2011. Vol.2, No.3, 181-186
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.23029
Controlled Reactivation of Psycho-Semantic Space by
Subconscious (Subthreshold) Stimuli
Semyon Ioffe1, Sergey Yesin2
1Department of the Psycho-semantics, Northam Psychotechnologies, Ottawa, Canada;
2Psychophysiology Lab, Vishnevsky Central Military Clinical Hospital, Krasnogorsk, Russia.
Received December 24th, 2010; revised February 24th, 2011; accepted March 29th, 2011.
Psycho-Semantic spaces were constructed for 25 volunteers (15 smokers and 10 non smokers) BEFORE and
AFTER their exposure to the “defence reaction” development procedure to the word COBRA and subconscious
teaching. Subconscious teaching was done to disassociate each participant’s psychological interrelationship to-
wards smoking—cigarette brands. We have established that defence reaction corresponds with the basic emotion
of FEAR. One can evaluate the degree of forming a defence reaction in the subject being tested from reduction
of distance from the word COBRA to the emotion FEAR and defence reaction has a moderate relationship with
the development procedure (number of errors—number of reinforcements). We have also shown the transfer of
the defence reaction from the word COBRA to the words shown in the subconscious mode before the word
COBRA (p < 0.05) and changes of the emotional relationship to cigarette brands using the anchoring technique
—subconscious semantic teaching verbiage type BOND-FEAR and others (p < 0.05). We learned that PsyExpert
and SMART technologies are effective and sensitive methodologies for studying the psycho-semantic space of
emotions, control of reactivation of individual psycho-semantic space and effectively retraining the subcon-
scious mind.
Keywords: Unconscious Mind, Reactivation, Psycho-Semantics, Subconscious Re-Teaching, Defence Reaction,
The name Psycho-semantics derives from two words: PSY-
CHE (the mind) and SEMANTICS (the study of meaning).
Many researchers have allocated a special role to semantic
factors (i.e., semantic, information) during the human life (Put-
nam, 1975; Peacocke, 1992; Smirnov, Beznosjuk, & Zhuralyov,
In the process of the evolution of the psyche, the role of se-
mantic signals has grown. A reaction to a particular stimulus
results from activation of memory contents that corresponds to
the stimulus in question.
Any perceived information immediately causes an associa-
tive chain of corresponding memories. This suggests that any
perceived stimulus is not stored in memory in the form of an
independent semantic element but stored only as an aggregate
of associative connections with other elements (Meyer, 1970;
Smith, Shoben, & Rips, 1974; Smirnov et al., 1995).
Any internal or environmental change entails change of
mental activity and a respective alteration of behavior. If this
stimulus is accompanied with significant life changes, a special
meaning is appropriated to it. The meaning of stimuli (which
the word or an image represents) is its connection and associa-
tion with concrete changes of the emotional state. Thus, having
determined a group of significant words that are emotionally
associated for the individual, it becomes possible to change the
person’s mental activity and behavior in a different way by
showing these words to the participant (Smirnov et al., 1995;
Ioffe, Yesin, Afanasjev, & Nezhdanov, 2007a, b).
A measure of the importance of a word is the quantity of the
associative connections to other words. On the basis of such
words, a base semantic nucleus of personality is created (Smir-
nov et al., 1995; Schreiber & Nelson, 1998; Ioffe & Kono-
beevsky, 2008) allowing understanding of the principles of
reaction of the person’s psyche to different stimuli. Thus,
drawing up a base semantic nucleus of personality, for example,
as a psychological portrait of the person being tested, allows
researchers to determine the subject's true attitude to different
spheres of life and activity; to answer the most innate questions;
and to reveal motivation and propensities to addictive behavior,
dependencies, etc. (Smirnov et al., 1995).
Controlled subconscious reactivation and teaching represents
a process of activating the traces of semantically meaningful
issues symbolized by words and emotions—associate or disas-
sociate—and repositioning them into a different psycho-seman-
tic space, creating stable beneficial meanings to the human
Semantic space in humans and their dynamics can be inves-
tigated using various well established rigorous techniques: se-
mantic differential (Osgood, Succi, & Tannenbaum, 1957; Os-
good, 1959, 1967, 1976) personal construct theory (Kelly,
1970), classification of the emotions theory (Leontiev, 2002),
Max Luscher’s color personality test. Using them one by one,
comparing results and drawing combine conclusions requires
significant time of the subject being tested and is extremely
labour intensive for the researcher.
