Buchheim Anna, Kernberg Otto F, Netzer Nikolaus, Buchheim Peter, Perchtold-Stefan Corinna, Sperner-Unterweger Barbara, Beckenbauer Fabian, Labek Karin
Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
New York-Presbyterian Hospital-Westchester Division, New York, NY, United States.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2023 Jan 4;16:1054518. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.1054518. eCollection 2022.
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.
先前的研究检测到脑电图(EEG)信号的变化是精神分析干预的一种效应。然而,尚无研究调查EEG功率谱中特定精神分析干预的神经关联。在本案例研究中,我们在记录EEG的同时进行结构化精神分析访谈期间,对比了三种干预类型(澄清、对峙和解释)以及一个中性对照条件。
一名27岁男性患者,被诊断为重度抑郁症和边缘性人格障碍,伴有反复自杀和自伤行为,在记录EEG的同时接受了结构化访谈。两名独立专家通过共识选定访谈中四种条件(澄清、对峙、解释和中性对照)的特征性片段,将其纳入EEG分析。快速傅里叶变换(FFT)应用于干预类型的子片段,以分析EEG功率谱。在以片段为随机因素的线性混合效应模型中,考虑中央、额叶和顶叶部位的α和β功率,由于访谈片段长度缺乏平衡性,采用最大似然估计。
与对照条件相比,“解释”和“对峙”干预在中央电极处显示出显著更低的α功率。在α功率的额叶和顶叶部位以及所有β功率部位,综合检验(完整模型/无干预模型)以及相对于对照条件的比较均未显示出显著的总体结果,或在α错误校正后未达到显著性。
诸如对峙差异和解释无意识心理内部冲突等尖锐干预可能引发了暂时的情绪不稳定,导致类似于外部刺激干扰的心理加工变化。这一结论与以下发现一致,即解释可能是最简洁的干预措施,对α功率的影响最强。在治疗性精神分析干预技术过程中使用EEG可能是在神经层面评估对心理治疗过程的不同反应时的一个有用工具。然而,这一单病例结果必须在更大样本中进行重复,且不能进行推广。