reward imbalance), making them prone to anxiety, burnout, and impaired decision-making 5 – 8 . Given their detrimental effects on psychophysical health, an increasing interest has developed in techniques able to modulate stress, anxiety and cognitive functioning 9 , 10 . Medical students experience a progressive deterioration of mental health starting early in their training, and this condition frequently persists throughout medical school. Evidence indicates that this distress may contribute to substance abuse, relational problems, suicide risk, and even withdrawal from the profession 11 . One psychological study reported that students often feel guilty if they do not dedicate their limited free time to studying; consequently, they perceive little opportunity for leisure activities or a healthy lifestyle 12 . Overall, the excessive demands of medical education have been consistently reported as a threat to psychological well-being. Another underestimated aspect of stress literacy concerns the tendency of medical students and future physicians to underestimate their own needs. Many cite heavy academic workload and demanding internships as major barriers to self-care. In response, a program to address these issues has been proposed with improvements in sleep and stress levels being reported in a pilot study 13 . Stress literacy on medical doctor and related interventions are still in their infancy; however several interventions like the promising one above have been proposed. Mindfulness is one of the most frequently studied strategies. It has been shown to reduce perceived stress even when practiced over very brief periods 14 . However, long-term effects (≥ 1 month post-intervention) appeared inconsistent 15 , and a meta-analysis reported only small-to-moderate benefits 16 . Some studies documented reductions in burnout at 4-month follow-up 17 , and another systematic review found improvements in stress, psychological distress, perceived health and well-being; however, only perceived stress remained improved at follow-up 18 . A further meta-analysis focusing on medical students and junior doctors concluded that the effectiveness of mindfulness in this population remains inconclusive 19 . From a physiological perspective, heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback has gained increasing interest, with robust effects reported on anxiety, depression and anger 20 . In healthcare workers, pre–post studies 21 have shown reductions in stress and anxiety and increases in HRV, though no meta-analysis has yet focused specifically on medical doctors. Despite the heterogeneous nature of available studies, cognitive and behavioral interventions appear promising in reducing stress and burnout in physicians 22 There is also growing evidence for the impact of breathing techniques combined with cardiac biofeedback 23 .Evidence indicates that these approaches enhance performance in high-pressure simulated clinical scenarios, underscoring their relevance to executive functioning—an aspect that has received comparatively little attention. Indeed, most research focuses either on stress perception or emotional burden, without assessing cognitive performance. This is very important because feeling stressed is a part of the equation, where worse or better performance is the other one with potential negative effects on patient’s health. 24 – 28 For this reason, it is essential to investigate the interaction between psychological, physiological and performance-based outcomes using multimodal data and multimodal levels of analysis. Understanding not only how individuals feel, but also how they function under stress—and how they perceive changes in performance 29 —may offer a more comprehensive picture of intervention efficacy. Among the above-mentioned techniques, hypnosis has emerged as a promising intervention 30 – 34 . Hypnosis can facilitate changes in perception, cognition, and emotional states by altering the way to respond to stressors. Hypnosis modulates autonomic functions, including heart rate (HR), HRV, electrodermal activity (EDA), and skin conductance responses (SCR/min), which are valid indicators of stress level and emotional regulation. RMSSD( a time-domain heart rate variability (HRV) metric), primarily reflecting a marker of parasympathetic nervous system activity 35 , has been associated with greater resilience to stress and better cognitive flexibility, while EDA has gained attention as a valuable sympathetic index to investigate the flight or fight system and to predict perceived stress 36 . The effects of hypnosis on stress and cognitive performance have been explored in several studies, but their mechanisms are not fully understood yet 37 , 38 . Hypnosis may increase the parasympathetic activity and reduce the sympathetic response to stress, lowering physiological markers such as HR and blood pressure 39 , 40 . Additionally, hypnosis may enhance cognitive processing by improving focus, attention, and memory recall, possibly enhancing prefrontal cortex processes like working memory, flexibility which are negatively impacted by acute stress 41 – 45 . Therefore, its potential to enhance cognitive performance, reduce stress and modulate negative memories could be particularly beneficial for high-pressure professionals, who need optimal cognitive functioning and stress regulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of hypnosis in medical students, whose limited professional experience make them more prone to stress when managing adverse events. Based on these assumptions, our hypothesis is that hypnosis, when appropriately administered, may improve: i) cognitive performance, evaluated using the revised Tower of London (TOL-R; primary outcome); ii) reduce perceived stress and anxiety (secondary outcomes); and iii) modulate physiological parameters. More specifically we expected HR modulation, increased HRV, and a dissociation between tonic and phasic components of electrodermal activity (secondary outcome). (iv) Furthermore, we expected that physiological and subjective changes could accurately distinguish participants in the hypnosis (INT) and control groups (CTRL) using logistic regression and machine learning classification models. We therefore expect that leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), which provides a nearly unbiased estimate of generalization performance of logistic regression (and with a better generalization than k-fold cross validation on small samples 46 ), could support a physiological signature consistent with hypnosis. To check these potential benefits, our study enrolled medical students, and a stressful situation was simulated by recalling a previously discussed personal negative memory from their medical education training. Moreover, beyond classical statistics, the application of multimodal approaches (based on network analysis, Bayesian statistics and machine learning) could provide evidence to support our hypothesis, i.e., that hypnosis is an effective tool for executive function improvement and for stress and anxiety reduction in medical students, who face many and intense stressful situations. MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants This study was conducted in Italy. 49 healthy volunteers, 26 in the INT group – 14 (54%) males and 12 (46%) females (mean age 25 ± 2 years) – and 23 in the CTRL– 12 males (52%), 11 females (48%), mean age 25.6 ± 1.6 years – attending the last year of the Medical School at the University of Padua were prospectively enrolled between February 6 and October 1, 2025. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants enrolled in the present study have signed informed consent prior to participation. Subjects with cardiovascular diseases, psychiatric disorders, or any type of ongoing medication that could impact HR, sweating, or stress responses and prior experience with hypnosis were excluded. This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Department of General Psychology, University of Padua (reference n. 3274/2019 on 05 November 2019, Chairwoman Professor A. Falco), registered on ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT06778109)), and written in accordance with the ‘Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology’ reporting checklist (see SDC1 ). Measures Cognitive performance, stress and anxiety were assessed with the following tests: 1) the Revised Tower of London (TOL-R) a standardized test of planning, problem solving, inhibitory control, and visuospatial working memory allowing to evaluate the cognitive performance with its prefrontal and fronto-parietal components 47 – 50 . The test consists of two boards with pegs and several beads with different colors. One board shows the goal arrangement of beads, and the other board is given to the examinee with the beads in a different configuration. The participant must alter the second board to match the first. The test consists of 30 problems with increasing difficulty, and the maximum score is 30 points. 2) the Visual Analog Scale for Anxiety (VASa) 51 ; 3) the Visual Analog Scale for Stress to assess subjective stress levels 52 were assessed through a digital scale (0–10 cm); The Visual analogue scale questions are reported for clarity below: Please rate your current level of anxiety by marking a point on the line below. 0 = no anxiety — 10 = extreme anxiety Please rate your current level of stress by marking a point on the line below. 0 = no stress — 10 = extreme stress 4) The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) 53 , 54 Perceived stress over the previous month was assessed using the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10). The PSS-10 is a widely used self-report measure evaluating the extent to which individuals perceive their lives as unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = “never” to 4 = “very often”), with higher scores indicating greater perceived stress. The scale shows good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ranging from 0.78 to 0.91), satisfactory test–retest reliability, and well-established construct and convergent validity across populations. 5) HIP test (Hypnotic Induction Profile): All participants in the INT group underwent HIP after having completed all the experimental procedure. The HIP allows to check hypnotic ability in less than 10 minutes, making it the scale with the best cost-benefit ratio in the high pace of the medical-surgical context 55 . A 0–10 point Induction Score (IS) is obtained, where about 45–50% of individuals in the general population are classified as highly hypnotizable, 35–40% as medium hypnotizable and the remaining 15–20% as lows. The HIP has been validated 56 and significantly correlates with Stanford Scale 57 , 58 . 6) At the end of the experimental session, all participants were explicitly asked to report how they felt compared to baseline, choosing among three options: “better”, “same”, or “worse.” The following physiological parameters were also recorded using the eSense Galvanometer (Mindfield Biofeedback): i) EDA, an indicator of stress-related sympathetic activity, SCR/min, percent (%) of time spent in skin conductance responses, in order to record the changes of electrical conduction in response to sympatho-cholinergic, stress-induced sweat secretions 59 . After having visually inspected the raw data, artifacts were addressed by removing zero values and single-point deviations beyond ± 2 SD and tonic EDA was computed as the mean skin conductance level. The Skin Conductance contains two components: the tonic, “static level” and the phasic, “fluctuating reactions“, and these components are usually designated as Skin Conductance Responses (SCR). While the “level” is represented well in the average of the measured values, the eSense Skin Response also measures the amount of SCR per minute. From 6–9 SCR/min starts an animated state. From 10 or even from 16 SCR/min, a level of stress or even high stress can be assumed 60 . SCRs were identified through an automated stage. Baseline Monitoring (“Listening State”) – The system continuously monitored the skin conductance signal during a neutral resting state to establish a provisional baseline. Onset Detection – An SCR was triggered when either (a) a gradual rise in conductance persisted for ≥ 2 s, or (b) a sudden increase ≥ 0.5 µS occurred relative to the baseline. If the signal decreased by > 0.1 µS during this period, the detection was cancelled and baseline monitoring resumed. Event Confirmation and Quantification – Once onset was confirmed, the first value was defined as the base level and the fluctuation amplitude was tracked to peak. SCRs were counted globally and within 1-min windows to derive indices such as SCR/min. Recovery Phase – A SCR was considered complete when the signal declined by ≥ 50% of the peak amplitude relative to baseline. ii) HR and HRV. Heart rate (HR) and parasympathetic activity were recorded using the HRV Camera App on a smartphone, which provides non-invasive measurements by detecting changes in blood volume pulse through photoplethysmography (PPG) via the camera lens. Participants, under supervision, were instructed to place a finger on the camera lens while physiological signals were recorded. HR was expressed in beats per minute (bpm) and derived from the PPG signal using the HRV Camera App algorithms. Parasympathetic tone was estimated using the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) of inter-beat intervals, a time-domain HRVmetric primarily reflecting vagal modulation 35 , 61 . RMSSD was computed by calculating successive differences between consecutive normal-to-normal (NN) interbeat intervals (in milliseconds), squaring these differences, averaging them, and finally taking the square root of the mean 62 , 63 . The PPG method has been validated and shown to produce results comparable to traditional ECG-based measurements 64 , 65 , and the HRV Camera App PPG quality has been tested against a PPG sensor (Shimmer3 GSR+) yielding good accuracy, although not yet directly in comparison with ECG 66 . As PPG recordings are known to be susceptible to motion and pressure artifacts 67 , data were preprocessed by removing zero values and single-point deviations exceeding ± 2 SD, a commonly adopted threshold for identifying physiological recording noise. Procedure and rationale Figure 1 shows the design of the study. All participants in the INT group underwent HIP, PSS-10, VASa and VASs, TOL-R and measurement of physiological parameters (i.e., HR, HRV(RMSSD), EDA, SCR/min, %). Participants in the guided breathing CTRL group underwent the same tests as the INT group, apart from HIP (all participants in the INT group underwent HIP after having completed all the experimental procedure) and; hypnosis; was replaced by the guided-breathing attention procedure matched in duration and structure to the INT condition. All participants were seated and supervised during the cognitive and physiological assessment. Then, each participant was exposed to a stress induction for 2 minutes (i.e., recalling a memory from a past negative medical education or academic experience), followed by an 8-minute session of hypnosis (or 8 minutes of guided breathing in the CTRL group), during which participants relived a previously discussed pleasant experience, such as sunbathing at the beach or relaxing under trees (for additional information about the stress induction, CTRL and INT procedures, see Supplementary Materials, Appendix ). A few minutes later, a second stress induction was performed; the same negative memory was recalled once again for 2 minutes to check possible differences in stress-response after the intervention. After each step the physiological parameters were recorded, while TOL-R, VASa and VASs were retested at the end of the experimental session. The stress induction procedure was designed to prioritize the elicitation of a meaningful stress response at the individual level rather than strict standardization of the stressor itself. Psychological stress is inherently subjective and depends on individual appraisal 68 ; therefore, according to transactional models of stress and coping, individual differences in appraisal, personality, and available resources shape emotional and physiological responses, such that identical stressors may elicit markedly different responses across individuals, whereas different stimuli may result in comparable stress responses 69 .Furthermore neuroendocrine and autonomic responses to standardized social stressors vary as a function of individuals’ subjective appraisal of threat and perceived coping capacity 70 also to standardized stress laboratory stressors 71 . Accordingly, the procedure aimed to elicit functionally equivalent stress responses across individuals, with the subject’s physiological and subjective response constituting the outcome of interest. Statistical analysis and network analysis According to an a priori power analysis, a minimum sample size of 19 participants was estimated to be sufficient to detect a within-subject pre–post difference in executive function in the experimental (INT) group, assuming a statistical power of 0.80, an expected effect size of 0.60, and a significance level of α = 0.05. To account for potential dropouts or missing data, 26 participants were recruited for the INT group. Following the initial submission of the study, a control (CTRL) group was included to strengthen the causal interpretation of the findings by accounting for non specific effects such as repeated testing and time. The CTRL group comprised 23 participants. As the study was originally powered to detect within-subject effects in the INT group, no a priori power analysis was conducted for between-group comparisons or interaction effects, which were therefore considered exploratory. Continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), when normally distributed, or as the median when non-normally distributed. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality. Categorical data were summarized using absolute and relative frequencies. To compare paired data, the Paired t-test or Wilcoxon matched-pairs test was applied. To compare unpaired data, Unpaired t-test or Welch’s t-test depending on variance. Pearson’s or Spearman’s coefficient were calculated to evaluate associations between variables. Normality, normality of residuals and homoscedasticity of variance (Levene’s test or Bartlett’s test) were checked before fitting ANOVA models. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine any significant difference in terms of physiological data (i.e., EDA, HR, RMSSD etc, defined as dependent variable) across four different conditions (“baseline”, “stress induction”, “hypnosis,” “repeated stress induction”). For any violations of the parametric ANOVA assumptions, Friedman’s ANOVA was performed. Sphericity was evaluated with Mauchly’s test and corrected if necessary with Huynh-Feldt. Bonferroni correction was applied for post-hoc analysis. To assess difference between the INT and the CTRL group, we mitigated practice/learning effects and baseline imbalance, through ANCOVA with the post-intervention Tower of London (TOL-R) score as the dependent variable, group (hypnosis vs. guided-breathing) as the fixed factor, and baseline TOL-R (Pre) as a covariate: TOL-R Post ~ Group + TOL-R Pre. This approach increases precision and reduces bias by adjusting for individual starting levels. A Bayesian analysis was conducted to evaluate the relative evidence provided by the data for competing hypotheses concerning the observed effects on TOL-R performance, VAS-rated anxiety and stress, electrodermal activity (EDA), and other physiological parameters. The Bayes Factor (BF₁₀) was used to quantify the extent to which the observed data were more likely under the alternative hypothesis—postulating systematic changes associated with hypnosis in executive functioning, physiological responses, and subjective measures of stress, anxiety, and perceived wellbeing—than under the null hypothesis, which assumes that the observed effects are attributable to random variation. The strength of the evidence in favor of one hypothesis over the other was interpreted according to Jeffreys’ scale 72 . Specifically, BF₁₀ values between 1 and 3 were considered anecdotal evidence, values between 3 and 10 moderate evidence, values between 10 and 30 and between 30 and 100 strong and very strong evidence, respectively, and values greater than 100 were interpreted as extreme evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis Finally, a two-step dimensionality reduction approach was employed to identify a parsimonious set of variables maximizing explainable variance in performance while preserving informative inter-variable relationships, reducing redundancy. Specifically, in the first step, variables were retained if they exhibited at least five moderate-to-strong significant correlations (r ≥ 0.3) with other variables in the dataset (using the appropriate correlation coefficients based on data distribution). This ensures that the selected variables are meaningfully embedded within the overall structure. Then, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), measure of sampling adequacy, was applied to assess the suitability of the selected subset for multivariate analysis. Variables with individual measure of sampling adequacy for single variable (MSA) lower than 0.5 were excluded, overall all the selected variables must show at least an MSA>0.8. To construct the network, a stricter correlation threshold (r ≥ 0.4) was used to define edges in a weighted adjacency matrix serving as the basis for a spectral graph representation. Network topology was then evaluated using standard graph-theoretical metrics, including number of nodes and edges, average path length, network diameter, density, betweenness centrality, and closeness centrality. These measures were used to assess the integration and efficiency of information flow across physiological and cognitive domains. Machine Learning analysis A secondary aim of the study was to determine whether physiological and subjective changes could reliably distinguish participants in the INT group from those in the CTRL condition. Rather than adopting a purely data-driven variable selection strategy, we selected a parsimonious set of predictors based on theoretical and empirical considerations. Predictor selection was defined prior to model estimation, after data collection, but was not preregistered, as the inclusion of the control group and related analysis were not part of the original preregistered study design. Specifically, the model included ΔRMSSD (change in RMSSD between stress conditions), ΔSCR (change in skin conductance responses between stress conditions), ΔVAS stress (change in perceived stress), and post-intervention VAS stress scores. These variables were chosen because hypnosis has been shown to influence autonomic flexibility (HRV) 73 , phasic simpathetic activity 74 , and perceived stress, making them conceptually plausible discriminators of group membership. Predictor selection was defined prior to model estimation and was independent of model fit optimization, in order to limit model complexity and avoid redundancy among highly correlated predictors, which could inflate variance inflation factors and lead to unstable coefficient estimates given the moderate sample size. Accordingly, among subjective measures, VAS stress was selected as a more general index, whereas VAS anxiety was not included to prevent multicollinearity. Group membership was classified using logistic regression. To assess the robustness and generalizability of the classification at the individual level, leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) was applied. LOOCV was not intended to optimize classification accuracy, but rather to provide a conservative estimate of out-of-sample performance by evaluating how well the model classified previously unseen participants. In the LOOCV procedure, the model was iteratively trained on data from all participants except one, who served as the test instance. Each iteration was fully independent, with the model retrained on the remaining N–1 participants, ensuring that all predictions were strictly out-of-sample. Predicted probabilities from all iterations were aggregated to compute overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve (AUC), Brier score, and 95% confidence intervals. This approach maximizes data use under small-sample constraints while reducing optimistic bias and false-positive classification RESULTS TOL-R, VAS anxiety, VAS stress, PSS-10 At baseline, stress levels in the INT group were predominantly moderate (73%), with 15.4% reporting low stress and 11.5% high stress; baseline PSS-10 (INT=18.58± SD=6.159 vs CTRL=16.48± SD=4.3), VASs (INT=4.019± SD=2.385 vs CTRL=3.37± SD=2.664), VASa (INT=4.827± SD=2.782 vs CTRL=4.348 ± SD=2.424) and TOL-R (INT=19.9± SD=5.01 vs CTRL=18.96 ± SD=4.781) scores did not differ between groups at baseline evaluation. Following the intervention, the INT group showed a significant improvement in TOL-R (TOL-R: pre 19.9 ± SD=5.01 vs post 24.3 ± SD=3.58, p <0.001, Figure 2A ), accompanied by a marked reduction in subjective stress (VASs: 4.83 ± SD=2.78 vs 2.73 ± SD=2.20, p <0.001, BF₁₀=23,017, Figure 2B ) and anxiety (VASa: 4.02 ± SD=2.39 vs 2.31 ± SD=2.05, p <0.001, BF₁₀=35,952, Figure 2C), further data are reported on SDC 2 and SDC 4 in Supplementary Material ). The CTRL group also showed improved TOL-R scores (18.96 ± 5.27 vs 21.87 ± 5.16, p <0.001), but no reduction in anxiety and a significant increase in stress ( p <0.05). ANCOVA on post-intervention TOL-R, controlling for baseline performance, revealed a significant group effect favoring INT (F(1,46)=4.62, p <0.05, η²=0.038, Cohen’s d =0.62), with baseline TOL-R strongly predicting post-scores. Bayesian analyses of ΔVAS confirmed extreme evidence for stress (BF₁₀=52,360, d =1.67) and anxiety reduction (BF₁₀=700, d =0.75) in the INT group in comparison to the CTRL group HIP score ranges were 7±2.56, with all profiles (‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’) well represented, but the relationship between hypnotic ability and results was not significant (see SDC 3 ). 