A computer administrated PsyExpert test (Ioffe, & Yesin,
2010) which combines in one test procedure all the above de-
scribed rigorous techniques was used in our study. PsyExpert
allows visualize dynamic changes of semantic space in the form
of Runge sphere using emotions as coordinates. The very heart
of PsyExpert is a concept of innate relations of human emotions
and feelings with color. PsyExpert uses classification of emo-
tions by Leontiev which summarizes work by Ekman (1999),
Ekman and Davidson (1994); Izard (1977) and others and sug-
gests a universal classification of the emotions (Leontiev, 2002).
The corner stone of this classification are eight basic emotions
representing human personal needs. (http://emoatlas.naro- The PsyExpert test incorporates an equal
number of basic emotions, connected with individual needs of
the personality (positive and negative, directed on itself or on
the object, anticipating or ascertaining).
The second complex successively used in a number of pub-
lications (Ioffe, Yesin, Afanasjev, & Nezhdanov, 2007a, 2007b;
Ioffe & Konobeevsky, 2008; Ioffe & Yesin, 2010) is nonverbal
assessment and teaching of the subconscious mind—SMART
(Semantic Mediated Analysis of Responses and Teaching).
Nonverbal examination bypasses the conscious “censorships”
and consists of registration of non realized reactions of the sub-
ject being tested, as an “answer” to a presentation of the seman-
tic stimulus in the subconscious “invisible” subthreshold range.
The subthreshold range is positioned between the physiological
threshold and comprehension threshold and stimuli shown in
this range has short presentation time that registers through the
retina into the brain “without comprehension.” The modified
complex of the visual-motor act is used as a response of the non
realised reaction. Based on the character of the changes of these
reactions the conclusion of their importance is drawn for each
semantic stimulus or group of stimuli in psycho-semantic space
of the subject. And as both “question” and “answer” bypasses
the conscious mind, the examination is able to reveal true mo-
tivation, aspirations, system of vital values, destructive tenden-
cies, participation in illegal actions, affects, mental and psy-
chological problems and their reasons, various kinds of de-
pendences (addiction to alcohol, narcotics, toxic substances,
foods, gambling, etc.) and many other issues (Smirnov, Beznos-
juk, & Zhuravlyov, 1995; Ioffe, Yesin, Afanasjev, & Nezhdanov,
2007; Ioffe & Konobeevsky, 2008).
Another extremely important feature of SMART is the tech-
nique has the module which allows subconsciously reactivate
psycho-semantic fields and re-teaches the subconscious mind.
In this technology teaching verbiage is shown in a subconscious
mode and directs desirable changes of the patient for the future
(Ioffe, Yesin, Afanasjev, & Nezhdanov, 2007b).
To learn dynamics of conscious and subconscious influences
on the subconscious mind we have decided to investigate how
easy a subject’s semantic space can be influenced by simple
control situations:
1) Classical conditioning associated with the defence reac-
tion and its transformation into conditional defence response in
the subconscious mind;
2) Usage of the newly developed conscious and subconscious
conditional stimuli in the procedure of subconscious re-teach-
3) Comparing the influence of subconscious conditional
stimuli with other verbiage used in re-teaching.
More specifically the following objectives were the goals of
our study:
1) To evaluate the dynamic changes of the patient’s psycho-
semantic space to the influences of conscious and subconscious
2) To define emotions corresponding to “defence reaction” of
the subject and develop “defence reaction” to the word COBRA
(any other word can be used for this purpose, but we have cho-
sen to use the word COBRA) using a standard conscious me-
thodology approach.
3) To investigate the transfer of the “defence reaction” to the
words-stimulus shown subconsciously before the word CO-
4) To quantify the changes of psycho-semantic space during
the subconscious presentation of the teaching verbiage.
Twenty five subjects, healthy volunteers, all men ages 20.8 ±
1.9 years participated in the study. Out of 25 men studied, 15
were smokers for 4.3 ± 2.9 years and smoked 12.1 ± 7.0 ciga-
rettes per day. Each participant signed a consent form. To
achieve a uniformity of the study sample for psychological
health each participant was subjected to the MMPI test. All
participants had shown no obvious clinical pathology and were
recognised as a homogeneous research group suitable for car-
rying out further study.
