{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a3363","dataset_id":"ds004572","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Zoltan Kekecs","Kyra Girán","Vanda Vizkievicz","Anna Lutoskin","Yeganeh Farahzadi"],"bids_version":"1.6.0","contact_info":["Yeganeh Farahzadi","Zoltan Kekecs"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004572.v1.3.2","datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":52,"ages":[],"age_min":null,"age_max":null,"age_mean":null,"species":null,"sex_distribution":null,"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds004572","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":["Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH, Grant No.: FK 132248)"],"ingestion_fingerprint":"33974642e7c7055d09821e66994c03627608e03bf20824c1b465c10616752225","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"The effects of sham hypnosis techniques","readme":"52 participants (39 females) took part in this study and their brain electrophysiological activity were being recorded using 64-channel EasyCap from Brain Products. After mounting the EEG electrode cap, the study protocol started with 5 minutes of closed-eyes rest (Pre-hypnosis Baseline), followed by four experimental conditions (Experimental Blocks), and ended with another 5 minutes of closed-eyes rest (Post-hypnosis Baseline). Throughout the four Experimental Blocks, participants were exposed to either conventional or unconventional (placebo) hypnotic inductions described either as hypnosis or as simple relaxation technique in a 2 x 2 balanced placebo design. In other words, each participant underwent four trials, in which they were exposed to a conventional hypnosis induction presented as “hypnosis”; a conventional hypnosis induction presented as “control”; an unconventional hypnosis induction presented as “hypnosis”; and an unconventional hypnosis induction presented as “control” in a randomized order.\nFor detailed information on our data collection methods, refer to the public trial registry on the Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WVHDA.\nPublications based on this dataset:\n- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/psyp.70183\n- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-56633-x","recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":"Yeganeh Farahzadi","sessions":["01"],"size_bytes":46776268551,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["baseline1","baseline2","experience1","experience2","experience3","experience4","induction1","induction2","induction3","induction4"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:26:42.518747+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2023-05-20T09:38:46.707Z","dataset_modified_at":"2026-02-13T14:44:12.000Z"},"total_files":516,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds004572","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README","participants.json","participants.tsv"]},"nemar_citation_count":2,"computed_title":"The effects of sham hypnosis techniques","nchans_counts":[{"val":61,"count":516}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":1000.0,"count":516}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.307908+00:00","tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Auditory"],"type":["Other"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.7,"modality":0.6,"type":0.6},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"No few-shot example directly matches a hypnosis/placebo induction paradigm. The closest convention cues are: (1) resting-state datasets are labeled Resting State / Resting-state when the protocol is only passive eyes-open/closed (e.g., the few-shot 'A Resting-state EEG Dataset for Sleep Deprivation'); but the current dataset includes multiple experimental blocks beyond rest. (2) Few-shot task-based experiments label Modality by stimulus channel (e.g., 'Subcortical responses to music and speech...' -> Auditory; 'Braille letters' -> Tactile), guiding an inference that hypnotic inductions are most plausibly delivered verbally (auditory), if that is indeed the stimulus channel.","metadata_analysis":"Key metadata facts: (1) protocol structure includes resting baselines plus experimental inductions: \"started with 5 minutes of closed-eyes rest (Pre-hypnosis Baseline)... ended with another 5 minutes of closed-eyes rest (Post-hypnosis Baseline).\" (2) main manipulation is hypnotic induction/placebo framing: \"participants were exposed to either conventional or unconventional (placebo) hypnotic inductions described either as hypnosis or as simple relaxation technique in a 2 x 2 balanced placebo design.\" (3) participant recruitment is described only by count/sex, with no diagnosis stated: \"52 participants (39 females) took part in this study\".","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information. (Only publication links are provided; no abstract text included in the metadata supplied.)","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology: Metadata says participants are simply \"52 participants\" with no clinical diagnosis mentioned; few-shot conventions map such non-clinical cohorts to Healthy. ALIGN.\nModality: Metadata says \"hypnotic inductions\" and a \"relaxation technique\" but does not explicitly state whether instructions were spoken/audio-recorded; few-shot conventions would label verbal/audio stimuli as Auditory, but the dataset also contains substantial eyes-closed rest. PARTIAL ALIGN with uncertainty (inference needed).\nType: Metadata says the study is about \"effects of sham hypnosis techniques\" using a balanced placebo design; few-shot conventions would label pure eyes-closed passive recordings as Resting-state, but here the core purpose is manipulation of hypnosis/placebo induction rather than resting-state brain rhythms. CONFLICT with a naive resting-state pattern; metadata task description wins because it explicitly includes multiple experimental induction blocks beyond rest.","decision_summary":"Pathology top-2: (A) Healthy — supported by lack of any diagnosis/recruitment criterion and generic \"52 participants\" description; (B) Unknown — possible because health status is not explicitly stated. Winner: Healthy (no clinical population indicated). Evidence: \"52 participants (39 females) took part in this study\".\nModality top-2: (A) Auditory — most plausible channel for \"hypnotic inductions\" / \"relaxation technique\" instructions (typically verbal), aligning with few-shot convention that sound-based paradigms are Auditory; (B) Resting State — because the protocol includes two \"5 minutes of closed-eyes rest\" baselines. Winner: Auditory, because the dominant experimental manipulation is induction instructions rather than the baseline segments. Evidence: \"participants were exposed to... hypnotic inductions described either as hypnosis or as simple relaxation technique\" plus the explicit baseline/rest structure.\nType top-2: (A) Other — primary aim is hypnosis/placebo/expectation manipulation (altered state/suggestibility), not neatly captured by Attention/Memory/Perception/Motor; (B) Resting-state — due to pre/post \"closed-eyes rest\". Winner: Other, because there are four experimental induction blocks in a balanced placebo design indicating a non-rest primary construct. Evidence: \"four experimental conditions (Experimental Blocks)\" and \"2 x 2 balanced placebo design\" plus pre/post rest baselines.","confidence_notes":"Confidence reflects that pathology is implied (not explicitly 'healthy'), and both modality and type require some inference because the induction delivery channel and cognitive construct label are not explicitly named in the provided metadata."}},"total_duration_s":191689.49599999998,"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"3557b68bca409f28","metadata_hash":"00fe17047746a6d2","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-04-07T09:32:40.872789+00:00"},"canonical_name":null,"name_confidence":0.62,"name_meta":{"suggested_at":"2026-04-14T10:18:35.343Z","model":"openai/gpt-5.2 + openai/gpt-5.4-mini + deterministic_fallback"},"name_source":"author_year","author_year":"Kekecs2023"}}