25 out of 26 participants reporting feeling better and one unchanged (χ²= 40.91, p < 0.001). Contrasting this result with group CTRL, 18 referred feeling worse and 5 no differences, but none feeling better (χ² =22.5, df=2, p<0.001). EDA, SCR and % of time in skin conductance response Figure 3A shows condition-dependent variability in EDA. In the INT group, Friedman’s repeated-measures ANOVA was significant (χ² = 22.3, df = 3, p < 0.001). Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests indicated lower EDA at rest and significant increases during hypnosis and the second stress induction (both p < 0.001 vs baseline), as well as differences between the first and second stress inductions (p < 0.001). Additional details are reported in SDC 2 . SCR/min and % time in skin conductance response also varied in the INT group ( Figure 3B–C ), with significant Friedman’s tests for SCR/min (χ² = 23.9, df = 3, p < 0.001) and % time in SCR (χ² = 24.0, df = 3, p < 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons showed that SCR/min increased from baseline and Stress-1 to hypnosis, then decreased from hypnosis to Stress-2, and further declined between Stress-1 and Stress-2 (all p < 0.001). In the CTRL group ( Figure 3A ), repeated-measures ANOVA on EDA revealed a condition effect (F=3.92, df=3, p=0.012), with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showing an increase from breathing to Stress-2 (p=0.013). No significant condition effects were observed for SCR/min or % time in SCR ( Figure 3B–C ). Between-group analyses showed significant condition-related differences in EDA (Friedman’s ANOVA: χ²=24.45, p<0.001). Welch’s t-tests indicated higher EDA in the INT group compared to CTRL during the intervention (t=2.09, df=44.74, p<0.05) and Stress-2 (p=0.02). For % time in SCR, Friedman’s ANOVA was significant (χ²=13.58, p<0.001), with a between-group difference at Stress-2, where CTRL showed a higher percentage of time in SCR than the INT group (p=0.04). Between-group SCR analyses indicated a decrease in the INT group at Stress-2 according to Tukey’s test, but not after Bonferroni correction. Bayesian and effect-size contrasts indicated that ΔEDA (intervention–baseline) strongly favored the INT group, reflecting increased tonic electrodermal activity (BF₁₀ = 40; t = −3.32, p < 0.001; d = 0.95), while ΔSCR (Stress-2–intervention) showed a decisive reduction in phasic sympathetic activity compared with CTRL (BF₁₀ = 473; t = 4.30, p < 0.001; d = 1.23) HR and RMSSD In the INT group, HR significantly decreased between the first and second stress inductions, (p = 0.007, Bonferroni-corrected; Figure 4A ). Similarly, RMSSD significantly varied across conditions (χ² = 14.1, df = 3, p = 0.0028), with a marked increase between the first and second stress induction (p < 0.001, Bonferroni-corrected; Figure 4B ). A repeated-measures ANOVA (after Mauchly’s test of sphericity, Huynh–Feldt correction and Bonferroni post-hoc adjustment) confirmed a main effect in the INT group of condition on HR (F = 4.9, df = 3, SS = 427, p < 0.01). Bayesian paired-sample comparisons further supported this finding, showing substantial evidence for HR reduction between the two stress phases (BF₁₀ = 11, error < 0.001), and extreme evidence (Jeffreys’ scale) for increased RMSSD (BF₁₀ = 100, error < 0.001). In contrast, the guided breathing CTRL group displayed on RMSSD an opposite physiological trend. Friedman’s ANOVA showed a decrease in RMSSD from baseline to the second stress induction (χ² = 8.97, df = 3, p = 0.03), confirmed by a post-hoc analysis (from 39.96 to 29.26 ms, p < 0.05, Bonferroni-corrected) see Figure 4B . Repeated-measures ANOVA on HR (F = 4.66, df = 3, p = 0.005) indicated an increase from rest to first stress administration (p < 0.05, Bonferroni corrected) and a decrease from 1 st to 2 nd stress induction (p<0.05, Bonferroni corrected). When both groups were analyzed together, a significant Condition × Group interaction emerged for RMSSD (F = 5.342, df = 3, p = 0.0016). Specifically, during the second stress induction, RMSSD remained higher in the INT group (M = 41.77 ms) compared to CTRL (M = 29.26 ms; t = 2.332, df = 47, p = 0.01; Mean Difference = −12.51 ms), while HR did not significantly differ between groups. Comparing the adaptive ΔRMSSD between groups across both stress inductions yielded extremely decisive evidence (Jeffreys’ scale) in favor of an increased RMSSD in the INT group difference (BF₁₀ = 792.9, error < 0.001). The frequentist test was consistent, t(47) = 5.85, p < 0.001, with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.28) Network physiology of performance. For network analysis in the INT group, nine variables met criteria of showing at least five moderate-to-strong correlations with other parameters and a KMO > 0.8 (overall KMO = 0.826), as shown in Figure 5 . After applying a 0.5 correlation threshold, the spectral matrix for network analysis was constructed, and a well-connected structure, based on 9 nodes and 33 edges, was found, forming a single connected component. Specifically, the network showed high efficiency, with an average path length of 1.31 and a diameter of 3. Moreover, the network displayed a moderate density, highlighting a robust association between physiological and cognitive performance. Three nodes (highlighted in red in the figure) showed high betweenness centrality: EDA during stress induction , HR during hypnosis , and SCR/min during stress induction . Specifically, these three parameters are bridges/hubs playing a critical mediating role. Closeness centrality of HR during hypnosis and % of time in skin conductance response during stress induction, suggested that these nodes are central in accessing the whole network quickly. Machine Learning A multivariable logistic regression model fitted on the full dataset showed extremely high apparent discrimination between the INT and CTRL groups (deviance = 12.15; AIC = 22.15; BIC = 31.61; McFadden’s R² = 0.82; omnibus likelihood-ratio test: χ² = 55.9, p < 0.001), with an apparent accuracy of 0.96 and AUC = 0.99 (confusion matrix: TN = 25, FP = 1, FN = 1, TP = 22; N = 49; see Supplementary Data and Code). Given the limited sample size, this performance was considered potentially optimistic. Therefore, cross-validated performance was evaluated to reduce overfitting and optimistic bias (Figure 6). Under leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), classification accuracy was 0.90, sensitivity 0.885, specificity 0.913, and AUC = 0.91 (confusion matrix: TN = 21, FP = 2, FN = 3, TP = 23; N = 49; ROC curve shown in Figure 6), indicating robust discrimination while accounting for overfitting. Changes in perceived stress (ΔVAS stress), post-intervention VAS stress, changes in heart rate variability (ΔRMSSD), and changes in skin conductance response (ΔSCR) emerged as strong discriminative predictors between the CTRL and INT groups (see Supplementary Data and Code). DISCUSSION Stress interventions are rarely evaluated across cognition, autonomic dynamics and subjective state within the same perturbation framework. The combined use, like in the present study, of frequentist statistics, Bayesian inference, network topology and predictive classification offered by Machine learning is exceptionally rare in existing stress-regulation research. Meta-analyses of established stress-regulation approaches — including mindfulness 75,76 , CBT 77 and HRV biofeedback 78 — typically report modest to large improvements (d ≈ 0.2–0.8). In contrast, in the present protocol we observed convergent modulation across cognition, autonomic regulation and perceived stress. Effect sizes were substantial across all domains: subjective outcomes (d = 0.67 for ΔVASa; d = 1.67 for ΔVASs), autonomic indices (d = 0.95 for ΔEDA; d = 1.23 for ΔSCR; d = 1.28 for ΔRMSSD), and cognitive performance (TOL-R, d = 0.62). Beyond statistical magnitude, the present study was specifically designed to test whether a single-session hypnotic protocol could enhancecognitive control, autonomic regulation and perceived stress during a stress induction. Our results suggest that a single hypnosis session in hypnosis-naïve medical students in their final years of training was associated with significant improvements in executive function, and with reductions in both subjective and physical indices of stress and anxiety. The analysis showed the relevance of RMSSD, HR, EDA, SCR and % of time spent in stress responses as core hubs for performance under stress induction and hypnosis. Bayesian statistics and robust network analysis highlighted EDA during stress induction as key biomarker connecting stress responses and cognitive performance, while ΔRMSSD, ΔSCR and ΔVAS stress as the most important features in discriminating possible biomarkers of the treatment. These findings align with the existing literature, which has consistently shown that high levels of stress and anxiety negatively impact executive functioning and mental well-being 1–4,6–8,79,80 . Chronic stress has been linked to cognitive impairment, emotional exhaustion, burnout and even suicidal ideation among physicians and trainees 2,5,7 , with interventions range from mindfulness to cognitive-behavioral therapy 9,10,80 . Within this context, hypnosis has emerged as a promising but understudied tool. Previous studies and meta-analyses have reported on the efficacy of hypnosis in reducing anxiety and stress 31–33,81 , and improving resilience and well-being among healthcare workers as well as autonomic nervous system equilibrium 37,73 . Physiological correlates of stress – such as HR, RMSSD, EDA, and SCR – are well-established markers of autonomic nervous system activity and emotional regulation 36,36,61,82–86 , but, to our knowledge, no studies have been published on their combined modulation by hypnosis. Executive Function Regarding Aim 1 , the intervention produced effects exceeding the a priori expectations. While the power analysis was based on an anticipated medium effect (Cohen’s d = 0.60), the observed effect reached d = 1.40 in the within INT group analysis. A Bayesian factor of 1.85 × 10⁵ provided decisive evidence according to Jeffreys’ interpretative scale .This improvement could be partially explained by a task repetition and a learning effect, therefore between group analysis was conducted. The effect size was medium to large (d=0.62), this confirms that learning effects contributed to improvement in both groups, but hypnosis accounted for an additional performance gain. Our TOL-R findings indicate improvements in planning and working memory, cognitive functions that are typically associated with rostrolateral and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity 47,50 . Although TOL-R performance can be considered a behavioral proxy of prefrontal executive engagement 47,48,50 , and hypnosis could modulate these areas 87,88 , we did not include neural measures in this study. Therefore, any interpretation that hypnosis directly impacts prefrontal circuitry in TOL-R should be regarded as hypothetical and tested in future neuroimaging studies. The increased executive performance in the absence of a negative predictive value for low hypnotizability in our study may be explained by the easy hypnotic task and its tailoring according to participant’s previous experience, probably doable by most people and able to improve individual executive functions within the limits of his/her hypnotic ability. This aligns with the increasing evidence that appropriate hypnotic suggestions may improve working-memory capacity even in patients with acquired brain injury regardless of hypnotizability 89 . In sum, our results (i) provide statistical evidence for a medium-to-large treatment effect on executive function, (ii) challenge the view that such effects depend solely on hypnotizability, and (iii) support the effectiveness of individualized hypnosis in enhancing executive function regardless of suggestibility. These findings could be translated into concrete applications in domains such as clinical decision fatigue 90 and mental stress management. Enhanced executive functioning through hypnosis [and all the related psychological and physiological changes see Discussion 2) and 3)] may directly mitigate cognitive fatigue, which is known to contribute to sub-optimal diagnostic performance 91 under time pressure 92 — an everyday challenge faced by medical professionals, irrespective of their hypnotizability. A critical gap in the current literature is that clinical Decision Fatigue is rarely addressed within a clear theoretical framework. In this regard, the physiological, psychological, and behavioral (executive function) data presented here may help improve it. In fact, they provide quantitative and qualitative evidence pointing toward the possibility of a unified model and suggest practical tools for coping with high-stress environments Anxiety, stress, wellbeing and Hypnotic profile Similar effects were observed for Aim 2 , i.e., the improvement of self-reported stress, anxiety (Bayes Factors > 20,000) and wellbeing – with 25 out of 26 participants reporting feeling better and one unchanged (χ²= 40.91, p < 0.001). Contrasting this result with group CTRL, 18 referred feeling worse (a fact paralleled by ΔVAS stress), 5 no differences, but none feeling better (χ² =22.5, df=2, p<0.001 compared to the assumption that feeling better, feeling worse and equal would have shared the same probability). Within-group analysis in the CTRL condition confirmed an increase in perceived stress levels; when VAS stress changes between groups (VAS post-VAS pre) were compared, an extreme ΔVAS post Bayesian analysis of more than 55,000 was found. In Bayesian terms, this corresponds to ~55,000:1 odds in favor of the intervention effect — a level of evidence rarely observed in psychophysiological studies. These results exceeded previous studies and confirm the promising effects of hypnosis in medical students’ wellbeing and stress modulation. In addition, we explored whether hypnotizability would modulate the observed effects. Unlike other studies emphasizing the relevance of hypnotic ability 87,93,94 , we unexpectedly found no correlation, contributing to the ongoing debate on hypnosis as trait or state. The lack of correlation with hypnotic ability depends on two main factors: a) the administered hypnotic session was personalized and included a very easy task, doable for most people; b) though high hypnotizable subjects may show better results, relevant effect may by be obtained by 85-90% of general population 94 , while other studies have questioned the relevance of hypnotic suggestibility in clinical contexts 95 .In this regard, a dynamic interaction between trait and state seems to be more reasonable 96,97 , where high hypnotizability is relevant for the most difficult hypnotic tasks, like analgesia or gag reflex control 96 . Accordingly, behavioral attempts to improve hynotizability have provided inconsistent results, while the neuromodulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC) by transcranial brain stimulation can transiently enhance hypnotizability by strengthening L-DLPFC–dACC (dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex) connectivity 98 . Overall, hypnotic responsiveness depends on several factors besides suggestibility, emphasizing the value of tailoring interventions according to subject’s experience and needs 38,97,99,100 . Our personalized hypnosis, using individually crafted suggestions rather than standard scripts, was an easy task, probably feasible for most people, aligning interventions with the individual's inner world. Although speculative, aligning hypnotic suggestions with the individual’s subjective inner experience may functionally resemble a transient modulation of prefrontal control processes, potentially analogous to L-DLPFC neuromodulation. Furthermore on a neuropsychological standpoint, it may reflect the dynamic interaction between central executive, salience, and default mode networks 101 . Further research should clarify the link between hypnotizability and outcome, since hypnotizability scales are based on the concept of suggestibility, a leitmotif in the history of hypnosis still remaining questionable over one century from its introduction 101,102 . and 4) Physiological Indicators, Network Connectivity and Machine Learning Regarding Aim 3 is concerned , hypnosis did not prevent physiological arousal but promoted more efficient resource mobilization. We observed increased tonic EDA, decreased SCR (phasic component of sympathetic activity), and reduced time in stress response states, particularly during the second stress induction, indicating an effective stress management. This pattern has previously been observed in studies reporting opposite shifts in EDA and SCR following hypnosis 74 . Comparing ΔSCR, ΔRMSSD, and ΔEDA between groups, a clear divergence in autonomic response patterns emerged between groups. Participants in the INT group showed a challenge-like pattern, characterized by increased sympathetic tonic activity, enhanced parasympathetic activation, and reduced sympathetic phasic responses. This combination suggests an adaptive mobilization of resources rather than a defensive reaction 103,104 . In contrast, the CTRL group exhibited a threat-like physiological profile, featured by: a) reduced parasympathetic between the stress inductions; b) increased tonic EDA from baseline breathing to the second stressor; c) no decrease in SCR and HR between the two stress phases. This autonomic pattern – together with increased VAS ratings of stress and decrease of perceived wellbeing – points toward a defensive, resource-conserving state rather than active coping. At first glance, the increase in tonic EDA observed in the INT group may appear counterintuitive, as hypnosis is often associated with relaxation. However, hypnosis does not necessarily suppress autonomic arousal; rather, it may reorganize autonomic dynamics toward a more efficient and adaptive pattern. In the present study, increased tonic EDA co-occurred with decreased phasic sympathetic activity (SCR), increased parasympathetic modulation (RMSSD), reduced subjective stress, and improved executive performance. One possible explanation is that hypnosis facilitated a more vivid, focused, and engaged processing of the recalled experience, thereby increasing tonic sympathetic activation while simultaneously reducing maladaptive stress reactivity. This pattern is consistent with a challenge-like physiological state, characterized by sustained resource mobilization and flexible autonomic regulation, rather than a defensive or threat-related response. Thus, increased EDA in this context likely reflects adaptive engagement rather than heightened distress. Our results suggest that SCR is crucial for initiating an adaptive physiological mobilization responses (as indicated by closeness centrality in the network and no change in the CTRL group), whereas EDA, the tonic component, is essential for sustaining the utilization of these resources over the long term (as reflected by improvements in TOL-R scores). The initial decrease in parasympathetic activity during the first stress induction in both groups aligns with prior findings linking negative emotions to reduced parasympathetic tone 105 , while higher parasympathetic activity correlates with lower rumination and anxiety, reflecting emotional regulation 106 and higher flexibility 82 . Elevated HR after stress indicates residual anxiety as well 85,86 . The HR decrease and RMSSD increase, alongside EDA and SCR modulation after hypnosis, aligns with biopsychosocial models of arousal regulation 103,104,107 . Furthermore, in the INT group, the significant negative correlation between ΔEDA and ΔTOL-R (r = –0.556, p = 0.03, df = 24) suggests that participants showing more controlled increases in EDA also exhibited the greatest cognitive improvements. This supports the notion that a better performance is driven by regulated resource mobilization rather than by arousal suppression, a fact in line with Bayesian models of energy allocation under cognitive load 108 . The network analysis confirmed EDA during negative memory recall as a central node linking stress responses and executive function. Closeness centrality highlighted