Each participant was subjected to the following regiment:
1) Each participant was asked to write 2 names of preferred
(for smokers) or well-known to them (for non-smoking) brands
of cigarettes. Further in the text above first brands on the list
were named accordingly as BRAND_CIGARET1 and second
brand on the list BRAND_CIGARET2. These topic names
were used in PSYEXPERT and SMART testings.
2) The psycho-semantic space for each participant was con-
structed, all objects of study were defined and precisely posi-
tioned, distances between the basic emotions of the participant
and elements were calculated: word COBRA, BRAND of
CIGARETTES (its own brand for each participant).
3) Each participant was exposed to conscious and subcon-
scious stimuli for 4 to 5 minutes at approximately one stimulus
per second. The participant was asked to press the mouse but-
ton at the appearance of any words on a screen monitor, except
for the word COBRA (conscious presentation). When the par-
ticipant made a mistake, a strong auditory message (100 deci-
bels) through headphones, about the error, was delivered, which
the participant tried to avoid since the “defence reaction” to this
word was developed. This was tested by subconscious presen-
tation of the word COBRA to understand if conscious proce-
dure of development of the defence reaction was transferred to
the subconscious mind. The number of errors during develop-
ment of the defence reaction was calculated for further analysis.
Concurrently subconscious stimuli were delivered to the subject
being tested in two variants:
a) Before a visible word COBRA appeared “invisible”
BRAND_CIGARET1 in the mode of “perceptions without
comprehension” subconsciously.
b) During the teaching process semantic teaching verbiage
types of BRAND_CIGARET2-FEAR were shown subcon-
4) Each participant’s psycho-semantic space was recon-
structed after the subconscious teaching procedure.
Reliability of the PsyExpert results was investigated using a
degree of conformity of the word COBRA with colour. In the
course of testing it was required to correlate the word COBRA
with colours of a spectrum and to evaluate the strength of the
association from 1 to 10 (10 has been accepted for 100%). If
the average conformity would turn out to be much below 50%
we could not depend reliably on the test results (Ivanter, 1992).
The PsyExpert test comprises of a number of steps:
1) The subject being tested looks through a number of pic-
tures illustrating various life situations, recognizes some as
opposite pairs of emotions, names them and undersigns. It is
natural that the emotions especially relevant to the subject be-
ing tested are “recognized” with ease.
2) The colors of a visible spectrum are shown one by one and
the subject being tested is asked to select for each of the emo-
tions (poles of the constructs) revealed in the previous step, the
most “desirable” colors and evaluate their strength using a scale
from 1 to 10.
Consequently, pairs of opposite emotions (the constructs) are
replaced with corresponding pairs of colors.
3) Evaluation of the elements with these color associative
pairs is carried out.
Evaluating the elements by colors, the subject being tested
does not suspect that he/she is actually “associating” each ele-
ment with an individual specific emotion (the pole of the con-
struct), thus openly revealing their inner world.
4) In conclusion, the colors are ranked by the subject being
tested in the order of desirable-undesirable colors. Identified
emotions (poles of constructs) and elements are all included in
the same order of colors.
Finally, calculation is provided for a number of statistical in-
dices: color correlation, index of cognitive differentiation (con-
nection intensity), exact distances between all the objects in
psycho-semantic space and conflicts of personality of self iden-
The test results are displayed in graphic form as a 3D color
psycho-semantic space represented as a Runge’s Sphere with
basic emotions, constructs and elements situated within and
also displayed in a printable form comprising a detailed de-
scription of analysed psycho-semantic space.
SMART technology is based on the universal principles of
human behaviour and scientific experimentation: Humans are
the product of information of their surrounding environment.
Any traits, influences, abilities, etc. are described and experi-
enced through words, pictures, sound etc. Information is cate-
gorized and prioritized by emotions throughout one’s life. The
major content of the human’s informational being is not acces-
sible to his/her conscious mind. It belongs to the subconscious
mind. SMART technology uses the universal principles of sci-
entific experimentation: each experiment consists of: Control
Probe/Stimuli, Reper (Reference point) and a Registered re-
sponse (Smirnov, Beznosjuk, & Zhuravlyov, 1995; Ioffe, Yesin,
Afanasjev, & Nezhdanov, 2007). Each person is his own con-
trol, since every person’s psyche is different. It is important to
understand that every individual test is a complete scientific
experiment since it contains all the above-mentioned compo-
nents. Controls represent stimuli which have no meaning to the
subject. They are in the form of a row of randomly chosen 15
numbers that flash across the screen at a fraction of a second,
registering through the retina into the brain. This control is then
masked by a different row of randomly-chosen 15 numbers.
