Differential neural response to psychoanalytic intervention techniques during structural interviewing: A single-case analysis using EEG.

EEG analysis alpha power clarification confrontation interpretation psychoanalytic intervention techniques structural interviewing

Journal

Frontiers in human neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5161
Titre abrégé: Front Hum Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477954

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 26 09 2022
accepted: 02 12 2022
entrez: 23 1 2023
pubmed: 24 1 2023
medline: 24 1 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Previous studies detected changes in the electroencephalographic (EEG) signal as an effect of psychoanalytic interventions. However, no study has investigated neural correlates of specific psychoanalytic interventions in the EEG power spectrum yet. In the present case study, we contrasted three types of interventions (clarification, confrontation, and interpretation) and a neutral control condition during a structural psychoanalytic interview conducted while EEG was recorded. A 27-year-old male patient diagnosed with major depressive disorder and borderline personality disorder with recurrent suicidal and self-injurious behavior underwent a structural interview while recording EEG. Two independent experts selected by consensus the characteristic episodes of the four conditions (clarification, confrontation, interpretation, and neutral control) within the interview, which were included in the EEG analyses. Fast Fourier transformation (FFT) was applied to subsegments of the intervention type to analyze the EEG power spectra. Alpha and beta power from central, frontal, and parietal sites were considered in linear mixed-effects models with segments as a random factor with maximum-likelihood estimates due to the lack of balance in the length of the interview segments. The interventions "interpretation" and "confrontation" showed a significantly lower alpha power compared with the control condition in the central electrodes. In the frontal and parietal sites of the alpha power and all beta power sites, the omnibus tests (full model/model without intervention) and comparisons relative to control conditions showed no significant overall result or failed significance after alpha error correction. Incisive interventions, such as confrontation with discrepancies and interpretation of unconscious intrapsychic conflicts, may have provoked temporary emotional lability, leading to a change in psychic processing akin to interference from external stimuli. This conclusion is consistent with the finding that interpretations, which are potentially the most concise interventions, had the strongest effects on alpha power. Using EEG during therapeutic psychoanalytic intervention techniques might be a helpful tool to evaluate differential responses to the psychotherapeutic process on a neural level. However, this single-case result has to be replicated in a larger sample and does not allow generalizations.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Previous studies detected changes in the electroencephalographic (EEG) signal as an effect of psychoanalytic interventions. However, no study has investigated neural correlates of specific psychoanalytic interventions in the EEG power spectrum yet. In the present case study, we contrasted three types of interventions (clarification, confrontation, and interpretation) and a neutral control condition during a structural psychoanalytic interview conducted while EEG was recorded.
Methods UNASSIGNED
A 27-year-old male patient diagnosed with major depressive disorder and borderline personality disorder with recurrent suicidal and self-injurious behavior underwent a structural interview while recording EEG. Two independent experts selected by consensus the characteristic episodes of the four conditions (clarification, confrontation, interpretation, and neutral control) within the interview, which were included in the EEG analyses. Fast Fourier transformation (FFT) was applied to subsegments of the intervention type to analyze the EEG power spectra. Alpha and beta power from central, frontal, and parietal sites were considered in linear mixed-effects models with segments as a random factor with maximum-likelihood estimates due to the lack of balance in the length of the interview segments.
Results UNASSIGNED
The interventions "interpretation" and "confrontation" showed a significantly lower alpha power compared with the control condition in the central electrodes. In the frontal and parietal sites of the alpha power and all beta power sites, the omnibus tests (full model/model without intervention) and comparisons relative to control conditions showed no significant overall result or failed significance after alpha error correction.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Incisive interventions, such as confrontation with discrepancies and interpretation of unconscious intrapsychic conflicts, may have provoked temporary emotional lability, leading to a change in psychic processing akin to interference from external stimuli. This conclusion is consistent with the finding that interpretations, which are potentially the most concise interventions, had the strongest effects on alpha power. Using EEG during therapeutic psychoanalytic intervention techniques might be a helpful tool to evaluate differential responses to the psychotherapeutic process on a neural level. However, this single-case result has to be replicated in a larger sample and does not allow generalizations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36684843
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.1054518
pmc: PMC9846161
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1054518

