Martínez-Pernía David
Center for Social and Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Adolfo Ibáñez University, Santiago, Chile.
Geroscience Center for Brain Health and Metabolism (GERO), Santiago, Chile.
Front Psychol. 2020 May 15;11:924. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00924. eCollection 2020.
With the arrival of the cognitive paradigm during the latter half of the last century, the theoretical and scientific bases of neurorehabilitation have been linked to the knowledge developed in cognitive neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience. Although the knowledge generated by these disciplines has made relevant contributions to neurological therapy, their theoretical premises may create limitations in therapeutic processes. The present manuscript has two main objectives: first, to explicitly set forth the theoretical bases of cognitive neurorehabilitation and critically analyze the repercussions that these premises have produced in clinical practice; and second, to propose the enactive paradigm to reinterpret perspectives on people with brain damage and their therapy (assessment and treatment). This analysis will show that (1) neurorehabilitation as a therapy underutilizes body-originated resources that aid in recovery from neurological sequelae (); (2) the therapeutic process is based exclusively on subpersonal explanation models (); and (3), neurorehabilitation does not take subjectivity of each person in their own recovery processes into account (). Subsequently, and in order to attenuate or resolve the conception of embrained, subpersonal and anti-subjective therapy, I argue in support of incorporating the enactive paradigm in rehabilitation of neurological damage. It is proposed here under a new term, "experiential neurorehabilitation." This proposal approaches neurological disease and its sequelae as alterations in dynamic interaction between the body structure and the environment in which the meaning of the experience is also altered. Therefore, when a person is not able to walk, remember the past, communicate a thought, or maintain efficient self-care, their impairments are not only a product of an alteration in a specific cerebral area or within information processing; rather, the sequelae of their condition stem from alterations in the whole living system and its dynamics with the environment. The objective of experiential neurorehabilitation is the recovery of the singular and concrete experience of the person, composed of physical and subjective life attributes.
随着认知范式在上个世纪后半叶的到来,神经康复的理论和科学基础已与认知神经心理学和认知神经科学中发展起来的知识联系在一起。尽管这些学科所产生的知识对神经治疗做出了相关贡献,但其理论前提可能会在治疗过程中造成局限性。本手稿有两个主要目标:第一,明确阐述认知神经康复的理论基础,并批判性地分析这些前提在临床实践中产生的影响;第二,提出具身范式,以重新诠释对脑损伤患者及其治疗(评估和治疗)的观点。这一分析将表明:(1)作为一种治疗方法,神经康复未充分利用有助于从神经后遗症中恢复的身体源性资源;(2)治疗过程完全基于次人格解释模型;(3)神经康复没有考虑到每个人在自身恢复过程中的主观性。随后,为了削弱或解决关于脑化、次人格和反主观治疗的观念,我主张在神经损伤康复中纳入具身范式。在此以一个新术语“体验性神经康复”提出这一主张。该主张将神经疾病及其后遗症视为身体结构与环境之间动态互动的改变,其中体验的意义也发生了改变。因此,当一个人无法行走、回忆过去、传达思想或维持有效的自我护理时,他们的损伤不仅是特定脑区或信息处理过程改变的产物;相反,他们病情的后遗症源于整个生命系统及其与环境动态关系的改变。体验性神经康复的目标是恢复由身体和主观生活属性组成的个人独特而具体的体验。