The first row, the control, is seen subconsciously. The second
row, the masker, is seen consciously. The probe is semantically
meaningful stimuli in the form of a word that moves across the
screen at a fraction of a second, registering through the retina
into the brain. This probe/word is then masked by a row of
randomly-chosen 15 numbers. The probe/word is seen subcon-
sciously and the masker row of numbers is seen consciously.
Reper is a different kind of control. It is a measurement devel-
oped to gauge defence reaction (the subject’s reaction to the
“punishment” they receive during the test). This reaction is then
measured to understand how the subject’s subconscious mind
responds defensively. Registered Response is when the subject
is asked to press a mouse button each time they see a row of
numbers. The combined visual and motor reaction to the con-
trols, probe and reper are measured by the response time be-
tween a stimuli and the subject pressing the mouse button.
Rigid requirements are placed on the respondent ensuring that
they are unable to alter the test results in any way. The speed at
which they react is measured using statistical analysis. The
relationship between the control, probe and reper is analyzed by
measuring deviations between the three components.
Statistical calculations were carried out using nonparametric
criteria of Lehmann-Rosenblatt for homogeneity test (Lehmann,
1951; Rosenblatt, 1952), Pearson’s correlation coefficient sen-
sitive to a linear relationship between two variables and Spear-
man’s rank correlation coefficient (nonlinear correlation) rs as a
non-parametric measure of statistical dependence between two
variables. Statistical significances of the coefficients were cal-
culated. Significance level at 95% (p < 0.05) was accepted. In
addition, we used general classification of association of corre-
lation according to Ivanter, 1992. The association was consid-
ered to be strong if the correlation factor r > 0.70; average if
0.50 < r < 0.69; moderate if 0.30 < r < 0.49; weak if 0.20 < r <
0.29; and very weak if r < 0.19.
The Psycho-Semantic Space Dynamics for the
Emotions and “Defenc e Re a c ti o n”, and Deve l opment
of “Defence Reaction” to the Word COBRA
When we tested all participants BEFORE the defence reac-
tion development procedure to the word COBRA, we observed
in the psycho-semantic space the closest negative emotion to
the word COBRA (Table 1) emotion of FEAR (25.0) which
was “inside” of one sigma range (26.8). This fact reflects the
initial psychological state of the participants which is in full
conformity with Leontief’s theory of emotions: “cobra” is a
snake, can bite, it is possible to die—anticipating emotion
(though yet have not bitten, but can bite!) and directed on itself
(to bite not someone, but!). “Fear”, according to Leontief is
also the anticipating emotion directed on the self. AFTER de-
fence reaction development procedure to the word COBRA, we
see in the psycho-semantic space the closest negative emotion
to the word COBRA is also the emotion FEAR (Table 1). The
Table 1.
Dynamics of changes of average psycho-semantic distances from the word COBRA to negative emotions BEFORE defence reaction development
procedure to the word COBRA (N = 25, Average Sigma = 26.8) and AFTER defence reaction development procedure to the word COBRA (N = 25,
average Sigma = 27.9). All distances in the table represented by Mean ± SD.
Neg. emotions Anger Grief Fear Neglect
BEFORE 27.0 ± 16.1 29.6 ± 18.7 25.0 ± 15.2 39.5 ± 25.7
AFTER 25.5 ± 15.4 26.3 ± 16.3 19.8 ± 8.0 38.8 ± 24.3
Lehmann-Rosenblatt T = 0.46 0.17 0.23 0.51* 0.1
*p < 0.05
Table 2.
Results of the statistical analysis of 25 participants.
Pearson correlation R Spearmen correlation Rs
Relation between decrease of the COBRA-FEAR distances and number of errors.
0.36 0.46*
*p < 0.05
Table 3.
Results of statistical analysis of the distances for words COBRA and BRAND_CIGARET1, negative emotion FEAR and BRAND_CIGARET2 and a
positive emotion HOPE and BRAND_CIGARET2 for 25 participants BEFORE and AFTER anchoring procedures.