HR during hypnosis and SCR post-hypnosis as key connectors in emotional and cognitive regulation. Although RMSSD was excluded due to overlap with HR, combined HR, RMSSD, and EDA changes indicate improved autonomic regulation post-intervention. The position of EDA as a central node highlights the sympathetic system’s role as a core mechanism in adaptive stress management, providing a novel, actionable target for stress intervention. Overall, the classification results in the logistic regression and LOOCV validation reinforce and extend the inferential findings. The classifier was not intended for baseline prediction but to test whether a compact psychophysiological signature of the intervention exists; the autonomic markers (↓SCR, ↑RMSSD) combined with subjective stress reduction (ΔVASs) provide convergent signals that reliably distinguish INT from CTRL with high accuracy and good probability calibration. Although exploratory, these results strengthen the plausibility of a specific hypnotic effect on stress-regulation mechanisms, support the development of more mature predictive and mechanistic models (e.g., SEM or dynamical approaches) to be tested in larger samples with independent validation and underline the relevance of investigate stress through a wide range of modalities 109 (avoiding simplistic interpretation). These findings align with stress physiology, indicating a shift from threat to challenge states 104 . Strong to extreme Bayesian factors for HR, RMSSD and EDA as well for Δ before and after hypnosis further support that hypnosis may help reframe situations as manageable challenges, possibly by enhancing neural efficiency. Limitations and Future Directions While promising, this study has some limitations. Neuroimaging (e.g., fMRI, EEG) could clarify neural mechanisms 110 , particularly the involvement of the PFC, underlying hypnosis-related changes in the relationship between executive function and autonomic regulation. Another limitation is the monocentric nature of the study which may restrict generalizability. Although causal models such as structural equation modeling could theoretically clarify directional pathways among physiological, cognitive, and subjective variables, the sample size of this study was not sufficient for SEM. Future studies with larger samples may test such models explicitly. Longitudinal designs are also needed to assess the durability of effects on cognition and well-being. Additionally, exploring different hypnotic protocols, including self-hypnosis, could further define its potential for enhancing executive function, stress reduction, and resilience, supporting its integration into medical education and stress management programs. The participants’ subjective choice of stressors during the recall of past negative medical education experiences, while representing a strength of the present study, should be complemented by standardized arousal and valence ratings in future research. In addition, the six-month temporal separation between the within-subject phase and the CTRL group assessment represents a potential time-related confound and should be considered when interpreting between-group comparisons. Finally, a further limitation concerns possible learning effects due to task repetition. Although this issue was mitigated using ANCOVA, future studies could further address it by increasing the interval between test and re-test assessments. Future studies should investigate the interaction between hypnotizability, motivation and task complexity. Furthermore, while focusing attention on an idea is an integral component of hypnosis, future studies should also include a control group exposed to positive memory recall without hypnosis to disentangle the specific effects of hypnotic induction from those of pleasant imagery. Given the magnitude of physiological and psychological outcomes, we strongly encourage integrating highly promising interventions 111–113 with hypnosis to enhance stress management in healthcare. It is very likely that hypnosis, together with other approaches such as biofeedback and meditation, may have synergistic effects, promoting improved well-being in both current and future medical doctors. Finally, a particularly interesting direction for future research would be to explore the impact that we observed on executive functions and emotional regulation in various contexts such as during examinations 29 , surgical procedures (where stress decreases performance 114 ), high-pressure situations, and across different stages of expertise acquisition. Conclusion In the clinical setting, increasingly dominated by concerns about burnout, cognitive fatigue, and emotional distress, this study offers a scientifically grounded, non-invasive, scalable, rapid and promising intervention. Our findings support that a single personalized hypnosis session can enhance executive function, resilience, largely reduce stress and anxiety, and improve emotional regulation in medical students naïve to hypnosis, regardless of hypnotizability in this sample. EDA emerged as a key biomarker linking stress regulation with cognitive performance, supporting hypnosis as a scalable intervention for stress management. Changes in RMSSD, SCR, VAS Stress are biomarkers of hypnosis regulation and classified participants with excellent categorization. These results encourage further studies to better understand neural mechanisms and long-term effects, paving the way for integrating hypnosis into medical education and resilience training. Declarations Author contributions: All authors directly accessed and verified the underlying data reported in the manuscript and take full responsibility for its submission and content. All have approved the final version for publication and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any questions related to its accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work: LQ, AB Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: LQ, AB, CT, MO, EF Graph,Machine learning and Bayesian analysis: LQ Drafting of the manuscript: LQ, AB, EF Critical revision for important intellectual content: LQ, AB, EF, GZ, ES, PN Data availability statement: Preprocessed datasets used for all statistical, network, and machine-learning analyses are available to ensure full computational reproducibility of the reported results. All materials are provided in a single compressed archive (ZIP), which includes: (i) preprocessed physiological and behavioral data underlying all analyses, (ii) analysis scripts for network analysis and machine-learning classification, and (iii) derived feature-level datasets used for the logistic regression and cross-validation procedures. Statistical analyses conducted in the jamovi environment (including Bayesian analyses with the jsq module and effect size estimation with pamlj) can be fully reproduced using the provided datasets and the analysis specifications described in the Methods section, while the part elaborated in Python has been added as script. Raw physiological recordings are not available; however, all results reported in the manuscript can be independently reproduced using the shared preprocessed data and materials. Competing interests: We declare no competing interests. Funding: 'Not applicable’ References Zhou AY et al (2020) Factors Associated With Burnout and Stress in Trainee Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 3:e2013761 Dutheil F et al (2019) Suicide among physicians and health-care workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14:e0226361 Boscolo A, Queirolo L, Navalesi P (2025) The impact of psychophysiological well being on executive functions among anaesthesia residents. Eur J Anaesthesiol 42:366–368 Queirolo L et al (2024) Psychophysiological wellbeing in a class of dental students attending dental school: anxiety, burnout, post work executive performance and a 24 hours physiological investigation during a working day. Front Psychol 15:1344970 Le Huu P, Bellagamba G, Bouhadfane M, Villa A, Lehucher M-P (2022) Meta-analysis of effort-reward imbalance prevalence among physicians. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 95:559–571 Quek TT-C et al (2019) The Global Prevalence of Anxiety Among Medical Students: A Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16 Lee RT, Seo B, Hladkyj S, Lovell BL, Schwartzmann L (2013) Correlates of physician burnout across regions and specialties: a meta-analysis. Hum Resour Health 11:48 Queirolo L, Bacci C, Roccon A, Zanette G, Mucignat C (2023) Anxiety in a regular day of work: A 24 hour psychophysiological investigation in young dentists with gender comparison. Front Psychol 14-2023 Regehr C, Glancy D, Pitts A, LeBlanc VR (2014) Interventions to reduce the consequences of stress in physicians: a review and meta-analysis. J Nerv Ment Dis 202:353–359 Kunzler AM et al (2020) Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD012527 Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Shanafelt TD (2005) Medical student distress: causes, consequences, and proposed solutions. Mayo Clin. Proc. 80, 1613–1622 Bergmann C, Muth T, Loerbroks A (2019) Medical students’ perceptions of stress due to academic studies and its interrelationships with other domains of life: a qualitative study. Med Educ Online 24:1603526 Métais A et al (2025) Addressing medical students’ health challenges: codesign and pilot testing of the Preventive Remediation for Optimal MEdical StudentS (PROMESS) program. BMC Med Educ 25:812 Ameli R et al (2020) Effect of a Brief Mindfulness-Based Program on Stress in Health Care Professionals at a US Biomedical Research Hospital: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 3:e2013424–e2013424 Ong NY et al (2024) Effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on the well-being of healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gen Psychiatry 37:e101115 Sperling EL, Hulett JM, Sherwin LB, Thompson S, Bettencourt BA (2023) The effect of mindfulness interventions on stress in medical students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 18:e0286387 Fendel JC, Aeschbach VM, Schmidt S, Göritz AS (2021) The impact of a tailored mindfulness-based program for resident physicians on distress and the quality of care: A randomised controlled trial. J Intern Med 290:1233–1248 da Silva CCG, Bolognani CV, Amorim FF, Imoto AM (2023) Effectiveness of training programs based on mindfulness in reducing psychological distress and promoting well-being in medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 12:79 Sekhar P, Tee QX, Ashraf G, Trinh D, Shachar J, Jiang A, Hewitt J, Green S, Turner T (2021) Mindfulness-based psychological interventions for improving mental well‐being in medical students and junior doctors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013740.pub2 Lehrer P et al (2021) Correction to: Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback Improves Emotional and Physical Health and Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 46:389–389 Castro Ribeiro T et al (2023) Assessing effectiveness of heart rate variability biofeedback to mitigate mental health symptoms: a pilot study. Front Physiol 14-2023 Clough BA et al (2017) Psychosocial interventions for managing occupational stress and burnout among medical doctors: a systematic review. Syst Rev 6:144 Schlatter ST et al (2022) Effects of relaxing breathing paired with cardiac biofeedback on performance and relaxation during critical simulated situations: a prospective randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ 22:422 Welp A, Meier LL, Manser T (2016) The interplay between teamwork, clinicians’ emotional exhaustion, and clinician-rated patient safety: a longitudinal study. Crit Care Lond Engl 20:110 Welp A, Meier LL, Manser T (2014) Emotional exhaustion and workload predict clinician-rated and objective patient safety. Front Psychol 5:1573 Halbesleben JRB, Rathert C (2008) Linking physician burnout and patient outcomes: exploring the dyadic relationship between physicians and patients. Health Care Manage Rev 33:29–39 Williams ES et al (2002) Physician, practice, and patient characteristics related to primary care physician physical and mental health: results from the Physician Worklife Study. Health Serv Res 37:121–143 Shanafelt TD et al (2010) Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg 251:995–1000 Schlatter S et al (2025) Effect of coping interventions on performance of medical students during objective structured clinical examination: A randomized controlled trial. Med Teach 47:1367–1376 Facco E (2020) Hypnosis for Resilience. OBM Integr Complement Med 05:032 O’Toole SK, Solomon SL, Bergdahl SA (2016) A Meta-Analysis of Hypnotherapeutic Techniques in the Treatment of PTSD Symptoms. J Trauma Stress 29:97–100 Leo DG, Keller SS, Proietti R (2024) Close your eyes and relax’: the role of hypnosis in reducing anxiety, and its implications for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Front Psychol 15:1411835 Valentine KE, Milling LS, Clark LJ, Moriarty CL (2019) THE EFFICACY OF HYPNOSIS AS A TREATMENT FOR ANXIETY: A META-ANALYSIS. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 67:336–363 Queirolo L, Facco E, Bacci C, Mucignat C, Zanette G (2024) Impairment of Hypnosis by Nocebo Response and Related Neurovegetative Changes: A Case Report in Oral Surgery. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 72:189–201 Thayer JF, Ahs F, Fredrikson M, Sollers JJ, Wager T (2012) D. A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:747–756 Rahma ON et al (2022) Electrodermal Activity for Measuring Cognitive and Emotional Stress Level. J Med Signals Sens 12:155–162 Fisch S et al (2020) Group hypnosis for stress reduction and improved stress coping: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Complement Med Ther 20:344 Parris BA (2017) The role of frontal executive functions in hypnosis and hypnotic suggestibility. Psychol Conscious Theory Res Pract 4:211–229 Kurnia SA, Kaloeti DVS, Yuniarti KW, Saputri NE Blood Pressure Control and Heart Rate: Effectiveness Brief Hypnotic Induction Methods on Adults. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Psychological Studies (ICPSYCHE (2020)) 24–29 (Atlantis Press, 2021). doi:) 24–29 (Atlantis Press, 2021). 10.2991/assehr.k.210423.004 Gay M-C (2007) Effectiveness of hypnosis in reducing mild essential hypertension: a one-year follow-up. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 55:67–83 Shields GS, Sazma MA, Yonelinas AP (2016) The effects of acute stress on core executive functions: A meta-analysis and comparison with cortisol. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 68:651–668 Girotti M et al (2018) Prefrontal cortex executive processes affected by stress in health and disease. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 85:161–179 Qin S, Hermans EJ, van Marle HJF, Luo J, Fernández G (2009) Acute psychological stress reduces working memory-related activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Biol Psychiatry 66:25–32 Plessow F, Fischer R, Kirschbaum C, Goschke T (2011) Inflexibly focused under stress: acute psychosocial stress increases shielding of action goals at the expense of reduced cognitive flexibility with increasing time lag to the stressor. J Cogn Neurosci 23:3218–3227 Arnsten AFT (2009) Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:410–422 Sánchez-Reolid R, de la López F, Sánchez-Reolid D, López MT (2022) & Fernández-Caballero, A. Machine Learning Techniques for Arousal Classification from Electrodermal Activity: A Systematic Review. Sensors 22 Newman SD, Carpenter PA, Varma S, Just MA (2003) Frontal and parietal participation in problem solving in the Tower of London: fMRI and computational modeling of planning and high-level perception. Neuropsychologia 41:1668–1682 Newman SD, Greco JA, Lee D (2009) An fMRI study of the Tower of London: a look at problem structure differences. Brain Res 1286:123–132 Shallice T (1982) Specific impairments of planning. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 298:199–209 Wagner G, Koch K, Reichenbach JR, Sauer H, Schlösser RG (2006) M. The special involvement of the rostrolateral prefrontal cortex in planning abilities: an event-related fMRI study with the Tower of London paradigm. Neuropsychologia 44:2337–2347 Facco E et al (2013) Validation of visual analogue scale for anxiety (VAS-A) in preanesthesia evaluation. Minerva Anestesiol 79:1389–1395 Lesage F-X, Berjot S, Deschamps F (2012) Clinical stress assessment using a visual analogue scale. Occup Med Oxf Engl 62:600–605 Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R (1983) A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 24:385–396 Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R (1994) Perceived stress scale. Perceived stress scale 10:1–2 Alexander JE, Stimpson KH, Kittle J, Spiegel D (2021) The Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) in Clinical Practice and Research. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 69:72–82 Stern DB, Spiegel H, Nee JC (1978) The Hypnotic Induction Profile: Normative observations, reliability and validity. Am J Clin Hypn 21:109–133 Frishholz EJ, Spiegel H, Tryon WW, Fisher S (1981) The relationship between the Hypnotic Induction Profile and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C: revisited. Am J Clin Hypn 24:98–105 Orne MT et al (1979) The relation between the Hypnotic Induction Profile and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, forms A and C. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 27:85–102 Shields SA, MacDowell KA, Fairchild SB, Campbell ML (1987) Is Mediation of Sweating Cholinergic, Adrenergic, or Both? A Comment on the Literature. Psychophysiology 24:312–319 Boucsein W (2012) Electrodermal Activity, 2nd Ed. xviii, 618 (Springer Science + Business Media, New York, NY, US. 10.1007/978-1-4614-1126-0 Beauchaine TP, Thayer JF (2015) Heart rate variability as a transdiagnostic biomarker of psychopathology. Int J Psychophysiol Off J Int Organ Psychophysiol 98:338–350 Ernst G (2017) Hidden Signals—The History and Methods of Heart Rate Variability. Front Public Health 5-2017 Kim H-G, Cheon E-J, Bai D-S, Lee YH, Koo B-H (2018) Stress and Heart Rate Variability: A Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature. Psychiatry Investig 15:235–245 Schuurmans AAT et al (2020) Validity of the Empatica E4 Wristband to Measure Heart Rate Variability (HRV) Parameters: a Comparison to Electrocardiography (ECG). J Med Syst 44:190 Tarniceriu A et al (2018) Detection of beat-to-beat intervals from wrist photoplethysmography in patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation after surgery. in. IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical & Health Informatics (BHI) 133–136 (2018). 10.1109/BHI.2018.8333387 Alali O & Noor Aimie-Salleh. Journal of Medical Device Technology, 3(1), 45–52. Validation of Short-Term and Ultra-Short-Term Heart Rate Variability Measurement Based on Photoplethysmogram Using Commercial Mobile Application Chen W et al (2015) Wavelet-based motion artifact removal for electrodermal activity. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. Annu. Int. Conf. 6223–6226 (2015) Folkman S, Stress (2013) Appraisal and Coping. in Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine (eds Gellman, M. D. & Turner, J. R.) 1913–1915Springer New York, New York, NY. 10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215 Folkman S, Moskowitz JT (2000) Positive affect and the other side of coping. Am Psychol 55:647–654 Blascovich J, Mendes WB (2010) Social psychophysiology and embodiment. Handbook of social psychology, vol 1, 5th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, US, pp 194–227. doi: 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001006 . Kudielka BM, Hellhammer DH, Wüst S (2009) Why do we respond so differently? Reviewing determinants of human salivary cortisol responses to challenge. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34:2–18 Jeffreys H (1961) Theory of Probability. Oxford University Press De Benedittis G (2024) Hypnotic Modulation of Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) Activity. Brain Sci 14 Queirolo L et al (2025) De-stress your physiological activation by compressing your imagination: a brief session of hypnosis decreases sympathetic stress response in moderately stressed dentists. Front Psychol 16-2025 Galante J et al (2018) A mindfulness-based intervention to increase resilience to stress in university students (the Mindful Student Study): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Lancet Public Health 3:e72–e81 Khoury B, Sharma M, Rush SE, Fournier C (2015) Mindfulness-based stress reduction for healthy individuals: A meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res 78:519–528 Bhattacharya S, Goicoechea C, Heshmati S, Carpenter J, Hofmann S (2022) Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety-Related Disorders: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Literature. Curr Psychiatry Rep 25 Goessl VC, Curtiss JE, Hofmann SG (2017) The effect of heart rate variability biofeedback training on stress and anxiety: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med 47:2578–2586 Grech M (2021) The Effect of the Educational Environment on the rate of Burnout among Postgraduate Medical Trainees - A Narrative Literature Review. J Med Educ Curric Dev 8:23821205211018700 Bennett-Weston A et al (2024) Interventions to promote medical student well-being: an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open 14:e082910 Fernandez A, Urwicz L, Vuilleumier P, Berna C (2022) Impact of hypnosis on psychophysiological measures: A scoping literature review. Am J Clin Hypn 64:36–52 Thayer JF, Lane RD (2000) A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. J Affect Disord 61:201–216 Klimek A, Mannheim I, Schouten G, Wouters EJM, Peeters MWH (2023) Wearables measuring electrodermal activity to assess perceived stress in care: a scoping review. Acta Neuropsychiatr 37:e19 Hickey BA et al (2021) Smart Devices and Wearable Technologies to Detect and Monitor Mental Health Conditions and Stress: A Systematic Review. Sensors 21 Verkuil B, Brosschot JF, Thayer JF (2014) Cardiac reactivity to and recovery from acute stress: temporal associations with implicit anxiety. Int J Psychophysiol Off J Int Organ Psychophysiol 92:85–91 Pieper S, Brosschot JF, van der Leeden R, Thayer JF (2010) Prolonged cardiac effects of momentary assessed stressful events and worry episodes. Psychosom Med 72:570–577 Landry M, Lifshitz M, Raz A (2017) Brain correlates of hypnosis: A systematic review and meta-analytic exploration. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 81:75–98 Oakley DA, Halligan PW (2013) Hypnotic suggestion: opportunities for cognitive neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14:565–576 Lindeløv JK, Overgaard R, Overgaard M (2017) Improving working memory performance in brain-injured patients using hypnotic suggestion. Brain J Neurol 140:1100–1106 Grignoli N et al (2025) Clinical decision fatigue: a systematic and scoping review with meta-synthesis. Fam Med Community Health 13 ALQahtani DA et al (2018) Factors underlying suboptimal diagnostic performance in physicians under time pressure. Med Educ 52:1288–1298 Groombridge CJ, Kim Y, Maini A, Smit DV, Fitzgerald MC (2019) Stress and decision-making in resuscitation: A systematic review. Resuscitation 144:115–122 Raz A, Shapiro T, Fan J, Posner M (2002) I. Hypnotic suggestion and the modulation of Stroop interference. Arch Gen Psychiatry 59:1155–1161 Thompson T et al (2019) The effectiveness of hypnosis for pain relief: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 controlled experimental trials. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 99:298–310 Montgomery GH, Schnur JB, David D (2011) The impact of hypnotic suggestibility in clinical care settings. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 59:294–309 Facco E (2024) On the Hard Process of Understanding Hypnosis: Epistemological Issues in the Debate Between State, Trait, and Hypofrontality Theories Facco. in The Routledge International Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis Facco , J. H. Linden, B. G. De, & L. I. Sugarman (Eds.) 22–38 Pintar J, Lynn SJ (2008) Hypnosis: A Brief History. xiv, 221. Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, US. 10.1002/9781444305296 Faerman A et al (2024) Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT): a preregistered randomized controlled trial. Nat Ment Health 2:96–103 Woody EZ, Barnier AJ (2008) Hypnosis scales for the twenty-first century: What do we need and how should we use them? The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: Theory, research, and practice. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, US, pp 255–280 Facco E et al (2017) Psychological Features of Hypnotizability: A First Step Towards Its Empirical Definition. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 65:98–119 Facco E et al (2019) Dissociative identity as a continuum from healthy mind to psychiatric disorders: Epistemological and neurophenomenological implications approached through hypnosis. Med Hypotheses 130:109274 Facco E (2021) Hypnosis and Hypnotic ability between old beliefs and new evidences: An epistemological reflection. Am J Clin Hypn 64:20–35 Blascovich J, Tomaka J (1996) In: Zanna MP (ed) The Biopsychosocial Model of Arousal Regulation, vol 28. Academic, pp 1–51 Blascovich J (2008) Challenge, threat, and health. Handb Motiv Sci 481–493 Weber CS et al (2010) Low vagal tone is associated with impaired post stress recovery of cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune markers. Eur J Appl Physiol 109:201–211 Williams DP et al (2015) Resting heart rate variability predicts self-reported difficulties in emotion regulation: a focus on different facets of emotion regulation. Front Psychol 6:261 Queirolo L et al (2024) Effects of forest bathing (Shinrin-yoku) in stressed people. Front Psychol 15:1458418 Friston K (2010) The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nat Rev Neurosci 11:127–138 Shors TJ (2004) Learning during stressful times. Learn Mem Cold Spring Harb N 11:137–144 Alchihabi A, Ekmekci O, Kivilcim BB, Newman SD (2021) Yarman Vural, F. T. Analyzing Complex Problem Solving by Dynamic Brain Networks. Front Neuroinformatics 15:670052 Métais A et al (2025) Determining the influence of an intervention of stress management on medical students’ levels of psychophysiological stress: the protocol of the PROMESS-Stress clinical trial. BMC Med Educ 25:225 Fazia T et al (2023) Improving stress management, anxiety, and mental well-being in medical students through an online Mindfulness-Based Intervention: a randomized study. Sci Rep 13:8214 Nguyen T et al (2023) Transforming stress program on medical students’ stress mindset and coping strategies: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Med Educ 23:587 Tam A et al (2025) The effects of stress on surgical performance: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 39:77–98 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files Supplementarymaterialsandcode.zip BFtreatmentprobabilityeffect.py LOOCVscript.py mat.xlsx Networkphysiologyscript.m SupplementaryDataDictionary.docx Supplementarydatapreprocessed.xlsx validationbinomialregression.txt Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8555017","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":571705710,"identity":"956e574d-f53e-4aeb-b255-611dd4425262","order_by":0,"name":"Luca Queirolo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Luca","middleName":"","lastName":"Queirolo","suffix":""},{"id":571705711,"identity":"fc9b3535-d524-4ee8-bf57-a6571f76a4cf","order_by":1,"name":"Boscolo Annalisa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Boscolo","middleName":"","lastName":"Annalisa","suffix":""},{"id":571705712,"identity":"6f586190-41cf-42cc-9f54-3b4c04586e10","order_by":2,"name":"Cracco Tommaso","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cracco","middleName":"","lastName":"Tommaso","suffix":""},{"id":571705713,"identity":"9bc0c7fd-3b60-476b-82a9-de634fef39fd","order_by":3,"name":"Moscardi Otello","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Moscardi","middleName":"","lastName":"Otello","suffix":""},{"id":571705714,"identity":"0e48d27d-22dd-4411-a389-8c759301be8e","order_by":4,"name":"Facco Enrico","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Facco","middleName":"","lastName":"Enrico","suffix":""},{"id":571705715,"identity":"93d174e2-2dee-452f-8c44-09a652a6f71c","order_by":5,"name":"Zanette Gastone","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zanette","middleName":"","lastName":"Gastone","suffix":""},{"id":571705716,"identity":"197b16ca-cfeb-4394-9266-e6ca178950a8","order_by":6,"name":"Stellini Edoardo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stellini","middleName":"","lastName":"Edoardo","suffix":""},{"id":571705717,"identity":"54a8f1b3-57dd-452a-b840-76c671d5b0d3","order_by":7,"name":"Navalesi Paolo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Navalesi","middleName":"","lastName":"Paolo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-08 20:59:08","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555017/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555017/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100013372,"identity":"fd037055-12d5-4415-a998-9d1d6420cf1a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":821104,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ManuscriptSN.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/0468ffadc441764a545d916e.docx"},{"id":100013353,"identity":"463c3003-9d9c-4091-930f-3d796184d689","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8555017.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/6315e0b8c04e00822aacb470.json"},{"id":100013363,"identity":"db5dd860-2bf0-4276-aff7-2e83dd00f644","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":217476,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs85550170enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/1dfc2b7b42a80b899b0db671.xml"},{"id":100013367,"identity":"cbb13956-2fbc-4a56-9cd1-b31919c91d75","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":51048,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/8a57cb474cb8a931e0cc0a94.png"},{"id":100361825,"identity":"62e58a67-6dfa-4787-bc0d-a68dae644bce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:45:47","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17495,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/0f516cd98bee7340fc617e2d.png"},{"id":100361977,"identity":"7c6ebc13-4e9f-40db-9152-9a3c4ebc300a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:45:59","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":152477,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/2076db8a5d37d4fe66a7167f.png"},{"id":100013374,"identity":"6baea65a-aa01-4d7c-bb39-6d97c19617c3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":68729,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/4e0094aaedeba36ee66eac98.png"},{"id":100013373,"identity":"dbc31eba-26e9-486d-8de9-801e33b510d7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":27703,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/62dabe59b57f4095409a5899.png"},{"id":100013370,"identity":"64bd9340-e024-481f-a084-6dcc94111d56","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":84866,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/c46107083b544e919a3f8ded.png"},{"id":100013376,"identity":"b4f67250-25da-4c68-9284-2cf87cdb6ab5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:54","extension":"xml","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":213990,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs85550170structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/e4c1ace5b8d95f681114c75f.xml"},{"id":100362316,"identity":"8027c991-cb9c-4c3c-8676-f0fbb2ac04a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:46:33","extension":"html","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":233143,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/b783ffd7e71773ccca258dd6.html"},{"id":100362290,"identity":"f903fb27-ec2a-40d7-8aa9-bcc54215601c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:46:32","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":228133,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudy flow-chart. | BioRender\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAbbreviations: TOL-R, Tower of London-Revised; VASa, Visual Analog Scale for Anxiety; VAs, Visual Analog Scale for Stress; EDA, Electrodermal Activity; SCR, skin conductance response; min, minute; HR, Heart Rate; HRV(RMSSD), Heart Rate Variability; PSS-10, Perceived Stress Scale- 10 Item Version. Created in BioRender. Science Suite Inc. dba BioRender (\"BioRender\") has granted CC BY open access license permission to use this Completed Graphic in accordance with BioRender's Terms of Service and Academic License Terms (\"License Terms\").\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQueirolo, L. (2026)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/0cc941f3743178b898b460e6.png"},{"id":100013351,"identity":"7b6c7866-9e4a-4e04-a131-fd906f26acaf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":110956,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCognitive performance, stress and anxiety before and after hypnosis.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA. TOL-R POST Group Experimental vs Group Control; \u003cstrong\u003eB. \u003c/strong\u003eΔVAS for stress (VASs); \u003cstrong\u003eC. \u003c/strong\u003eΔVAS for \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;anxiety (VASa).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbbreviations: \u003c/em\u003eTOL-R,Tower of London-Revised; VASa, Visual Analog Scale for Anxiety;VASs, Visual Analog Scale for Stress, *: p-value \u0026lt; 0.05, **: p-value \u0026lt; 0.01, *** p-value \u0026lt; 0.001. \u0026nbsp;CTRL=control group, INT=Hypnosis group\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/1094b61cbad27c9d983d9e29.png"},{"id":100361735,"identity":"51ac4279-e3d3-4a23-9108-d885b0c6abd9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:45:40","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":530490,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhysiological parameters at different time-points.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA.\u003c/strong\u003e EDA; \u003cstrong\u003eB. \u003c/strong\u003eSCR/min;\u003cstrong\u003e C. \u003c/strong\u003e% of time spent in skin conductance response.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbbreviations:\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eμS \u003c/em\u003e, microsiemens;\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eEDA, Electrodermal Activity; SCR, skin conductance response; %, percent; min, minute. CTRL=control group, INT=Hypnosis group\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/b53f236783113f319e74de52.jpeg"},{"id":100361379,"identity":"80780e78-0559-4eba-913d-66d6b5cf4698","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:45:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":376141,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional physiological parameters at different time-points.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA. HR; \u003cstrong\u003eB. \u003c/strong\u003eRMSSD.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbbreviations: \u003c/em\u003eHR, Heart Rate; BPM (Beats per Minute), RMSSD, measure reflecting parasympathetic tone; ms, milliseconds. CTRL=control group, INT=Hypnosis group\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/2aaffa337bd7463fdde5036f.jpeg"},{"id":100013358,"identity":"fa873050-7f1f-403b-adaf-3a2edf0da629","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":111681,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNetwork physiology of performance.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNetwork analysis across four time-points: at baseline, during stress induction (recalling negative memory), during hypnosis, and during the second stress induction (recalling for the second time the same negative memory). The following variables were included: HR at baseline, during stress induction, during hypnosis and during the second (2) stress induction; SCR/min at baseline; percent: %SCR/min at baseline and during stress induction; EDA during stress induction; and ΔTOL-R, defined as the difference between TOL-R after hypnosis and before hypnosis. Specifically, three red nodes, which are ‘EDA during stress induction’, ‘%SCR/min during stress induction’ and ‘HR during hypnosis’, show high betweenness centrality. EDA at stress induction acts as a hub linking physiological activity to performance improvements (ΔTOL-R). The %SCR/min during stress induction and HR during hypnosis facilitate integration across different time-points, enabling efficient access to system-wide resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbbreviations: \u003c/em\u003eTOL-R, Tower of London-Revised; EDA, Electrodermal Activity; HR, Heart Rate; %SCR/min, percentage of skin conductance response per minute, SCR/min number of Skin Conductance Responses per minute.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/ec7d59814b6318a9d33e8e76.jpeg"},{"id":100361389,"identity":"3180b69b-f867-4152-a7a8-fbba94d5788f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:45:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":371631,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eROC Curve leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eROC curve for the logistic regression model evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nFor visualization purposes only, the extreme ends of the ROC curve were smoothed. The classifier achieved excellent discrimination between the INT and CTRL groups (AUC = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.79–1.00, p \u0026lt; 0.001; McFadden’s R² = 0.82). Visually, the ROC curve rises steeply toward the top-left corner, indicating high sensitivity with a low false-positive rate. The curve remains well above the diagonal line representing chance-level performance. The low Brier score (0.08) further indicates good calibration of the predicted probabilities.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/34b7a159fd451a8fa0f3fbfd.jpeg"},{"id":100381240,"identity":"2d39fe84-d2a0-49db-ab64-34284fbd3f44","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 10:37:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2735717,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/107eb8c9-ba67-45e5-8a93-6d8d7fbfe1bf.pdf"},{"id":100361477,"identity":"86401ecf-7d6d-4545-b2d9-736a8a39d60d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:45:13","extension":"zip","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":69818,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementarymaterialsandcode.zip","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/22dd6c9daa3358adcfb897cd.zip"},{"id":100361438,"identity":"b44984f6-0aba-415c-819d-4ff84195c657","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:45:09","extension":"py","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":551,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"BFtreatmentprobabilityeffect.py","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/0b5fe08d73949cbecaa71c15.py"},{"id":100013354,"identity":"ec43f362-bbf9-4516-9c71-643d04e4f9f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"py","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":5388,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"LOOCVscript.py","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/3190650152d1ffcb5f5b4b7d.py"},{"id":100013365,"identity":"0b4684f9-5c2f-40c3-b44e-cb2abf78406a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"xlsx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":8909,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"mat.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/40837b6743cf7a649f5b06c8.xlsx"},{"id":100013359,"identity":"c0f62661-9df4-44e7-a2d1-c33a4e4e0d83","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-12 06:19:53","extension":"m","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":2073,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Networkphysiologyscript.m","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/41545f97cf34637788751a9c.m"},{"id":100362203,"identity":"a06d4054-1740-4921-9cc7-9039cdf16ac8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:46:20","extension":"docx","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18353,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryDataDictionary.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/7c1eb83b9394830d0dacb4b2.docx"},{"id":100361448,"identity":"7eb5f4ed-6398-483a-a0fc-b46146d453f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:45:11","extension":"xlsx","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":72696,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementarydatapreprocessed.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/13d4afeb574313024869bad2.xlsx"},{"id":100362279,"identity":"a814d6de-0f39-4e21-a98a-95cd50791d58","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:46:29","extension":"txt","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":967,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"validationbinomialregression.txt","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555017/v1/b1a28ef180a118945a2e0bac.txt"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypnosis Enhances Executive Performance, Reduces Negative Memories Reactivity, Stress and Anxiety in Medical Students: A Network, Bayesian, Psychophysiological and Machine Learning Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eStress and anxiety are two related aspects of human beings that impact performance, executive functions, emotional well-being, and overall quality of life \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Medical doctors \u0026ndash; especially those involved in invasive procedures, urgent and emergency care \u0026ndash; often experience high levels of stress (probably due to an effort-reward imbalance), making them prone to anxiety, burnout, and impaired decision-making \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR6 CR7\" citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Given their detrimental effects on psychophysical health, an increasing interest has developed in techniques able to modulate stress, anxiety and cognitive functioning \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedical students experience a progressive deterioration of mental health starting early in their training, and this condition frequently persists throughout medical school. Evidence indicates that this distress may contribute to substance abuse, relational problems, suicide risk, and even withdrawal from the profession\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. One psychological study reported that students often feel guilty if they do not dedicate their limited free time to studying; consequently, they perceive little opportunity for leisure activities or a healthy lifestyle\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Overall, the excessive demands of medical education have been consistently reported as a threat to psychological well-being.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother underestimated aspect of stress literacy concerns the tendency of medical students and future physicians to underestimate their own needs. Many cite heavy academic workload and demanding internships as major barriers to self-care. In response, a program to address these issues has been proposed with improvements in sleep and stress levels being reported in a pilot study\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStress literacy on medical doctor and related interventions are still in their infancy; however several interventions like the promising one above have been proposed. Mindfulness is one of the most frequently studied strategies. It has been shown to reduce perceived stress even when practiced over very brief periods\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, long-term effects (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;1 month post-intervention) appeared inconsistent\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, and a meta-analysis reported only small-to-moderate benefits\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Some studies documented reductions in burnout at 4-month follow-up\u003csup\u003e17\u003c/sup\u003e, and another systematic review found improvements in stress, psychological distress, perceived health and well-being; however, only perceived stress remained improved at follow-up\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e. A further meta-analysis focusing on medical students and junior doctors concluded that the effectiveness of mindfulness in this population remains inconclusive\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a physiological perspective, heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback has gained increasing interest, with robust effects reported on anxiety, depression and anger\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In healthcare workers, pre\u0026ndash;post studies\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e have shown reductions in stress and anxiety and increases in HRV, though no meta-analysis has yet focused specifically on medical doctors. Despite the heterogeneous nature of available studies, cognitive and behavioral interventions appear promising in reducing stress and burnout in physicians\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere is also growing evidence for the impact of breathing techniques combined with cardiac biofeedback\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.Evidence indicates that these approaches enhance performance in high-pressure simulated clinical scenarios, underscoring their relevance to executive functioning\u0026mdash;an aspect that has received comparatively little attention. Indeed, most research focuses either on stress perception or emotional burden, without assessing cognitive performance. This is very important because feeling stressed is a part of the equation, where worse or better performance is the other one with potential negative effects on patient\u0026rsquo;s health.