1 Title and one-sentence summary

Does Induced Absorption Amplify Autosuggestion Beyond Relaxation and Expectancy?

Summary: A randomized crossover experiment with approximately 300 completers and six visits per participant will test whether induced absorption increases analgesic autosuggestion beyond expectancy-matched relaxation, using an additional 0.3 standard deviations as the minimum meaningful effect.

Applicant: Future Mind Institute, a US nonprofit; Priority A, belief dynamics and mind–body regulation. This is an extended project brief meeting the requested content and length; it is not constrained to one printed page.

2 Scientific question and background

The question is whether induction increases the benefit attributable to suggestion. Thompson et al. (2019) reviewed 85 experimental trials involving 3,632 participants, supporting hypnotic analgesia and identifying suggestion content and hypnotic suggestibility as relevant influences. Their findings do not establish the state-specific increment proposed here. Paper

Laborde et al. (2022) show that slow breathing changes heart rate variability, making respiration a physiological confound. Paper Khalsa et al. (2018) distinguish interoceptive awareness, objective accuracy, and metacognitive knowledge: perceived bodily insight cannot establish accurate bodily detection. Paper Seinsche et al. (2024) report phase-specific emotional and HRV changes during imagery rescripting in a randomized trial of 77 patients, without testing symbolic diagnosis or organ repair. Paper

These adjacent findings make incremental testing feasible in 2026 without first funding expensive whole-brain discovery. Positive results could revise the local model that relaxation, expectancy, and shared suggestion components sufficiently explain this induction’s analgesic effects. They would not overturn established mind–body mechanisms generally.

3 Origin of the hypotheses

The hypotheses were extracted from the Seth Material: a-1-3, seth-speaks §574 and §19, proposes stronger autosuggestion in A-1; a-1-7, seth-speaks §19, proposes symbolic imagery replacement. These statements are hypothesis generators, never evidence. Experimentally induced absorption is an operational approximation, not an established identification of A-1.

The original wording supplies no numerical amplification estimate. The 0.3-standard-deviation threshold is introduced by this protocol. Provenance will reference the applicant-supplied Zenodo dataset and program website, designated CC BY 4.0; the version and license will be checked before formal registration.

4 Primary hypothesis and falsifiable predictions

Define B within each state as mean pain under neutral instructions minus mean pain under analgesic autosuggestion. The primary contrast is Δ = B_absorption − B_relaxation. Standardize using σ₀, the between-participant standard deviation of fixed-heat pain ratings obtained before randomization.

The null hypothesis is Δ = 0. The directional prediction is Δ > 0, with a planning alternative of Δ/σ₀ = 0.30. The waking condition estimates ordinary suggestion effects and provides context; it cannot replace the primary absorption-versus-relaxation contrast.

Statistical positivity requires a two-sided 95% confidence interval excluding zero. Whether the increment is meaningfully large requires separate comparison with 0.30. A smaller statistically significant effect would not establish the planned magnitude. Ordinary analgesia, increased HRV, or vivid imagery cannot confirm the primary hypothesis.

5 Research design

Use a within-participant 3-state × 2-instruction design: induced absorption, expectancy-matched relaxation, and ordinary wakefulness, each paired with analgesic autosuggestion or neutral self-instructions. Recruit 354 adults to obtain approximately 300 completers under an anticipated 15% attrition rate. Recruitment will not select only highly suggestible responders. A separate 30-person feasibility pilot will refine scripts and will not enter the confirmatory analysis.

Each participant attends six visits separated by at least 48 hours. Balanced sequences address period and first-order carryover effects. Individually calibrated heat temperature, stimulus duration, and stimulus count remain fixed across experimental conditions, while skin sites rotate. Suggestion wording and practice dose remain identical across states. Participants silently enact the instructions themselves, distinguishing the target intervention from suggestions delivered directly by an operator.

For planning, assume the participant-level difference-in-differences has a standard deviation of 1.5σ₀. An increment of 0.30σ₀ therefore corresponds to a paired standardized effect of 0.20. With two-sided α = .05, approximately 263 completers provide 90% power; 300 provide approximately 93%. Before registration, simulations will examine the visit covariance structure, attrition, and carryover. These figures are planning assumptions, not empirical results or guarantees under all covariance structures.

Scripts will match duration, voice, contact, and credibility. Slow breathing will not be introduced uniquely into one condition. Participants cannot be fully blinded to their experience; neutral condition names will reduce explicit hierarchy cues. Outcome assessors and analysts will remain blind to condition codes. Registration will specify the single primary contrast, exclusions, missing-data procedures, blinded quality checks, and stopping rules.

6 Data and analysis plan

The primary outcome is pain intensity on a 0–100 scale during fixed thermal stimulation. A mixed model containing state, instruction, their interaction, period, sequence, and participant random effects will estimate Δ. Report effects in raw pain units and standardized units, with confidence intervals. Include available observations from all randomized participants and conduct sensitivity analyses for departures from the missing-at-random assumption.