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Buchheim, Kernberg, Netzer, Buchheim, Perchtold-Stefan, Sperner-Unterweger, Beckenbauer and Labek.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Neuroscientist. 2012 Oct;18(5):502-15
pubmed: 21636849
J Neurosci. 2019 Nov 13;39(46):9221-9236
pubmed: 31578234
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Apr 16;12:654026
pubmed: 33935839
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 30;8(4):e62358
pubmed: 23638050
Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Jun;165(6):763-71
pubmed: 18413707
Psychother Psychosom. 2018;87(4):252-254
pubmed: 29768272
Front Psychol. 2013 Oct 01;4:692
pubmed: 24098295
Psychopathology. 2020;53(3-4):133-140
pubmed: 32114579
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Oct 25;7:705
pubmed: 24298244
World J Biol Psychiatry. 2011 Jun;12(4):296-308
pubmed: 21198419
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Sep 05;7:544
pubmed: 24046743
Comput Psychiatr. 2018 Oct;2:92-140
pubmed: 30381799
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2016 Jan;70(1):51-61
pubmed: 26289141
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Aug;207(2):173-4
pubmed: 25999334
Brain. 2010 Apr;133(Pt 4):1265-83
pubmed: 20194141
J Neurosci. 2015 Jan 28;35(4):1638-47
pubmed: 25632139
Eur Psychiatry. 2011 Oct;26(7):419-24
pubmed: 20810254
J Pers Disord. 2004 Feb;18(1):36-51
pubmed: 15061343
Am J Psychiatry. 1998 Apr;155(4):457-69
pubmed: 9545989
Int J Psychophysiol. 2014 Jul;93(1):84-95
pubmed: 23535499
J Pers Disord. 2016 Apr;30(2):145-56
pubmed: 27027422
Int J Psychoanal. 1999 Dec;80 ( Pt 6):1075-91
pubmed: 10669960
Br J Psychiatry. 2010 May;196(5):389-95
pubmed: 20435966
Curr Pharm Des. 2010;16(18):2026-32
pubmed: 20370667
Neuron. 2013 Oct 30;80(3):546-60
pubmed: 24183008
J Neurosci. 2019 Oct 16;39(42):8231-8238
pubmed: 31619492
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2021 Dec;69(6):1033-1091
pubmed: 35170340
Int J Psychophysiol. 1997 Jun;26(1-3):63-76
pubmed: 9202995
J Neurosci. 2006 Sep 13;26(37):9494-502
pubmed: 16971533
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Aug 02;7:355
pubmed: 23935571
Front Hum Neurosci. 2010 Nov 04;4:186
pubmed: 21119777
Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 May;5(5):443-450
pubmed: 29574047
Handb Clin Neurol. 2011;98:519-44
pubmed: 21056209
J Neurosci. 2000 Mar 15;20(6):RC63
pubmed: 10704517
Clin Neurophysiol. 1999 Nov;110(11):1842-57
pubmed: 10576479
J Cogn Neurosci. 2012 Dec;24(12):2363-71
pubmed: 22905824
Front Neurosci. 2018 Oct 30;12:758
pubmed: 30425614
PLoS Biol. 2015 Oct 06;13(10):e1002272
pubmed: 26441286
Neuroscientist. 2014 Apr;20(2):150-9
pubmed: 23835449
Am J Psychiatry. 2007 Jun;164(6):922-8
pubmed: 17541052
Psychiatry Res. 2010 Nov 30;184(2):96-104
pubmed: 20933374
Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Jan;16(1):6-8
pubmed: 22153583
Psychother Psychosom. 2014;83(3):142-7
pubmed: 24732748
J Pers Assess. 2018 Jan-Feb;100(1):30-42
pubmed: 28388222
J Clin Neurophysiol. 1996 Nov;13(6):511-8
pubmed: 8978623
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Aug 16;7:410
pubmed: 23966922
J Neurophysiol. 2006 Jun;95(6):3844-51
pubmed: 16571739
Psychother Psychosom. 2017;86(5):314-316
pubmed: 28903103
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1981 Apr;4(1):169-95
pubmed: 7232235
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006 Dec;74(6):1027-1040
pubmed: 17154733
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2016 Aug;16(4):571-87
pubmed: 27351671
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33745
pubmed: 22470470
Trends Neurosci. 2017 Apr;40(4):208-218
pubmed: 28314445

Auteurs

Anna Buchheim (A)

Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Otto F Kernberg (OF)

New York-Presbyterian Hospital-Westchester Division, New York, NY, United States.

Nikolaus Netzer (N)

Hermann Buhl Institute, University of Innsbruck, Eurac Research, Innsbruck, Austria.
Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy.

Peter Buchheim (P)

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Corinna Perchtold-Stefan (C)

Institute of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Barbara Sperner-Unterweger (B)

Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Fabian Beckenbauer (F)

Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Karin Labek (K)

Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Classifications MeSH