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR25 CR26 CR27\" citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e For this reason, it is essential to investigate the interaction between psychological, physiological and performance-based outcomes using multimodal data and multimodal levels of analysis. Understanding not only how individuals feel, but also how they function under stress\u0026mdash;and how they perceive changes in performance\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026mdash;may offer a more comprehensive picture of intervention efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong the above-mentioned techniques, hypnosis has emerged as a promising intervention \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR31 CR32 CR33\" citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHypnosis can facilitate changes in perception, cognition, and emotional states by altering the way to respond to stressors. Hypnosis modulates autonomic functions, including heart rate (HR), HRV, electrodermal activity (EDA), and skin conductance responses (SCR/min), which are valid indicators of stress level and emotional regulation. RMSSD( a time-domain heart rate variability (HRV) metric), primarily reflecting a marker of parasympathetic nervous system activity \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, has been associated with greater resilience to stress and better cognitive flexibility, while EDA has gained attention as a valuable sympathetic index to investigate the flight or fight system and to predict perceived stress \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effects of hypnosis on stress and cognitive performance have been explored in several studies, but their mechanisms are not fully understood yet \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Hypnosis may increase the parasympathetic activity and reduce the sympathetic response to stress, lowering physiological markers such as HR and blood pressure\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, hypnosis may enhance cognitive processing by improving focus, attention, and memory recall, possibly enhancing prefrontal cortex processes like working memory, flexibility which are negatively impacted by acute stress \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR42 CR43 CR44\" citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, its potential to enhance cognitive performance, reduce stress and modulate negative memories could be particularly beneficial for high-pressure professionals, who need optimal cognitive functioning and stress regulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of hypnosis in medical students, whose limited professional experience make them more prone to stress when managing adverse events.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on these assumptions, our hypothesis is that hypnosis, when appropriately administered, may improve: i) cognitive performance, evaluated using the revised Tower of London (TOL-R; primary outcome); ii) reduce perceived stress and anxiety (secondary outcomes); and iii) modulate physiological parameters. More specifically we expected HR modulation, increased HRV, and a dissociation between tonic and phasic components of electrodermal activity (secondary outcome).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(iv) Furthermore, we expected that physiological and subjective changes could accurately distinguish participants in the hypnosis (INT) and control groups (CTRL) using logistic regression and machine learning classification models. We therefore expect that leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), which provides a nearly unbiased estimate of generalization performance of logistic regression (and with a better generalization than k-fold cross validation on small samples\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e), could support a physiological signature consistent with hypnosis. To check these potential benefits, our study enrolled medical students, and a stressful situation was simulated by recalling a previously discussed personal negative memory from their medical education training. Moreover, beyond classical statistics, the application of multimodal approaches (based on network analysis, Bayesian statistics and machine learning) could provide evidence to support our hypothesis, i.e., that hypnosis is an effective tool for executive function improvement and for stress and anxiety reduction in medical students, who face many and intense stressful situations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"MATERIALS AND METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in Italy. 49 healthy volunteers, 26 in the INT group \u0026ndash; 14 (54%) males and 12 (46%) females (mean age 25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 years) \u0026ndash; and 23 in the CTRL\u0026ndash; 12 males (52%), 11 females (48%), mean age 25.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.6 years \u0026ndash; attending the last year of the Medical School at the University of Padua were prospectively enrolled between February 6 and October 1, 2025. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants enrolled in the present study have signed informed consent prior to participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubjects with cardiovascular diseases, psychiatric disorders, or any type of ongoing medication that could impact HR, sweating, or stress responses and prior experience with hypnosis were excluded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Department of General Psychology, University of Padua (reference n. 3274/2019 on 05 November 2019, Chairwoman Professor A. Falco), registered on ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT06778109)), and written in accordance with the \u0026lsquo;Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology\u0026rsquo; reporting checklist (see \u003cb\u003eSDC1\u003c/b\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCognitive performance, stress and anxiety were assessed with the following tests:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1) the Revised Tower of London (TOL-R) a standardized test of planning, problem solving, inhibitory control, and visuospatial working memory allowing to evaluate the cognitive performance with its prefrontal and fronto-parietal components \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR48 CR49\" citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The test consists of two boards with pegs and several beads with different colors. One board shows the goal arrangement of beads, and the other board is given to the examinee with the beads in a different configuration. The participant must alter the second board to match the first. The test consists of 30 problems with increasing difficulty, and the maximum score is 30 points.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2) the Visual Analog Scale for Anxiety (VASa) \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e; 3) the Visual Analog Scale for Stress to assess subjective stress levels \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e were assessed through a digital scale (0\u0026ndash;10 cm);\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Visual analogue scale questions are reported for clarity below:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlease rate your current level of anxiety by marking a point on the line below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;no anxiety \u0026mdash; 10\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;extreme anxiety\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlease rate your current level of stress by marking a point on the line below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;no stress \u0026mdash; 10\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;extreme stress\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4) The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived stress over the previous month was assessed using the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10). The PSS-10 is a widely used self-report measure evaluating the extent to which individuals perceive their lives as unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = \u0026ldquo;never\u0026rdquo; to 4 = \u0026ldquo;very often\u0026rdquo;), with higher scores indicating greater perceived stress. The scale shows good internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α typically ranging from 0.78 to 0.91), satisfactory test\u0026ndash;retest reliability, and well-established construct and convergent validity across populations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5) HIP test (Hypnotic Induction Profile):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll participants in the INT group underwent HIP after having completed all the experimental procedure. The HIP allows to check hypnotic ability in less than 10 minutes, making it the scale with the best cost-benefit ratio in the high pace of the medical-surgical context\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. A 0\u0026ndash;10 point Induction Score (IS) is obtained, where about 45\u0026ndash;50% of individuals in the general population are classified as highly hypnotizable, 35\u0026ndash;40% as medium hypnotizable and the remaining 15\u0026ndash;20% as lows. The HIP has been validated\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and significantly correlates with Stanford Scale\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6) At the end of the experimental session, all participants were explicitly asked to report how they felt compared to baseline, choosing among three options: \u0026ldquo;better\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;same\u0026rdquo;, or \u0026ldquo;worse.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe following physiological parameters were also recorded using the eSense Galvanometer (Mindfield Biofeedback): i) EDA, an indicator of stress-related sympathetic activity, SCR/min, percent (%) of time spent in skin conductance responses, in order to record the changes of electrical conduction in response to sympatho-cholinergic, stress-induced sweat secretions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. After having visually inspected the raw data, artifacts were addressed by removing zero values and single-point deviations beyond \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 SD and tonic EDA was computed as the mean skin conductance level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Skin Conductance contains two components: the tonic, \u0026ldquo;static level\u0026rdquo; and the phasic, \u0026ldquo;fluctuating reactions\u0026ldquo;, and these components are usually designated as Skin Conductance Responses (SCR). While the \u0026ldquo;level\u0026rdquo; is represented well in the average of the measured values, the eSense Skin Response also measures the amount of SCR per minute. From 6\u0026ndash;9 SCR/min starts an animated state. From 10 or even from 16 SCR/min, a level of stress or even high stress can be assumed\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. SCRs were identified through an automated stage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBaseline Monitoring (\u0026ldquo;Listening State\u0026rdquo;) \u0026ndash; The system continuously monitored the skin conductance signal during a neutral resting state to establish a provisional baseline.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnset Detection \u0026ndash; An SCR was triggered when either (a) a gradual rise in conductance persisted for \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;2 s, or (b) a sudden increase\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.5 \u0026micro;S occurred relative to the baseline. If the signal decreased by \u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.1 \u0026micro;S during this period, the detection was cancelled and baseline monitoring resumed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvent Confirmation and Quantification \u0026ndash; Once onset was confirmed, the first value was defined as the base level and the fluctuation amplitude was tracked to peak. SCRs were counted globally and within 1-min windows to derive indices such as SCR/min.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecovery Phase \u0026ndash; A SCR was considered complete when the signal declined by \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;50% of the peak amplitude relative to baseline.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eii) HR and HRV.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeart rate (HR) and parasympathetic activity were recorded using the HRV Camera App on a smartphone, which provides non-invasive measurements by detecting changes in blood volume pulse through photoplethysmography (PPG) via the camera lens. Participants, under supervision, were instructed to place a finger on the camera lens while physiological signals were recorded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR was expressed in beats per minute (bpm) and derived from the PPG signal using the HRV Camera App algorithms. Parasympathetic tone was estimated using the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) of inter-beat intervals, a time-domain HRVmetric primarily reflecting vagal modulation \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. RMSSD was computed by calculating successive differences between consecutive normal-to-normal (NN) interbeat intervals (in milliseconds), squaring these differences, averaging them, and finally taking the square root of the mean\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe PPG method has been validated and shown to produce results comparable to traditional ECG-based measurements\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, and the HRV Camera App PPG quality has been tested against a PPG sensor (Shimmer3 GSR+) yielding good accuracy, although not yet directly in comparison with ECG\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. As PPG recordings are known to be susceptible to motion and pressure artifacts \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, data were preprocessed by removing zero values and single-point deviations exceeding\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2 SD, a commonly adopted threshold for identifying physiological recording noise.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure and rationale\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows the design of the study. All participants in the INT group underwent HIP, PSS-10, VASa and VASs, TOL-R and measurement of physiological parameters (i.e., HR, HRV(RMSSD), EDA, SCR/min, %). Participants in the guided breathing CTRL group underwent the same tests as the INT group, apart from HIP (all participants in the INT group underwent HIP after having completed all the experimental procedure) and; hypnosis; was replaced by the guided-breathing attention procedure matched in duration and structure to the INT condition. All participants were seated and supervised during the cognitive and physiological assessment. Then, each participant was exposed to a stress induction for 2 minutes (i.e., recalling a memory from a past negative medical education or academic experience), followed by an 8-minute session of hypnosis (or 8 minutes of guided breathing in the CTRL group), during which participants relived a previously discussed pleasant experience, such as sunbathing at the beach or relaxing under trees (for additional information about the stress induction, CTRL and INT procedures, see Supplementary Materials, \u003cb\u003eAppendix\u003c/b\u003e). A few minutes later, a second stress induction was performed; the same negative memory was recalled once again for 2 minutes to check possible differences in stress-response after the intervention. After each step the physiological parameters were recorded, while TOL-R, VASa and VASs were retested at the end of the experimental session.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe stress induction procedure was designed to prioritize the elicitation of a meaningful stress response at the individual level rather than strict standardization of the stressor itself. Psychological stress is inherently subjective and depends on individual appraisal\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e; therefore, according to transactional models of stress and coping, individual differences in appraisal, personality, and available resources shape emotional and physiological responses, such that identical stressors may elicit markedly different responses across individuals, whereas different stimuli may result in comparable stress responses\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.Furthermore neuroendocrine and autonomic responses to standardized social stressors vary as a function of individuals\u0026rsquo; subjective appraisal of threat and perceived coping capacity\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e also to standardized stress laboratory stressors\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Accordingly, the procedure aimed to elicit functionally equivalent stress responses across individuals, with the subject\u0026rsquo;s physiological and subjective response constituting the outcome of interest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatistical analysis and network analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to an a priori power analysis, a minimum sample size of 19 participants was estimated to be sufficient to detect a within-subject pre–post difference in executive function in the experimental (INT) group, assuming a statistical power of 0.80, an expected effect size of 0.60, and a significance level of α = 0.05. To account for potential dropouts or missing data, 26 participants were recruited for the INT group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the initial submission of the study, a control (CTRL) group was included to strengthen the causal interpretation of the findings by accounting for non specific effects such as repeated testing and time. The CTRL group comprised 23 participants. As the study was originally powered to detect within-subject effects in the INT group, no a priori power analysis was conducted for between-group comparisons or interaction effects, which were therefore considered exploratory.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContinuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), when normally distributed, or as the median when non-normally distributed. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality. Categorical data were summarized using absolute and relative frequencies. To compare paired data, the Paired t-test or Wilcoxon matched-pairs test was applied. To compare unpaired data, Unpaired t-test or Welch’s t-test depending on variance. Pearson’s or Spearman’s coefficient were calculated to evaluate associations between variables. Normality, normality of residuals and homoscedasticity of variance (Levene’s test or Bartlett’s test) were checked before fitting ANOVA models. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine any significant difference in terms of physiological data (i.e., EDA, HR, RMSSD etc, defined as dependent variable) across four different conditions (“baseline”, “stress induction”, “hypnosis,” “repeated stress induction”). For any violations of the parametric ANOVA assumptions, Friedman’s ANOVA was performed. Sphericity was evaluated with Mauchly’s test and corrected if necessary with Huynh-Feldt. Bonferroni correction was applied for post-hoc analysis. To assess difference between the INT and the CTRL group, we mitigated practice/learning effects and baseline imbalance, through ANCOVA with the post-intervention Tower of London (TOL-R) score as the dependent variable, group (hypnosis vs. guided-breathing) as the fixed factor, and baseline TOL-R (Pre) as a covariate: TOL-R Post ~ Group + TOL-R Pre. This approach increases precision and reduces bias by adjusting for individual starting levels.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA Bayesian analysis was conducted to evaluate the relative evidence provided by the data for competing hypotheses concerning the observed effects on TOL-R performance, VAS-rated anxiety and stress, electrodermal activity (EDA), and other physiological parameters. The Bayes Factor (BF₁₀) was used to quantify the extent to which the observed data were more likely under the alternative hypothesis—postulating systematic changes associated with hypnosis in executive functioning, physiological responses, and subjective measures of stress, anxiety, and perceived wellbeing—than under the null hypothesis, which assumes that the observed effects are attributable to random variation. The strength of the evidence in favor of one hypothesis over the other was interpreted according to Jeffreys’ scale\u003csup\u003e72\u003c/sup\u003e. Specifically, BF₁₀ values between 1 and 3 were considered anecdotal evidence, values between 3 and 10 moderate evidence, values between 10 and 30 and between 30 and 100 strong and very strong evidence, respectively, and values greater than 100 were interpreted as extreme evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, a two-step dimensionality reduction approach was employed to identify a parsimonious set of variables maximizing explainable variance in performance while preserving informative inter-variable relationships, reducing redundancy. Specifically, in the first step, variables were retained if they exhibited at least five moderate-to-strong significant correlations (r ≥ 0.3) with other variables in the dataset (using the appropriate correlation coefficients based on data distribution). This ensures that the selected variables are meaningfully embedded within the overall structure. Then, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), measure of sampling adequacy, was applied to assess the suitability of the selected subset for multivariate analysis. Variables with individual measure of sampling adequacy for single variable (MSA) lower than 0.5 were excluded, overall all the selected variables must show at least an MSA\u0026gt;0.8. To construct the network, a stricter correlation threshold (r ≥ 0.4) was \u0026nbsp;used to define edges in a weighted adjacency matrix serving as the basis for a spectral graph representation. Network topology was then evaluated using standard graph-theoretical metrics, including number of nodes and edges, average path length, network diameter, density, betweenness centrality, and closeness centrality. These measures were used to assess the integration and efficiency of information flow across physiological and cognitive domains.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMachine Learning analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA secondary aim of the study was to determine whether physiological and subjective changes could reliably distinguish participants in the INT group from those in the CTRL condition.