A BEFORE superimposition procedure AFTER superimposition procedure P
COBRA-BRAND_CIGARET1 39.3 ±17.9 30.9±16.7 p < 0.05
B BEFORE anchoring procedure AFTER anchoring procedure
FEAR-BRAND_CIGARET2 38.5 + 17.4 34.3 + 16.5 p < 0.1
HOPE-BRAND_ CIGARET2 43.3±26.3 54.0 ±28.7 p < 0.05
distance after the procedure has decreased, which means these
two concepts became more subconsciously associated than
before the procedure. We calculated statistical differences using
criteria of Lehman-Rosenblatt for distances from the word
COBRA to negative emotions BEFORE and AFTER defence
reaction development procedure to the word COBRA (Table 1).
Only dynamics of the emotion FEAR have shown statistically
significant changes to defence reaction development procedure
using the word COBRA (p < 0.05). For all of the participants a
summary data were compiled for distances between the word
COBRA and the FEAR emotion BEFORE and AFTER defence
reaction development procedure to the word COBRA. Their
differences and the number of errors made by each participant
and dependency of the number of errors made by participants
during testing on the defence reaction development to the word
COBRA was evaluated (Table 2) using linear and nonlinear
correlation. Though it seems that a larger number of errors
correspond with larger differences which suggest the word
COBRA is closer to the emotion of Fear in psycho-semantic
space, the statistically significant correlation shows only a
moderate relationship between the number of errors and close-
ness of the COBRA-FEAR position in psycho-semantic space
according to classification by Ivanter 1992. In addition, we can
suggest that a nonlinear relationship between forming a defence
reaction and the number of errors was more sensitive than the
Features of Appearance of “Defence Reaction” to the
Words-Stimulus Shown in the Subconscious Range
We have studied how the developing defence reaction to the
word COBRA in the subject being tested transferred to the
words-concepts shown in the subconscious range before the
word COBRA.
In the present part of the study, participants were exposed
subconsciously to one of the cigarettes brand names before the
word COBRA (BRAND_CIGARET1, Marlboro, Winston etc.).
We observed statistically significant (p < 0.05) changes of
mentality in the form of reduction of average psycho-semantic
distance after the procedure of subconsciously showing a ciga-
rettes brand name before the word COBRA, meaning the ten-
dency of the emotional equation of the reaction of the partici-
pant to the word COBRA and a word, representing the brand of
cigarettes (Table 3 (A)).
Efficiency of Anchoring—Presentations in
Subconsciou s Mo de of the Teaching Verbiage
Consistin g of Positi ve an d Negative C omponents, for
Example FEAR-BOND (“Bond”—Cigarettes Brand)
We have observed the changes of mentality in the form of
reduction of average psycho-semantic distance after the an-
choring procedure, meaning there was a tendency of the emo-
tional equation of the reaction of the participant to the word
FEAR and a word, representing a brand of cigarettes (Table 3
(B)), but it was only approaching statistical significance (T =
0.39, p < 0.1). As we have not obtained statistically significant
changes in analysis of the group which included both smoking
and non smoking participants, we decided to analyze the data
separately for smoking and non smoking subjects. Results of
this approach are presented in Table 4. As we can see from the
data (Table 4) the teaching procedure of anchoring is more
effective in the non smoking group (p < 0.05) rather than in
smoking subjects. This might occur because the intrinsic readi-
ness to feel negative emotions to cigarettes by non smokers is
higher than smokers. We have chosen another approach to in-
vestigate an anchoring procedure (FEAR-BRAND_CIGARET2)
on the dynamics of the positive emotion HOPE (opposite and
complimentary to the emotion “Fear”) and BRAND_CIGA-
RET2 provided data in Table 3 (B). We observed a change of
mentality in the form of an increase in average psychosemantic
distance after the anchoring procedure (FEAR-BRAND_
CIGARET2) which symbolizes the tendency of emotional
separation of the positive emotion HOPE and a word repre-
senting a cigarette brand.