Pain thresholds, HRV, and skin conductance are secondary outcomes, with multiplicity correction within prespecified outcome families. Respiration will be recorded alongside autonomic measurements. Physiological changes will not be interpreted as confirmation of a special state or comprehensive stress removal.

Measure expectancy, relaxation, and absorption before and after induction. Expectancy matching will use a prespecified equivalence margin of ±0.25 standard deviations and a 90% confidence interval. Failure to demonstrate matching prevents an interpretation independent of expectancy. Post-induction expectancy may itself mediate effects; covariate adjustment cannot establish independence or remove every confound. Absorption checks will assess manipulation separation, not justify excluding nonresponders after randomization.

A separately registered mechanism module will compare symbolic replacement with content-matched verbal reappraisal. It will require its own sample-size justification and one primary outcome. This budget supports development only, not confirmatory recruitment for that module. Deidentified data, dictionaries, scripts, and analysis code will be released; sensitive records will use controlled access.

7 Milestones and duration

The project will run for 18 months. Months 1–3 cover ethics approval, adversarial protocol development, piloting, and registration. Months 4–12 cover rolling recruitment and completion of the six visits. Months 13–15 cover database lock and blinded analysis. Months 16–18 cover publication of all results, data release, and the decision on further funding.

The main experiment begins only after scripts and the confirmatory protocol are frozen. There will be no opportunistic interim efficacy stopping. This sequence protects the distinction between feasibility adjustments and confirmatory testing while keeping the work within the proposed 12–18-month envelope.

8 Budget scale

The request is US$600,000, within the proposed US$400,000–700,000 range.

Item	US dollars
Research and clinical personnel	240,000
Participant compensation, travel, and pilot participation	100,000
Equipment and consumables	60,000
Facilities and recruitment	50,000
Independent statistics, adversarial collaboration, and open data	50,000
Ethics, insurance, and administration	40,000
Contingency	60,000
Total	600,000

The estimate assumes access to existing thermal-pain infrastructure. It excludes major neuroimaging acquisition and a confirmatory trial of the separate mechanism module.

9 PI profile and candidate teams or institutions

The PI should have experimental pain and suggestion expertise, experience with crossover trials, and a demonstrated open-science record. The team requires a clinical safety lead and an independent statistician.

Potential collaborators are Devin B. Terhune and the Awareness & Modulation Lab at King’s College London for state and suggestion methodology; David Spiegel at Stanford Medicine for hypnotic analgesia expertise; and Arnoud Arntz at the University of Amsterdam for imagery-module development. These are proposed invitations, not confirmed commitments.

Proponents of amplification and researchers favoring relaxation/expectancy explanations will jointly sign the predictions and failure criteria. This adversarial arrangement should govern interpretation as well as protocol design.

10 Risks and failure criteria

Principal risks are demand characteristics, expectancy mismatch, learning, and carryover. If the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for Δ/σ₀ is below 0.30, abandon the claim that this protocol achieves the planned meaningful increment. If the 90% interval lies wholly within ±0.30, classify the result as practical equivalence. An interval spanning both zero and 0.30 indicates uncertainty, not falsification.

Failure of manipulation separation, expectancy matching, or carryover control means the present design cannot adjudicate independent amplification. Such failure will not justify escalation into costly mechanism research. Any redesign must register its rationale before renewed testing.

Negative findings cannot be attributed retrospectively to insufficient participant belief. Secondary outcomes, selected responder subgroups, or results from the imagery module cannot rescue a failed primary claim. These rules preserve an interpretable funding decision even when ordinary analgesia occurs.

11 Ethics and compliance

Obtain approval from the implementing institution’s ethics committee. Thermal stimulation will have temperature and cumulative-exposure limits, immediate participant-controlled stopping, risk-based screening, and adverse-event recording. Consent will explain the experimental nature of the procedures without promising therapeutic benefit or changing participants’ treatment.

Disclose funding and the provenance of the motivating claims. Future Mind Institute will operate as a neutral consciousness-and-life-sciences funder, with the Seth Material Research Program as one public program. Neither institutional identity nor source affiliation determines the scientific interpretation.

Apply relevant privacy and international data-transfer requirements. Preregister sharing consent and access tiers so that reproducibility commitments remain compatible with participant confidentiality. Public release will contain deidentified research data rather than identifiable participant records.

12 Fit with existing funders

The following are thematic fit assessments, not statements of eligibility or funding commitments. Bial’s psychophysiology remit provides the most direct alignment. Fetzer’s interest in inner life and shared flourishing offers a possible connection, although the fit with basic experimental pain research is less direct. Templeton World Charity Foundation’s Cogitate model provides a relevant precedent for preregistration, open science, and structured adversarial collaboration.

BICS, UVA DOPS, and IONS are reference networks rather than presumed funders or committed collaborators. Before submission, verify each organization’s current eligibility, award limits, and application window. Funding agreements must preserve publication of null findings and must not give any sponsor veto power over results.