\u0026nbsp;Rather than adopting a purely data-driven variable selection strategy, we selected a parsimonious set of predictors based on theoretical and empirical considerations. Predictor selection was defined prior to model estimation, after data collection, but was not preregistered, as the inclusion of the control group and related analysis were not part of the original preregistered study design. Specifically, the model included ΔRMSSD (change in RMSSD between stress conditions), ΔSCR (change in skin conductance responses between stress conditions), ΔVAS stress (change in perceived stress), and post-intervention VAS stress scores.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese variables were chosen because hypnosis has been shown to influence autonomic flexibility (HRV)\u003csup\u003e73\u003c/sup\u003e, phasic simpathetic activity\u003csup\u003e74\u003c/sup\u003e, and perceived stress, making them conceptually plausible discriminators of group membership. Predictor selection was defined prior to model estimation and was independent of model fit optimization, in order to limit model complexity and avoid redundancy among highly correlated predictors, which could inflate variance inflation factors and lead to unstable coefficient estimates given the moderate sample size. Accordingly, among subjective measures, VAS stress was selected as a more general index, whereas VAS anxiety was not included to prevent multicollinearity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGroup membership was classified using logistic regression. To assess the robustness and generalizability of the classification at the individual level, leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) was applied. LOOCV was not intended to optimize classification accuracy, but rather to provide a conservative estimate of out-of-sample performance by evaluating how well the model classified previously unseen participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the LOOCV procedure, the model was iteratively trained on data from all participants except one, who served as the test instance. Each iteration was fully independent, with the model retrained on the remaining N–1 participants, ensuring that all predictions were strictly out-of-sample. Predicted probabilities from all iterations were aggregated to compute overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve (AUC), Brier score, and 95% confidence intervals. This approach maximizes data use under small-sample constraints while reducing optimistic bias and false-positive classification\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS ","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTOL-R, VAS anxiety, VAS stress, PSS-10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt baseline, stress levels in the INT group were predominantly moderate (73%), with 15.4% reporting low stress and 11.5% high stress; baseline PSS-10 (INT=18.58± SD=6.159 vs CTRL=16.48± SD=4.3), VASs (INT=4.019± SD=2.385 vs CTRL=3.37± SD=2.664), VASa (INT=4.827± SD=2.782 vs CTRL=4.348 ± SD=2.424) and TOL-R (INT=19.9± SD=5.01 vs CTRL=18.96 ± SD=4.781) scores did not differ between groups at baseline evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the intervention, the INT group showed a significant improvement in TOL-R (TOL-R: pre 19.9 ± SD=5.01 vs post 24.3 ± SD=3.58, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigure 2A\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e), accompanied by a marked reduction in subjective stress (VASs: 4.83 ± SD=2.78 vs 2.73 ± \u0026nbsp;SD=2.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001, BF₁₀=23,017,\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Figure 2B\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e) and anxiety (VASa: 4.02 ± SD=2.39 vs 2.31 ± SD=2.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001, BF₁₀=35,952,\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Figure 2C),\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003efurther data are reported on\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;SDC 2 and SDC 4 in Supplementary Material\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe CTRL group also showed improved TOL-R scores (18.96 ± 5.27 vs 21.87 ± 5.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001), but no reduction in anxiety and a significant increase in stress (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eANCOVA on post-intervention TOL-R, controlling for baseline performance, revealed a significant group effect favoring INT (F(1,46)=4.62, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05, η²=0.038, Cohen’s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e=0.62), with baseline TOL-R strongly predicting post-scores. Bayesian analyses of ΔVAS confirmed extreme evidence for stress (BF₁₀=52,360, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e=1.67) and anxiety reduction (BF₁₀=700, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e=0.75) in the INT group in comparison to the CTRL group HIP score ranges were 7±2.56, with all profiles (‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’) well represented, but the relationship between hypnotic ability and results was not significant (see \u003cstrong\u003eSDC 3\u003c/strong\u003e). 25 out of 26 participants reporting feeling better and one unchanged (χ²= 40.91, p \u0026lt; 0.001). \u0026nbsp;Contrasting \u0026nbsp;this result with group CTRL, 18 referred feeling worse and 5 no differences, but none feeling better (χ² =22.5, df=2, p\u0026lt;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEDA, SCR and % of time in skin conductance response\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 3A shows condition-dependent variability in EDA. In the INT group, Friedman’s repeated-measures ANOVA was significant (χ² = 22.3, df = 3, p \u0026lt; 0.001). Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests indicated lower EDA at rest and significant increases during hypnosis and the second stress induction (both p \u0026lt; 0.001 vs baseline), as well as differences between the first and second stress inductions (p \u0026lt; 0.001). Additional details are reported in \u003cstrong\u003eSDC 2\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSCR/min and % time in skin conductance response also varied in the INT group (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3B–C\u003c/strong\u003e), with significant Friedman’s tests for SCR/min (χ² = 23.9, df = 3, p \u0026lt; 0.001) and % time in SCR (χ² = 24.0, df = 3, p \u0026lt; 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons showed that SCR/min increased from baseline and Stress-1 to hypnosis, then decreased from hypnosis to Stress-2, and further declined between Stress-1 and Stress-2 (all p \u0026lt; 0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the CTRL group (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3A\u003c/strong\u003e), repeated-measures ANOVA on EDA revealed a condition effect (F=3.92, df=3, p=0.012), with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests showing an increase from breathing to Stress-2 (p=0.013). No significant condition effects were observed for SCR/min or % time in SCR (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3B–C\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBetween-group analyses showed significant condition-related differences in EDA (Friedman’s ANOVA: χ²=24.45, p\u0026lt;0.001). Welch’s t-tests indicated higher EDA in the INT group compared to CTRL during the intervention (t=2.09, df=44.74, p\u0026lt;0.05) and Stress-2 (p=0.02). For % time in SCR, Friedman’s ANOVA was significant (χ²=13.58, p\u0026lt;0.001), with a between-group difference at Stress-2, where CTRL showed a higher percentage of time in SCR than the INT group (p=0.04). Between-group SCR analyses indicated a decrease in the INT group at Stress-2 according to Tukey’s test, but not after Bonferroni correction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBayesian and effect-size contrasts indicated that ΔEDA (intervention–baseline) strongly favored the INT group, reflecting increased tonic electrodermal activity (BF₁₀ = 40; t = −3.32, p \u0026lt; 0.001; d = 0.95), while ΔSCR (Stress-2–intervention) showed a decisive reduction in phasic sympathetic activity compared with CTRL (BF₁₀ = 473; t = 4.30, p \u0026lt; 0.001; d = 1.23)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHR and RMSSD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the INT group, HR significantly decreased between the first and second stress inductions, (p = 0.007, Bonferroni-corrected; \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 4A\u003c/strong\u003e). Similarly, RMSSD significantly varied across conditions (χ² = 14.1, df = 3, p = 0.0028), with a marked increase between the first and second stress induction (p \u0026lt; 0.001, Bonferroni-corrected; \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 4B\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA repeated-measures ANOVA (after Mauchly’s test of sphericity, Huynh–Feldt correction and Bonferroni post-hoc adjustment) confirmed a main effect in the INT group of condition on HR (F = 4.9, df = 3, SS = 427, p \u0026lt; 0.01). Bayesian paired-sample comparisons further supported this finding, showing substantial evidence for HR reduction between the two stress phases (BF₁₀ = 11, error \u0026lt; 0.001), and extreme evidence (Jeffreys’ scale) for increased RMSSD (BF₁₀ = 100, error \u0026lt; 0.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the guided breathing CTRL group displayed on RMSSD an opposite physiological trend. Friedman’s ANOVA showed a decrease in RMSSD from baseline to the second stress induction (χ² = 8.97, df = 3, p = 0.03), confirmed by a post-hoc analysis (from 39.96 to 29.26 ms, p \u0026lt; 0.05, Bonferroni-corrected) see \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 4B\u003c/strong\u003e. Repeated-measures ANOVA on HR (F = 4.66, df = 3, p = 0.005) indicated an increase from rest to first stress administration (p \u0026lt; 0.05, Bonferroni corrected) and a decrease from 1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e to 2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e stress induction (p\u0026lt;0.05, Bonferroni corrected).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen both groups were analyzed together, a significant Condition × Group interaction emerged for RMSSD (F = 5.342, df = 3, p = 0.0016). Specifically, during the second stress induction, RMSSD remained higher in the INT group (M = 41.77 ms) compared to CTRL (M = 29.26 ms; t = 2.332, df = 47, p = 0.01; Mean Difference = −12.51 ms), while HR did not significantly differ between groups. Comparing the adaptive ΔRMSSD between groups across both stress inductions yielded extremely decisive evidence (Jeffreys’ scale) in favor of an increased RMSSD in the INT group difference (BF₁₀ = 792.9, error \u0026lt; 0.001). The frequentist test was consistent, t(47) = 5.85, p \u0026lt; 0.001, with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.28)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNetwork physiology of performance.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;For network analysis in the INT group, nine variables met criteria of showing at least five moderate-to-strong correlations with other parameters and a KMO \u0026gt; 0.8 (overall KMO = 0.826), as shown in \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 5\u003c/strong\u003e. After applying a 0.5 correlation threshold, the spectral matrix for network analysis was constructed, and a well-connected structure, based on 9 nodes and 33 edges, was found, forming a single connected component. Specifically, the network showed high efficiency, with an average path length of 1.31 and a diameter of 3. Moreover, the network displayed a moderate density, highlighting a robust association between physiological and cognitive performance. Three nodes (highlighted in red in the figure) showed high betweenness centrality: EDA during stress induction , HR during hypnosis , and SCR/min during stress induction .\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, these three parameters are bridges/hubs playing a critical mediating role. Closeness centrality of HR during hypnosis and % of time in skin conductance \u0026nbsp;response during stress induction, suggested that these nodes are central in accessing the whole network quickly.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMachine Learning\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA multivariable logistic regression model fitted on the full dataset showed extremely high apparent discrimination between the INT and CTRL groups (deviance = 12.15; AIC = 22.15; BIC = 31.61; McFadden’s R² = 0.82; omnibus likelihood-ratio test: χ² = 55.9, p \u0026lt; 0.001), with an apparent accuracy of 0.96 and AUC = 0.99 (confusion matrix: TN = 25, FP = 1, FN = 1, TP = 22; N = 49; see Supplementary Data and Code). Given the limited sample size, this performance was considered potentially optimistic. Therefore, cross-validated performance was evaluated to reduce overfitting and optimistic bias (Figure 6).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnder leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), classification accuracy was 0.90, sensitivity 0.885, specificity 0.913, and AUC = 0.91 (confusion matrix: TN = 21, FP = 2, FN = 3, TP = 23; N = 49; ROC curve shown in Figure 6), indicating robust discrimination while accounting for overfitting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChanges in perceived stress (ΔVAS stress), post-intervention VAS stress, changes in heart rate variability (ΔRMSSD), and changes in skin conductance response (ΔSCR) emerged as strong discriminative predictors between the CTRL and INT groups (see Supplementary Data and Code).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eStress interventions are rarely evaluated across cognition, autonomic dynamics and subjective state within the same perturbation framework. The combined use, like in the present study, of frequentist statistics, Bayesian inference, network topology and predictive classification offered by Machine learning\u0026nbsp;is exceptionally rare in existing stress-regulation research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeta-analyses of established stress-regulation approaches — including mindfulness\u003csup\u003e75,76\u003c/sup\u003e, CBT\u003csup\u003e77\u003c/sup\u003e and HRV biofeedback\u003csup\u003e78\u003c/sup\u003e — typically report modest to large improvements (d ≈ 0.2–0.8). In contrast, in the present protocol we observed convergent modulation across cognition, autonomic regulation and perceived stress. Effect sizes were substantial across all domains: subjective outcomes (d = 0.67 for ΔVASa; d = 1.67 for ΔVASs), autonomic indices (d = 0.95 for ΔEDA; d = 1.23 for ΔSCR; d = 1.28 for ΔRMSSD), and cognitive performance (TOL-R, d = 0.62). Beyond statistical magnitude, the present study was specifically designed to test whether a single-session hypnotic protocol could enhancecognitive control, autonomic regulation and perceived stress during a stress induction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur results suggest that a single hypnosis session in hypnosis-naïve medical students in their final years of training was associated with significant improvements in executive function, and with reductions in both subjective and physical indices of stress and anxiety. The analysis showed the relevance of RMSSD, HR, EDA, SCR and % of time spent in stress responses as core hubs for performance under stress induction and hypnosis. \u0026nbsp;Bayesian statistics and robust network analysis highlighted EDA during stress induction as key biomarker connecting stress responses and cognitive performance, while ΔRMSSD, ΔSCR and ΔVAS stress as the most important features in discriminating possible biomarkers of the treatment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings align with the existing literature, which has consistently shown that high levels of stress and anxiety negatively impact executive functioning and mental well-being\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e1–4,6–8,79,80\u003c/sup\u003e. Chronic stress has been linked to cognitive impairment, emotional exhaustion, burnout and even suicidal ideation among physicians and trainees\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e2,5,7\u003c/sup\u003e, with interventions range from mindfulness to cognitive-behavioral therapy\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e9,10,80\u003c/sup\u003e. Within this context, hypnosis has emerged as a promising but understudied tool. Previous studies and meta-analyses have reported on the efficacy of hypnosis in reducing anxiety and stress\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e31–33,81\u003c/sup\u003e, and improving resilience and well-being among healthcare workers as well as autonomic nervous system equilibrium\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e37,73\u003c/sup\u003e. Physiological correlates of stress – such as HR, RMSSD, EDA, and SCR – are well-established markers of autonomic nervous system activity and emotional regulation\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e36,36,61,82–86\u003c/sup\u003e, but, to our knowledge, no studies have been published on their combined modulation by hypnosis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExecutive Function\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding \u003cstrong\u003eAim 1\u003c/strong\u003e, the intervention produced effects exceeding the a priori expectations. While the power analysis was based on an anticipated medium effect (Cohen’s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 0.60), the observed effect reached \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 1.40 in the within INT group analysis. A Bayesian factor of 1.85 × 10⁵ provided decisive evidence according to Jeffreys’ interpretative scale .This improvement could be partially explained by a task repetition and a learning effect, therefore between group analysis was conducted. The effect size was medium to large (d=0.62), this confirms that learning effects contributed to improvement in both groups, but hypnosis accounted for an additional performance gain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur TOL-R findings indicate improvements in planning and working memory, cognitive functions that are typically associated with rostrolateral and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity\u003csup\u003e47,50\u003c/sup\u003e. Although TOL-R performance can be considered a behavioral proxy of prefrontal executive engagement\u003csup\u003e47,48,50\u003c/sup\u003e, and hypnosis could modulate these areas\u003csup\u003e87,88\u003c/sup\u003e, we did not include neural measures in this study. Therefore, any interpretation that hypnosis directly impacts prefrontal circuitry in TOL-R should be regarded as hypothetical and tested in future neuroimaging studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe increased executive performance in the absence of a negative predictive value for low hypnotizability in our study may be explained by the easy hypnotic task and its tailoring according to participant’s previous experience, probably doable by most people and able to improve individual executive functions within the limits of his/her hypnotic ability. \u0026nbsp; This aligns with the increasing evidence that appropriate hypnotic suggestions may improve working-memory capacity even in patients with acquired brain injury regardless of hypnotizability\u003csup\u003e89\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn sum, our results (i) provide statistical evidence for a medium-to-large treatment effect on executive function, (ii) challenge the view that such effects depend solely on hypnotizability, and (iii) support the effectiveness of individualized hypnosis in enhancing executive function regardless of suggestibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings could \u0026nbsp;be translated into concrete applications in domains such as clinical decision fatigue\u003csup\u003e90\u003c/sup\u003e and mental stress management. Enhanced executive functioning through hypnosis [and all the related psychological and physiological changes see \u003cstrong\u003eDiscussion 2) and 3)]\u003c/strong\u003e may directly mitigate cognitive fatigue, which is known to contribute to sub-optimal diagnostic performance\u003csup\u003e91\u003c/sup\u003e under time pressure\u003csup\u003e92\u003c/sup\u003e— an everyday challenge faced by medical professionals, irrespective of their hypnotizability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA critical gap in the current literature is that clinical Decision Fatigue is rarely addressed within a clear theoretical framework. In this regard, the physiological, psychological, and behavioral (executive function) data presented here may help improve it. In fact, they provide quantitative and qualitative evidence pointing toward the possibility of a unified model and suggest practical tools for coping with high-stress environments\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnxiety,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003estress, wellbeing and Hypnotic\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eprofile\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilar effects were observed for \u003cstrong\u003eAim 2\u003c/strong\u003e, i.e., \u0026nbsp;the improvement of self-reported stress, anxiety (Bayes Factors \u0026gt; 20,000) and wellbeing – with 25 out of 26 participants reporting feeling better and one unchanged (χ²= 40.91, p \u0026lt; 0.001). \u0026nbsp;Contrasting \u0026nbsp;this result with group CTRL, 18 referred feeling worse (a fact paralleled by ΔVAS stress), 5 no differences, but none feeling better (χ² =22.5, df=2, p\u0026lt;0.001 compared to the assumption that feeling better, feeling worse and equal would have shared the same probability).\u0026nbsp;Within-group analysis in the CTRL condition confirmed an increase in perceived stress levels; when VAS stress changes between groups (VAS post-VAS pre) were compared, an extreme\u0026nbsp;ΔVAS post Bayesian analysis of more than 55,000 was found.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Bayesian terms, this corresponds to ~55,000:1 odds in favor of the intervention effect — a level of evidence rarely observed in psychophysiological studies. These results exceeded previous studies and confirm the promising effects of hypnosis in medical students’ wellbeing and stress modulation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, we explored whether hypnotizability would modulate the observed effects.