"Interpersonal Neurobiology"

[Logic Prevails]

"Interpersonal Neurobiology" is a theory proposed by Dan Siegel, M.D. (1999)

It is an integration of neurobiology, subjective experience, and human relationships. Since it encompasses so much, it is a very attractive theory for many people practicing therapy (i.e. it is consistent with cognitive, psychodynamic, behavioral approaches etc.). Unfortunately, most psychologists are not exactly fluent in neuroscientific findings and are unable to really critique this theory.

I was wondering if other people have heard of it, and if so, where I might find some opposing views or arguments against such an integration.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JatPenn]

maybe provide a link to a paper?

I disagree that "most" psychologists are blind to neuroscientific findings, the field is moving more and more towards are neurobiological perspective.

 

[PublicHealth]

That term is bunk. Take a look at this article for the real story:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16164763&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

[Logic Prevails]

That term is bunk. Take a look at this article for the real story:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16164763&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Although this article is kind of what I was looking for, it is hard to draw any conclusions from it due to methodological flaws. Neuroimaging studies are especially variable - I don't think you can draw conclusions from a meta-analysis of 14 neuroimaging studies that cut across mood and anxiety disorders (AND psychotherapeutic technique) and expect to find consistencies.

I went to a conference where Dr. Siegel presented. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I know enough about neuroanatomy and function to get by. His presentations were very convincing, but I need to get a perspective from the other side before I buy into it.

Here's a link to his webpage. There is a link to an article further down the page:

http://www.drdansiegel.com/

 

[PublicHealth]

Although this article is kind of what I was looking for, it is hard to draw any conclusions from it due to methodological flaws. Neuroimaging studies are especially variable - I don't think you can draw conclusions from a meta-analysis of 14 neuroimaging studies that cut across mood and anxiety disorders (AND psychotherapeutic technique) and expect to find consistencies.

I went to a conference where Dr. Siegel presented. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I know enough about neuroanatomy and function to get by. His presentations were very convincing, but I need to get a perspective from the other side before I buy into it.

Here's a link to his webpage. There is a link to an article further down the page:

http://www.drdansiegel.com/

Cool theory, but how do you test it?

 

[Logic Prevails]

Cool theory, but how do you test it?

My thoughts exactly. I'm sure its only a matter of time though.

If we are making people better by providing therapy (as opposed to just medicating), then we must be changing neurophysiology somehow through our interventions. It's only a matter of time before someone is able to explain how that works. This theory is a first attempt at doing that.

I think testing a theory like this would go something like this:
(and I am borrowing some of what Dr. Siegel is suggesting)

Example:

Seeing a client with a childhood background of parental abuse/neglect. Has since then moved out into a better home and has done well socially and academically. As an adult, this person is seeking therapy because of a an inability to experience emotional 'closeness' with others.

An "Interpersonal Neurobiology" approach would go somewhat as follows:
(I'm making broad generalizations here - just try to follow the logic more than anything else and not whether each piece is true)

1) Attachment research informs us that individuals who grow up with poor attachments with their primary caregiver tend to have avoidant/dismissive relationships with others during adolescence and adulthood.

2) Neuroscientific research findings involving these individuals suggest that as children, they have underdeveloped right hemispheres (which makes sense because the right hemisphere function has to do with the more emotional/abstract/relational aspects of neural function). These individuals are also generally not as good at more 'right hemisphere' tasks.

3) "Interpersonal Neurobiology" would call the solution a process of "Neural Integration", where the goal is to promote more right hemisphere involvement and integration with the left and midbrain areas.

This solution seems consistent with what we might do in psychodynamic psychotherapy (i.e. bring unconcious/unresolved emotions to the surface so that the client can deal with them conciously and not feel the need to have "defenses" against emotions that have been feared or avoided)

So if everything follows, the "theory" makes intuitive sense and validates many of the abstract theories that psychologists have been using for years. I guess in order to test, you would need neuroimaging studies (with massive sample sizes) that look at "before" and "after" treatment to determine whether changes in neural activation do occur. I'm not sure you'd be able to do this with current neuroimaging instruments though.

Foods for thoughts.

 

[PublicHealth]

It's not the first theory to do this. It's not even really a theory. It's common knowledge in the neurosciences that everything affects brain activity. Affective neuroscience is a big field. Personality traits have been shown to correlate with various brain patterns (see Fox & Davidson, Eddie Harmon-Jones, etc. . . for info on alpha activity and approach and withdrawal as an example). We can modify those brain patterns with treatments, be they psychological or psychopharmacological. We can induce similar brain patterns in "normals" by exposure to certain stimuli (see Don Tucker's work demonstrating changes in brain activation in normals after exposure to sad films mimicking the brain activity of someone experiencing major depressive disorder). This is nothing new.

Dr. Dan took an old idea, re-named it, and is collecting bank.

 

[MeghanHF]

I was wondering if other people have heard of it, and if so, where I might find some opposing views or arguments against such an integration.

For further exploration of the theory, try Allan Schore's work (also out of UCLA). I think "Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self: The Neurobiology of Emotional Development" and others. I don't know of any critiques - that's tricky because it is so integrative. You'd have to look at attachment theory, neuropsych, and so on both as independent theories and together. As for old ideas, sometimes the old ideas that stay around are good ones and ripe for development and research as technology catches up.

 

[Logic Prevails]

For further exploration of the theory, try Allan Schore's work (also out of UCLA). I think "Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self: The Neurobiology of Emotional Development" and others. I don't know of any critiques - that's tricky because it is so integrative. You'd have to look at attachment theory, neuropsych, and so on both as independent theories and together. As for old ideas, sometimes the old ideas that stay around are good ones and ripe for development and research as technology catches up.

Thanks for the info Meghan