Validity of the Results
We have observed a high degree of conformity of the posi-
tive and negative emotions with colour corresponding shades of
a colour palette presented in the test in all our participants,
which on average was from (95.6 ± 10.6)% and (90.9 ± 16.0)%
(Table 5). The calculations of the average value of the associa-
tion of the word COBRA with colors were (77.2 ± 21.5)%
BEFORE and (77.6 ± 22.5)% AFTER exposure to the SMART
testing/teaching procedure provides statistically insignificant
results. For all other words-concepts (elements) 2 tests of asso-
ciation with colors were done for each participant: BEFORE
and AFTER exposure to SMART testing/teaching procedures
(Table 6). The calculations of the average value of the associa-
tion of the elements RAND_CIGARRET1 and BRAND_
CIGARRET2 with colors were accordingly BEFORE 83.3 ±
21.9 and 76.7 ± 24.0 and AFTER 82.9 ± 19.6 and 74.8 ± 27.5.
Both sets of results showed no statistical significance (p > 0.1).
We have provided evidence that both procedures of subcon-
scious teaching superimposed and anchoring verbiage can be
used to change the mentality of the subject. Defence reaction
corresponds with the basic emotion FEAR, the anticipating
negative emotion directed on self (Leontief, 2002). By the re-
duction of distance from the word COBRA to the emotion
FEAR one can evaluate the degree of forming a defence reac-
tion in the subject being tested. Defence reaction has a moder-
ate relationship with the number of errors (number of rein-
forcements). We have shown that PSYEXPERT technology is a
sensitive methodology in the study of psycho-semantic space of
emotions and follows up the changes of mentality after psy-
chotherapeutic manipulations. The necessity to check the valid-
ity of the PSYEXPERT results arises from the method which
works on the basis of colour associations. Therefore accuracy
of all results of the test depends on the accuracy of the selection
of shades of a colour palette to words-concepts by the subject
being tested. We have investigated the degree of conformity of
the positive and negative emotions with colour corresponding
shades of a colour palette presented in the test to all our par-
ticipants. The associations of negative and positive emotions
with colour have shown a high degree of confidence of correla-
tion of corresponding emotions and colours in all participants,
i.e. high validity of the results of the present study. For the
words-concepts the tests of association with colors BEFORE
and AFTER exposure to SMART testing or teaching proce-
dures did not change the association between the word COBRA
and color. According to our calculations, the average value of
conformity of the word COBRA with colour was (77.2 +
77.6)/2 = 77.4%. It testifies that participants could cope very
Table 4.
Average distances between emotion FEAR and BRAND_CIGARET2 for smoking and non smoking participants BEFORE and AFTER anchoring
BEFORE anchoring procedure AFTER anchoring procedure P
Smokers N = 15 40.1 + 19.2 39.6 + 18.3 p > 0.1
Non smokers N = 10 36.9 + 15.6 29.0 + 14.7 p < 0.05
Table 5.
Association of positive and negative emotions with color (%).
M ± SD 91.2 ± 17.3 92.4 ± 13.6 90.4 ± 16.6 89.5 ± 16.4
M ± SD 96.0 ± 9.4 92.8 ± 15.1 95.6 ± 11 97.9 ± 6.9
Table 6.
Association of the elements with color BEFORE and AFTER SMART testing/teaching procedures (%).
BEFORE 77.2 ± 21.5 83.3 ± 21.9 76.7 ± 24.0
AFTER 77.6 ± 22.5 82.9 ± 19.6 74.8 ± 27.5
M ± SD 77.4 ± 22.0 83.1 ± 20.7 75.8 ± 25.8
P p = 0.1 p > 0.1 p > 0.1
well with the tasks and were confidently associating the word
COBRA with colour well above 70%. Hence, we can use the
results of such association of the words and colours with full
confidence. The same can be said about other words-concepts
(elements) participating in the test (83.1 ± 20.7 and 75.8 ± 25.8
accordingly). The average for all elements in tables 5 and 6 was
(88.4 ± 16.5)% which suggests high validity and accuracy of
the test.
Resulting changes can be observed even after nonrecurring
five minutes of subconscious teaching superimposed and an-
choring verbiage. Ioffe, Yesin, Afanasjev, Nezhdanov, (2007b)
have shown that empirically applied procedures of subcon-
scious teaching 2 to 3 sessions per week for a total of 10 ses-
sions, 60 to 90 minutes each, produced stable positive results in
PTSD subjects with alcohol dependencies after 3 months.
However outstanding questions still are: how long the psyche,
based on observation of the psycho-semantic space remains
retrained and what are the optimal conditions (how many ses-
sions are required and what is the optimal length of a single
session) for permanent changes of the psycho-semantic space -
human reactions? Further investigations are needed to provide
answers to the above stated questions.