\u0026nbsp;Unlike other studies emphasizing the relevance of hypnotic ability \u003csup\u003e87,93,94\u003c/sup\u003e, we unexpectedly found no correlation, contributing to the ongoing debate on hypnosis as trait or state. The lack of correlation with hypnotic ability depends on two main factors: a) the administered hypnotic session was personalized and included a very easy task, doable for most people; b) though high hypnotizable subjects may show better results, relevant effect may by be obtained by 85-90% of general population \u003csup\u003e94\u003c/sup\u003e, while other studies have questioned \u0026nbsp; the relevance of hypnotic suggestibility in clinical contexts\u003csup\u003e95\u003c/sup\u003e.In this regard, a dynamic interaction between trait and state seems to be more reasonable \u003csup\u003e96,97\u003c/sup\u003e, where high hypnotizability is relevant for the most difficult hypnotic tasks, like analgesia or gag reflex control \u003csup\u003e96\u003c/sup\u003e. Accordingly, behavioral attempts to improve hynotizability have provided inconsistent results, while the neuromodulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC) by transcranial brain stimulation can transiently enhance hypnotizability by strengthening L-DLPFC–dACC (dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex) connectivity\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e98\u003c/sup\u003e . Overall, hypnotic responsiveness depends on several factors besides suggestibility, emphasizing the value of tailoring interventions according to subject’s experience and needs\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e38,97,99,100\u003c/sup\u003e. Our personalized hypnosis, using individually crafted suggestions rather than standard scripts, was an easy task, probably feasible for most people, aligning interventions with the individual's inner world.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough speculative, aligning hypnotic suggestions with the individual’s subjective inner experience may functionally resemble a transient modulation of prefrontal control processes, potentially analogous to L-DLPFC neuromodulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore on a neuropsychological standpoint, it may reflect the dynamic interaction between central executive, salience, and default mode networks\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e101\u003c/sup\u003e. Further research should clarify the link between hypnotizability and outcome, since hypnotizability scales are based on the concept of suggestibility, a\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;leitmotif\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein the history of hypnosis still remaining questionable over one century from its introduction \u003csup\u003e101,102\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col start=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eand 4) Physiological Indicators, Network Connectivity and Machine Learning\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding \u003cstrong\u003eAim 3 is concerned\u003c/strong\u003e, hypnosis did not prevent physiological arousal but promoted more efficient resource mobilization. We observed increased tonic EDA, decreased SCR (phasic component of sympathetic activity), and reduced time in stress response states, particularly during the second stress induction, indicating an effective stress management.\u0026nbsp;This pattern has previously been observed in studies reporting opposite shifts in EDA and SCR following hypnosis\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e74\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComparing ΔSCR, ΔRMSSD, and ΔEDA between groups, a clear divergence in autonomic response patterns emerged between groups. Participants in the INT group showed a challenge-like pattern, characterized by increased sympathetic tonic activity, enhanced parasympathetic activation, and reduced sympathetic phasic responses. This combination suggests an adaptive mobilization of resources rather than a defensive reaction\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e103,104\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the CTRL group exhibited a threat-like physiological profile, featured by: a) reduced parasympathetic between the stress inductions; b) increased tonic EDA from baseline breathing to the second stressor; c) no decrease in SCR and HR between the two stress phases. This autonomic pattern – together with increased VAS ratings of stress and decrease of perceived wellbeing – points toward a defensive, resource-conserving state rather than active coping.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt first glance, the increase in tonic EDA observed in the INT group may appear counterintuitive, as hypnosis is often associated with relaxation. However, hypnosis does not necessarily suppress autonomic arousal; rather, it may reorganize autonomic dynamics toward a more efficient and adaptive pattern. In the present study, increased tonic EDA co-occurred with decreased phasic sympathetic activity (SCR), increased parasympathetic modulation (RMSSD), reduced subjective stress, and improved executive performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne possible explanation is that hypnosis facilitated a more vivid, focused, and engaged processing of the recalled experience, thereby increasing tonic sympathetic activation while simultaneously reducing maladaptive stress reactivity. This pattern is consistent with a challenge-like physiological state, characterized by sustained resource mobilization and flexible autonomic regulation, rather than a defensive or threat-related response. Thus, increased EDA in this context likely reflects adaptive engagement rather than heightened distress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur results suggest that SCR is crucial for initiating an adaptive physiological mobilization responses (as indicated by closeness centrality in the network and no change in the CTRL group), whereas EDA, the tonic component, is essential for sustaining the utilization of these resources over the long term (as reflected by improvements in TOL-R scores).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe initial decrease in parasympathetic activity during the first stress induction in both groups aligns with prior findings linking negative emotions to reduced parasympathetic tone\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e105\u003c/sup\u003e, while higher parasympathetic activity correlates with lower rumination and anxiety, reflecting emotional regulation\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e106\u003c/sup\u003e and higher flexibility\u003csup\u003e82\u003c/sup\u003e. Elevated HR after stress indicates residual anxiety as well\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e85,86\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe HR decrease and RMSSD increase, alongside EDA and SCR modulation after hypnosis, aligns with biopsychosocial models of arousal regulation\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e103,104,107\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, in the INT group, the significant negative correlation between ΔEDA and ΔTOL-R (r = –0.556, p = 0.03, df = 24) suggests that participants showing more controlled increases in EDA also exhibited the greatest cognitive improvements. This supports the notion that a better performance is driven by regulated resource mobilization rather than by arousal suppression, a fact in line with Bayesian models of energy allocation under cognitive load\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e108\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe network analysis confirmed EDA during negative memory recall as a central node linking stress responses and executive function. Closeness centrality highlighted HR during hypnosis and SCR post-hypnosis as key connectors in emotional and cognitive regulation. Although RMSSD was excluded due to overlap with HR, combined HR, RMSSD, and EDA changes indicate improved autonomic regulation post-intervention. The position of EDA as a central node highlights the sympathetic system’s role as a core mechanism in adaptive stress management, providing a novel, actionable target for stress intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Overall, the classification results in the logistic regression and LOOCV validation reinforce and extend the inferential findings. The classifier was not intended for baseline prediction but to test whether a compact psychophysiological signature of the intervention exists; the autonomic markers (↓SCR, ↑RMSSD) combined with subjective stress reduction (ΔVASs) provide convergent signals that reliably distinguish INT from CTRL with high accuracy and good probability calibration. Although exploratory, these results strengthen the plausibility of a specific hypnotic effect on stress-regulation mechanisms, support the development of more mature predictive and mechanistic models (e.g., SEM or dynamical approaches) to be tested in larger samples with independent validation and underline the relevance of investigate stress through a wide range of modalities\u003csup\u003e109\u003c/sup\u003e (avoiding simplistic interpretation).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings align with stress physiology, indicating a shift from threat to challenge states\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e104\u003c/sup\u003e. Strong to extreme Bayesian factors for HR, RMSSD and EDA as well for Δ before and after hypnosis further support that hypnosis may help reframe situations as manageable challenges, possibly by enhancing neural efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eand Future Directions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile promising, this study has some limitations. Neuroimaging (e.g., fMRI, EEG) could clarify neural mechanisms\u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e110\u003c/sup\u003e, particularly the involvement of the PFC, underlying hypnosis-related changes in the relationship between executive function and autonomic regulation. Another limitation is the monocentric nature of the study \u0026nbsp;which may restrict generalizability. Although causal models such as structural equation modeling could theoretically clarify directional pathways among physiological, cognitive, and subjective variables, the sample size of this study was not sufficient for SEM. Future studies with larger samples may test such models explicitly. Longitudinal designs are also needed to assess the durability of effects on cognition and well-being. Additionally, exploring different hypnotic protocols, including self-hypnosis, could further define its potential for enhancing executive function, stress reduction, and resilience, supporting its integration into medical education and stress management programs. The participants’ subjective choice of stressors during the recall of past negative medical education experiences, while representing a strength of the present study, should be complemented by standardized arousal and valence ratings in future research. In addition, the six-month temporal separation between the within-subject phase and the CTRL group assessment represents a potential time-related confound and should be considered when interpreting between-group comparisons. Finally, a further limitation concerns possible learning effects due to task repetition. Although this issue was mitigated using ANCOVA, future studies could further address it by increasing the interval between test and re-test assessments.\u0026nbsp;Future studies should investigate the interaction between hypnotizability, motivation and task complexity. Furthermore, while focusing attention on an idea is an integral component of hypnosis, future studies should also include a control group exposed to positive memory recall without hypnosis to disentangle the specific effects of hypnotic induction from those of pleasant imagery. Given the magnitude of physiological and psychological outcomes, we strongly encourage \u0026nbsp;integrating highly promising interventions\u003csup\u003e111–113\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp; with hypnosis to enhance stress management in healthcare. It is very likely that hypnosis, together with other approaches such as biofeedback and meditation, may have synergistic effects, promoting improved well-being in both current and future medical doctors. Finally, a particularly interesting direction for future research would be to explore the impact that we observed on executive functions and emotional regulation in various contexts such as during examinations\u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e, surgical procedures (where stress decreases performance\u003csup\u003e114\u003c/sup\u003e), high-pressure situations, and across different stages of expertise acquisition. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the clinical setting, increasingly dominated by concerns about burnout, cognitive fatigue, and emotional distress, this study offers a scientifically grounded, non-invasive, scalable, rapid and promising intervention. Our findings support that a single personalized hypnosis session can enhance executive function, resilience, largely reduce stress and anxiety, and improve emotional regulation in medical students na\u0026iuml;ve to hypnosis, regardless of hypnotizability in this sample. EDA emerged as a key biomarker linking stress regulation with cognitive performance, supporting hypnosis as a scalable intervention for stress management. Changes in RMSSD, SCR, VAS Stress are biomarkers of hypnosis regulation and classified participants with excellent categorization. These results encourage further studies to better understand neural mechanisms and long-term effects, paving the way for integrating hypnosis into medical education and resilience training.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors directly accessed and verified the underlying data reported in the manuscript and take full responsibility for its submission and content.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;All have approved the final version for publication and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any questions related to its accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved.\u003cbr\u003eSubstantial contributions to the conception or design of the work: \u003cstrong\u003eLQ, AB\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAcquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: \u003cstrong\u003eLQ, AB, CT, MO, EF \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eGraph,Machine learning and Bayesian analysis: \u003cstrong\u003eLQ\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eDrafting of the manuscript: \u003cstrong\u003eLQ, AB, EF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eCritical revision for important intellectual content: \u003cstrong\u003eLQ, AB, EF, GZ, ES, PN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement:\u003c/strong\u003e Preprocessed datasets used for all statistical, network, and machine-learning analyses are available to ensure full computational reproducibility of the reported results. All materials are provided in a single compressed archive (ZIP), which includes: (i) preprocessed physiological and behavioral data underlying all analyses, (ii) analysis scripts for network analysis and machine-learning classification, and (iii) derived feature-level datasets used for the logistic regression and cross-validation procedures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStatistical analyses conducted in the jamovi environment (including Bayesian analyses with the jsq module and effect size estimation with pamlj) can be fully reproduced using the provided datasets and the analysis specifications described in the Methods section, while the part elaborated in Python has been added as script.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRaw physiological recordings are not available; however, all results reported in the manuscript can be independently reproduced using the shared preprocessed data and materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eWe declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026apos;Not applicable\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou AY et al (2020) Factors Associated With Burnout and Stress in Trainee Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 3:e2013761\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDutheil F et al (2019) Suicide among physicians and health-care workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14:e0226361\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoscolo A, Queirolo L, Navalesi P (2025) The impact of psychophysiological well being on executive functions among anaesthesia residents. Eur J Anaesthesiol 42:366\u0026ndash;368\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQueirolo L et al (2024) Psychophysiological wellbeing in a class of dental students attending dental school: anxiety, burnout, post work executive performance and a 24 hours physiological investigation during a working day. Front Psychol 15:1344970\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLe Huu P, Bellagamba G, Bouhadfane M, Villa A, Lehucher M-P (2022) Meta-analysis of effort-reward imbalance prevalence among physicians. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 95:559\u0026ndash;571\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuek TT-C et al (2019) The Global Prevalence of Anxiety Among Medical Students: A Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee RT, Seo B, Hladkyj S, Lovell BL, Schwartzmann L (2013) Correlates of physician burnout across regions and specialties: a meta-analysis. Hum Resour Health 11:48\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQueirolo L, Bacci C, Roccon A, Zanette G, Mucignat C (2023) Anxiety in a regular day of work: A 24 hour psychophysiological investigation in young dentists with gender comparison. Front Psychol 14-2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRegehr C, Glancy D, Pitts A, LeBlanc VR (2014) Interventions to reduce the consequences of stress in physicians: a review and meta-analysis. J Nerv Ment Dis 202:353\u0026ndash;359\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKunzler AM et al (2020) Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD012527\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Shanafelt TD (2005) Medical student distress: causes, consequences, and proposed solutions. \u003cem\u003eMayo Clin. Proc.\u003c/em\u003e 80, 1613\u0026ndash;1622\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBergmann C, Muth T, Loerbroks A (2019) Medical students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of stress due to academic studies and its interrelationships with other domains of life: a qualitative study. Med Educ Online 24:1603526\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM\u0026eacute;tais A et al (2025) Addressing medical students\u0026rsquo; health challenges: codesign and pilot testing of the Preventive Remediation for Optimal MEdical StudentS (PROMESS) program. BMC Med Educ 25:812\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmeli R et al (2020) Effect of a Brief Mindfulness-Based Program on Stress in Health Care Professionals at a US Biomedical Research Hospital: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 3:e2013424\u0026ndash;e2013424\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOng NY et al (2024) Effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on the well-being of healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gen Psychiatry 37:e101115\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSperling EL, Hulett JM, Sherwin LB, Thompson S, Bettencourt BA (2023) The effect of mindfulness interventions on stress in medical students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 18:e0286387\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFendel JC, Aeschbach VM, Schmidt S, G\u0026ouml;ritz AS (2021) The impact of a tailored mindfulness-based program for resident physicians on distress and the quality of care: A randomised controlled trial. J Intern Med 290:1233\u0026ndash;1248\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eda Silva CCG, Bolognani CV, Amorim FF, Imoto AM (2023) Effectiveness of training programs based on mindfulness in reducing psychological distress and promoting well-being in medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 12:79\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSekhar P, Tee QX, Ashraf G, Trinh D, Shachar J, Jiang A, Hewitt J, Green S, Turner T (2021) Mindfulness-based psychological interventions for improving mental well‐being in medical students and junior doctors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013740.pub2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/14651858.CD013740.pub2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLehrer P et al (2021) Correction to: Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback Improves Emotional and Physical Health and Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 46:389\u0026ndash;389\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCastro Ribeiro T et al (2023) Assessing effectiveness of heart rate variability biofeedback to mitigate mental health symptoms: a pilot study. Front Physiol 14-2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClough BA et al (2017) Psychosocial interventions for managing occupational stress and burnout among medical doctors: a systematic review. Syst Rev 6:144\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchlatter ST et al (2022) Effects of relaxing breathing paired with cardiac biofeedback on performance and relaxation during critical simulated situations: a prospective randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ 22:422\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWelp A, Meier LL, Manser T (2016) The interplay between teamwork, clinicians\u0026rsquo; emotional exhaustion, and clinician-rated patient safety: a longitudinal study. Crit Care Lond Engl 20:110\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWelp A, Meier LL, Manser T (2014) Emotional exhaustion and workload predict clinician-rated and objective patient safety. Front Psychol 5:1573\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalbesleben JRB, Rathert C (2008) Linking physician burnout and patient outcomes: exploring the dyadic relationship between physicians and patients. Health Care Manage Rev 33:29\u0026ndash;39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams ES et al (2002) Physician, practice, and patient characteristics related to primary care physician physical and mental health: results from the Physician Worklife Study. Health Serv Res 37:121\u0026ndash;143\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShanafelt TD et al (2010) Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg 251:995\u0026ndash;1000\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchlatter S et al (2025) Effect of coping interventions on performance of medical students during objective structured clinical examination: A randomized controlled trial. Med Teach 47:1367\u0026ndash;1376\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFacco E (2020) Hypnosis for Resilience. OBM Integr Complement Med 05:032\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Toole SK, Solomon SL, Bergdahl SA (2016) A Meta-Analysis of Hypnotherapeutic Techniques in the Treatment of PTSD Symptoms. J Trauma Stress 29:97\u0026ndash;100\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeo DG, Keller SS, Proietti R (2024) Close your eyes and relax\u0026rsquo;: the role of hypnosis in reducing anxiety, and its implications for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Front Psychol 15:1411835\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValentine KE, Milling LS, Clark LJ, Moriarty CL (2019) THE EFFICACY OF HYPNOSIS AS A TREATMENT FOR ANXIETY: A META-ANALYSIS. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 67:336\u0026ndash;363\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQueirolo L, Facco E, Bacci C, Mucignat C, Zanette G (2024) Impairment of Hypnosis by Nocebo Response and Related Neurovegetative Changes: A Case Report in Oral Surgery. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 72:189\u0026ndash;201\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThayer JF, Ahs F, Fredrikson M, Sollers JJ, Wager T (2012) D. A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:747\u0026ndash;756\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRahma ON et al (2022) Electrodermal Activity for Measuring Cognitive and Emotional Stress Level. J Med Signals Sens 12:155\u0026ndash;162\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFisch S et al (2020) Group hypnosis for stress reduction and improved stress coping: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Complement Med Ther 20:344\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParris BA (2017) The role of frontal executive functions in hypnosis and hypnotic suggestibility. Psychol Conscious Theory Res Pract 4:211\u0026ndash;229\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKurnia SA, Kaloeti DVS, Yuniarti KW, Saputri NE Blood Pressure Control and Heart Rate: Effectiveness Brief Hypnotic Induction Methods on Adults. in \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the International Conference on Psychological Studies (ICPSYCHE\u003c/em\u003e (2020)) 24\u0026ndash;29 (Atlantis Press, 2021). doi:) 24\u0026ndash;29 (Atlantis Press, 2021). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2991/assehr.k.210423.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2991/assehr.k.210423.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGay M-C (2007) Effectiveness of hypnosis in reducing mild essential hypertension: a one-year follow-up. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 55:67\u0026ndash;83\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShields GS, Sazma MA, Yonelinas AP (2016) The effects of acute stress on core executive functions: A meta-analysis and comparison with cortisol. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 68:651\u0026ndash;668\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGirotti M et al (2018) Prefrontal cortex executive processes affected by stress in health and disease. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 85:161\u0026ndash;179\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQin S, Hermans EJ, van Marle HJF, Luo J, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez G (2009) Acute psychological stress reduces working memory-related activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Biol Psychiatry 66:25\u0026ndash;32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlessow F, Fischer R, Kirschbaum C, Goschke T (2011) Inflexibly focused under stress: acute psychosocial stress increases shielding of action goals at the expense of reduced cognitive flexibility with increasing time lag to the stressor. J Cogn Neurosci 23:3218\u0026ndash;3227\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArnsten AFT (2009) Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nat Rev Neurosci 10:410\u0026ndash;422\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez-Reolid R, de la L\u0026oacute;pez F, S\u0026aacute;nchez-Reolid D, L\u0026oacute;pez MT (2022) \u0026amp; Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Caballero, A. Machine Learning Techniques for Arousal Classification from Electrodermal Activity: A Systematic Review. Sensors 22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewman SD, Carpenter PA, Varma S, Just MA (2003) Frontal and parietal participation in problem solving in the Tower of London: fMRI and computational modeling of planning and high-level perception. Neuropsychologia 41:1668\u0026ndash;1682\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewman SD, Greco JA, Lee D (2009) An fMRI study of the Tower of London: a look at problem structure differences. Brain Res 1286:123\u0026ndash;132\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShallice T (1982) Specific impairments of planning. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 298:199\u0026ndash;209\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWagner G, Koch K, Reichenbach JR, Sauer H, Schl\u0026ouml;sser RG (2006) M. The special involvement of the rostrolateral prefrontal cortex in planning abilities: an event-related fMRI study with the Tower of London paradigm. Neuropsychologia 44:2337\u0026ndash;2347\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFacco E et al (2013) Validation of visual analogue scale for anxiety (VAS-A) in preanesthesia evaluation. Minerva Anestesiol 79:1389\u0026ndash;1395\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLesage F-X, Berjot S, Deschamps F (2012) Clinical stress assessment using a visual analogue scale. Occup Med Oxf Engl 62:600\u0026ndash;605\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R (1983) A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 24:385\u0026ndash;396\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R (1994) Perceived stress scale. Perceived stress scale 10:1\u0026ndash;2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlexander JE, Stimpson KH, Kittle J, Spiegel D (2021) The Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP) in Clinical Practice and Research. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 69:72\u0026ndash;82\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStern DB, Spiegel H, Nee JC (1978) The Hypnotic Induction Profile: Normative observations, reliability and validity. Am J Clin Hypn 21:109\u0026ndash;133\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrishholz EJ, Spiegel H, Tryon WW, Fisher S (1981) The relationship between the Hypnotic Induction Profile and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C: revisited. Am J Clin Hypn 24:98\u0026ndash;105\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOrne MT et al (1979) The relation between the Hypnotic Induction Profile and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, forms A and C. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 27:85\u0026ndash;102\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShields SA, MacDowell KA, Fairchild SB, Campbell ML (1987) Is Mediation of Sweating Cholinergic, Adrenergic, or Both? A Comment on the Literature. Psychophysiology 24:312\u0026ndash;319\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoucsein W (2012) \u003cem\u003eElectrodermal Activity, 2nd Ed.\u003c/em\u003e xviii, 618 (Springer Science\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Business Media, New York, NY, US. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/978-1-4614-1126-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-1-4614-1126-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeauchaine TP, Thayer JF (2015) Heart rate variability as a transdiagnostic biomarker of psychopathology. Int J Psychophysiol Off J Int Organ Psychophysiol 98:338\u0026ndash;350\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErnst G (2017) Hidden Signals\u0026mdash;The History and Methods of Heart Rate Variability. Front Public Health 5-2017\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim H-G, Cheon E-J, Bai D-S, Lee YH, Koo B-H (2018) Stress and Heart Rate Variability: A Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature. Psychiatry Investig 15:235\u0026ndash;245\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchuurmans AAT et al (2020) Validity of the Empatica E4 Wristband to Measure Heart Rate Variability (HRV) Parameters: a Comparison to Electrocardiography (ECG). J Med Syst 44:190\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTarniceriu A et al (2018) Detection of beat-to-beat intervals from wrist photoplethysmography in patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation after surgery. in. \u003cem\u003eIEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical \u0026amp; Health Informatics (BHI)\u003c/em\u003e 133\u0026ndash;136 (2018). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1109/BHI.2018.8333387\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1109/BHI.2018.8333387\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlali O \u0026amp; Noor Aimie-Salleh. Journal of Medical Device Technology, 3(1), 45\u0026ndash;52. \u003cem\u003eValidation of Short-Term and Ultra-Short-Term Heart Rate Variability Measurement Based on Photoplethysmogram Using Commercial Mobile Application\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen W et al (2015) Wavelet-based motion artifact removal for electrodermal activity. \u003cem\u003eAnnu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. Annu. Int. Conf.\u003c/em\u003e 6223\u0026ndash;6226 (2015)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFolkman S, Stress (2013) Appraisal and Coping. in \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine\u003c/em\u003e (eds Gellman, M. D. \u0026amp; Turner, J. R.) 1913\u0026ndash;1915Springer New York, New York, NY. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFolkman S, Moskowitz JT (2000) Positive affect and the other side of coping. Am Psychol 55:647\u0026ndash;654\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlascovich J, Mendes WB (2010) Social psychophysiology and embodiment. Handbook of social psychology, vol 1, 5th edn. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, US, pp 194\u0026ndash;227. doi:\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKudielka BM, Hellhammer DH, W\u0026uuml;st S (2009) Why do we respond so differently? Reviewing determinants of human salivary cortisol responses to challenge. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34:2\u0026ndash;18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJeffreys H (1961) Theory of Probability. Oxford University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Benedittis G (2024) Hypnotic Modulation of Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) Activity. Brain Sci 14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQueirolo L et al (2025) De-stress your physiological activation by compressing your imagination: a brief session of hypnosis decreases sympathetic stress response in moderately stressed dentists. Front Psychol 16-2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGalante J et al (2018) A mindfulness-based intervention to increase resilience to stress in university students (the Mindful Student Study): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Lancet Public Health 3:e72\u0026ndash;e81\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhoury B, Sharma M, Rush SE, Fournier C (2015) Mindfulness-based stress reduction for healthy individuals: A meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res 78:519\u0026ndash;528\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBhattacharya S, Goicoechea C, Heshmati S, Carpenter J, Hofmann S (2022) Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety-Related Disorders: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Literature. Curr Psychiatry Rep 25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoessl VC, Curtiss JE, Hofmann SG (2017) The effect of heart rate variability biofeedback training on stress and anxiety: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med 47:2578\u0026ndash;2586\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrech M (2021) The Effect of the Educational Environment on the rate of Burnout among Postgraduate Medical Trainees - A Narrative Literature Review. J Med Educ Curric Dev 8:23821205211018700\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBennett-Weston A et al (2024) Interventions to promote medical student well-being: an overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open 14:e082910\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFernandez A, Urwicz L, Vuilleumier P, Berna C (2022) Impact of hypnosis on psychophysiological measures: A scoping literature review. Am J Clin Hypn 64:36\u0026ndash;52\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThayer JF, Lane RD (2000) A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. J Affect Disord 61:201\u0026ndash;216\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlimek A, Mannheim I, Schouten G, Wouters EJM, Peeters MWH (2023) Wearables measuring electrodermal activity to assess perceived stress in care: a scoping review. Acta Neuropsychiatr 37:e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHickey BA et al (2021) Smart Devices and Wearable Technologies to Detect and Monitor Mental Health Conditions and Stress: A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eSensors\u003c/em\u003e 21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVerkuil B, Brosschot JF, Thayer JF (2014) Cardiac reactivity to and recovery from acute stress: temporal associations with implicit anxiety. Int J Psychophysiol Off J Int Organ Psychophysiol 92:85\u0026ndash;91\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePieper S, Brosschot JF, van der Leeden R, Thayer JF (2010) Prolonged cardiac effects of momentary assessed stressful events and worry episodes. Psychosom Med 72:570\u0026ndash;577\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLandry M, Lifshitz M, Raz A (2017) Brain correlates of hypnosis: A systematic review and meta-analytic exploration. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 81:75\u0026ndash;98\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOakley DA, Halligan PW (2013) Hypnotic suggestion: opportunities for cognitive neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14:565\u0026ndash;576\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindel\u0026oslash;v JK, Overgaard R, Overgaard M (2017) Improving working memory performance in brain-injured patients using hypnotic suggestion. Brain J Neurol 140:1100\u0026ndash;1106\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrignoli N et al (2025) Clinical decision fatigue: a systematic and scoping review with meta-synthesis. Fam Med Community Health 13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eALQahtani DA et al (2018) Factors underlying suboptimal diagnostic performance in physicians under time pressure. Med Educ 52:1288\u0026ndash;1298\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGroombridge CJ, Kim Y, Maini A, Smit DV, Fitzgerald MC (2019) Stress and decision-making in resuscitation: A systematic review. Resuscitation 144:115\u0026ndash;122\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaz A, Shapiro T, Fan J, Posner M (2002) I. Hypnotic suggestion and the modulation of Stroop interference. Arch Gen Psychiatry 59:1155\u0026ndash;1161\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThompson T et al (2019) The effectiveness of hypnosis for pain relief: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 controlled experimental trials. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 99:298\u0026ndash;310\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMontgomery GH, Schnur JB, David D (2011) The impact of hypnotic suggestibility in clinical care settings. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 59:294\u0026ndash;309\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFacco E (2024) On the Hard Process of Understanding Hypnosis: Epistemological Issues in the Debate Between State, Trait, and Hypofrontality Theories Facco. in \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge International Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis Facco\u003c/em\u003e, J. H. Linden, \u003cem\u003eB. G. De, \u0026amp; L. I. Sugarman (Eds.)\u003c/em\u003e 22\u0026ndash;38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePintar J, Lynn SJ (2008) \u003cem\u003eHypnosis: A Brief History.\u003c/em\u003e xiv, 221. Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, US. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/9781444305296\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/9781444305296\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFaerman A et al (2024) Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT): a preregistered randomized controlled trial. Nat Ment Health 2:96\u0026ndash;103\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWoody EZ, Barnier AJ (2008) Hypnosis scales for the twenty-first century: What do we need and how should we use them? The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: Theory, research, and practice. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, US, pp 255\u0026ndash;280\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFacco E et al (2017) Psychological Features of Hypnotizability: A First Step Towards Its Empirical Definition. Int J Clin Exp Hypn 65:98\u0026ndash;119\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFacco E et al (2019) Dissociative identity as a continuum from healthy mind to psychiatric disorders: Epistemological and neurophenomenological implications approached through hypnosis. Med Hypotheses 130:109274\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFacco E (2021) Hypnosis and Hypnotic ability between old beliefs and new evidences: An epistemological reflection. Am J Clin Hypn 64:20\u0026ndash;35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlascovich J, Tomaka J (1996) In: Zanna MP (ed) The Biopsychosocial Model of Arousal Regulation, vol 28. Academic, pp 1\u0026ndash;51\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlascovich J (2008) Challenge, threat, and health. Handb Motiv Sci 481\u0026ndash;493\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeber CS et al (2010) Low vagal tone is associated with impaired post stress recovery of cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune markers. Eur J Appl Physiol 109:201\u0026ndash;211\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams DP et al (2015) Resting heart rate variability predicts self-reported difficulties in emotion regulation: a focus on different facets of emotion regulation. Front Psychol 6:261\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQueirolo L et al (2024) Effects of forest bathing (Shinrin-yoku) in stressed people. Front Psychol 15:1458418\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriston K (2010) The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nat Rev Neurosci 11:127\u0026ndash;138\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShors TJ (2004) Learning during stressful times. Learn Mem Cold Spring Harb N 11:137\u0026ndash;144\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlchihabi A, Ekmekci O, Kivilcim BB, Newman SD (2021) Yarman Vural, F. T. Analyzing Complex Problem Solving by Dynamic Brain Networks. Front Neuroinformatics 15:670052\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM\u0026eacute;tais A et al (2025) Determining the influence of an intervention of stress management on medical students\u0026rsquo; levels of psychophysiological stress: the protocol of the PROMESS-Stress clinical trial. BMC Med Educ 25:225\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFazia T et al (2023) Improving stress management, anxiety, and mental well-being in medical students through an online Mindfulness-Based Intervention: a randomized study. Sci Rep 13:8214\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen T et al (2023) Transforming stress program on medical students\u0026rsquo; stress mindset and coping strategies: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Med Educ 23:587\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTam A et al (2025) The effects of stress on surgical performance: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 39:77\u0026ndash;98\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Padova","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Executive function, TOL, hypnosis, stress management, HRV, EDA, medical students, Machine Learning","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555017/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555017/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eStress and anxiety impair executive function and degrade performance, yet rapid and scalable interventions remain limited. This controlled study tested whether a single personalized hypnosis session could enhance stress regulation and cognitive performance during negative memory recall in medical students. Forty-nine final-year students were assigned to hypnosis or a breath-focused attention condition (control arm) (\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eClinicalTrials.gov\u003c/span\u003e: NCT06778109). Executive function (Tower of London Revised),perceived stress and anxiety (VASs, VASa, PSS-10), were assessed before and after a repeated personal negative memory recall, while autonomic reactivity (heart rate, heart rate variability, electrodermal activity, skin conductance responses and percentage of time in sympathetic activation) before, during and after the repeated personal negative memory recall. Hypnosis yielded significantly greater improvements in executive functions (ANCOVA, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.62), reduced stress and anxiety, whereas stress increased in controls. Physiologically, hypnosis increased parasympathetic recovery (HRV), tonic sympathetic activity (EDA), while suppressing excessive phasic sympathetic surges (SCR/min) and reducing time spent in stress response. Bayesian analyses provided extreme evidence (Jeffreys\u0026rsquo; scale) for psychophysiological effects. Network analysis identified electrodermal activity as a central hub linking stress responses and executive functions. A logistic model accurately classified group membership. In leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), the model retained strong performance (Accuracy\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;90%, AUC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.91, Brier score\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0796). These findings are consistent with a hypnosis-related shift toward an adaptive challenge-like autonomic profile, suggesting improved cognitive resilience and flexibility in high-pressure contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Hypnosis Enhances Executive Performance, Reduces Negative Memories Reactivity, Stress and Anxiety in Medical Students: A Network, Bayesian, Psychophysiological and Machine Learning Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-12 06:19:48","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555017/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ee0f6694-faf9-467a-9bc0-65b1f4d9ec62","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 12th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":60841299,"name":"Psychology"},{"id":60841300,"name":"Cognitive Neuroscience"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-12T06:19:49+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-12 06:19:48","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8555017","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8555017","identity":"rs-8555017","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}