Does a state rule restricting post-hypnosis testimony in a criminal case invalidate a defendant's right to testify?

Defendant also cites Rock v. Arkansas (1987) 483 U.S. 44 to support the contention that "[a]rbitrary and unreasonable limitations or restrictions on a defendant's testimony [violate] the right to testify." The issue in Rock was "whether a criminal defendant's right to testify may be restricted by a state rule that excludes her posthypnosis testimony." (Id. at p. 53.) That issue was not present here, and defendant does not demonstrate how his testimony was restricted.