1) PSYEXPERT technology has been shown as an effective
tool for evaluation and visualisation of the changes of the psy-
cho-semantic space of the subject being tested to affects of
various stimuli. When conscious stimuli COBRA were rein-
forced by “punishment”—a strong audio signal of error, we
observed changes of the psycho-semantic space corresponding
to development of a defensive reaction (p < 0.05). Correspond-
ing changes of the psycho-semantic space were observed to the
effects of subconscious (subthreshold) stimuli and semantic
teaching verbiage (p < 0.05).
2) FEAR is an emotion which is emerging during develop-
ment of the defence reaction in the subject being tested to the
word COBRA (p < 0.05).
3) We have proven the transfer of the defence reaction from
the word COBRA to the words shown in the subconscious
mode superimposed with the word COBRA (p < 0.05).
4) We have shown change of the emotional relationship to
cigarette brands using anchoring technique—subconscious
semantic teaching verbiage type KENT-FEAR and others (p <
5) Technologies used in our study open the door to con-
trolled reactivation of individual psycho-semantic space and
effective retraining of the subconscious mind.
Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotion. In T. Dalgleish and M. Power (Eds.).
Handbook of Cognition and Emotion. Sussex, U.K.: John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (1994). The nature of emotion. Funda-
mental Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ioffe, S., Yesin, S. V., Afanasjev, B. G., & Nezhdanov I. K. (2007a).
Psychosemantic diagnosis of alcoholic dependencies tested at the
subconscious level in military personnel with posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). Polygraph Journal, 36, 57-69.
Ioffe S., Yesin, S. V., Afanasjev, B. G., & Nezhdanov, I. K (2007b).
The role of subconscious effects during the treatment of posttrau-
matic stress disorder with alcohol dependencies in military personnel.
Polygraph Journal, 36, 133-148.
Ioffe, S., & Konobeevsky, M. (2008). Psycho-semantic spheres of the
personality among correctional facility employees. Journal of Police
and Criminal Psychology, 23, 23-34.
Ioffe S., & Yesin, S. (2010). Psyche From Within: Three Clinical Case
Studies. Psychology, 1, 282-294. doi:10.4236/psych.2010.14037
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human Emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Ivanter, E. V. (1992). Bases of Biometrology: Introduction in the Statis-
tical Analysis of the Biological Phenomena and Processes. Petro-
zavodsk: Petrozavodsk Press, State Univesity.
Kelly, G. A. (1970). Behaviour is an Experiment. Perspectives in Per-
sonal Construct Theory. London: Academic Press.
Leontiev, V. O. (2002). Classification of the Emotions. Odessa: Innova-
tion centre.
Lehmann, E. L. (1951). Consistency and unbiasedness of certain non-
parametric tests. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22, 165-179.
Meyer, D. E. (1970). On the representation and retrieval of stored se-
mantic information. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 242-299.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The Meas-
urement of Meaning. Urbana, IL: Illinois Press.
Osgood, C. E. (1959). Representational model and relevant research
methods. In Pool I. (Ed.), Trends in Content Analysis. Urbana, IL:
Illinois Press.
Osgood C. E. (1967). Semantic differential technique in the compara-
tive study of cultures. L. A. Jakobovite and M. S. Miron (Eds), Read-
ings in the Psychology of Language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentic-Hall.
Osgood, C. E. (1976). Focus of Meaning. Mouton, Hague.
Peacocke, C. (1992). A Theory of Concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning”. In K. Gunderson (Ed.),
Language, Mind and Knowledge: Minnesota Studies in the Philoso-
phy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rosenblatt, M. (1952). Limit theorems associated with variants of the
von Mises statistic. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 617-623.
Schreiber, T. A., & Nelson, D. L. (1998). The relation between feelings
of knowing and the number of neighbouring concepts linked to the
test cue. Memory & Cognition, 26, 869-883.
Smirnov, I., Beznosjuk E., & Zhuravlyov, A. (1995). Психотехнологии:
компьютерный психо-семантический анализ и психокоррекция
на неосознаваемом уровне. (Psychotechnologies: Computer psy-
chosemantic analysis and psychocorrection at subconscious level).
M. Culture.
Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process
in semantic memory: A featured model for semantic decisions. Psy-
chological Review, 1, 214-241.