The Neuroscience of ERT

Whilst ERT can be conceptualised in purely cognitive, affective, and behavioural terms, prevalence of neuroscience makes it important to discuss the neuroscientific basis for any theory. After all, there has been some evidence that both the general public and professionals deem neuroscientific research as more credible, especially if it contains MRI images of neural activation. In addition, acknowledging the genetic and biological basis of any theory gives a sense that those aspects of the theory have been dealt with rather than ignored. ERT is a truly metatheoretical approach.

It should be first stated that the field of neuroscience is very much in its infancy. Despite massive amounts of research, the average neuroscientist has very little idea what is happening inside your brain. Attempts to simplify processes into diagrams with arrows and colours all break apart, and the conceptual issues of consciousness, attention, mind, and such features of the mind are far from being understood. In fact, even basic processes are much more complex than they seem. For example, those pretty MRI images you’ve seen in science journals show activation of neurons. But the researcher doesn’t know whether this activation is excitatory or inhibitory. The images are also based on the average of many brains, so we often have no idea whether the results apply to any individual case. Furthermore, those activation areas may show significantly greater activation, but such is only the case for group values. For individuals, the activation may not be significantly different in that area, and may not be importantly different. Also, due to the neural plasticity of the brain, averaged values are problematic in that each individual is likely to process different information in different areas. Finally, even the latest basic research has been conducted with fMRI technology, which works over several seconds. Within this time, thousands of operations may have occurred within the neural region being examined. Trying to interpolate the activation of neural regions from several seconds to single action potentials is massively speculative. This has been somewhat compensated for by ERP research, but the low spatial resolution of ERP technology along with similar spatial or temporal flaws with other technologies such as Steady State Visual Evoked Potentials (SSVEP) makes basic research severely limited in its explanatory power. Nevertheless, this basic research has provided the basis for much of our thinking, and theories are no doubt full of error as a result. The reality is that we simply need to be open to massive change in even our fundamental understanding of the workings of the brain.

The Most Likely Candidate for Central ERT processes

The Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) is well known for its role in executive functions such as working memory, attention, and inhibitory control. Nearby regions such as the Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC) and the Orbitofrontal Cortex (OFC) also work closely with this region. You can think of this area of the brain as being your ‘thinking’ part. When you’re thinking of a good argument against ERT, your PFC is working hard. Actually, the activity of the PFC is your thinking, and your thinking is the activity of your PFC. This is a simplification of course, but it’s roughly the way researchers think about things, so let’s just go with it.

The Medial PFC has the greatest amount of white matter connections with the amygdala and other thalamic and subcortical nuclei. It’s likely therefore that other areas of the PFC such as the Dorsal and Anterior PFC, the ACC, and the OFC are somewhat mediated by the MPFC, although this currently has only weak support due to the difficulty of measuring modulation within subcortical regions with current technology. However, it’s a sensible suggestion, so let’s go with it.

These frontal regions are likely to be responsible for the top-down modulation of the amygdala and other subcortical regions involved in emotions and emotional processes that are generally considered to act in a bottom-up sort of way. These bottom-up processes are also modulated by the subcortical regions, as people are primed towards the detection of certain salient feature of their experience. For example, fear is aroused only in certain contexts, indicating a priming of emotion responses. In addition to this, the top-down modulation of emotional responses by the PFC etc. appears to be responsible for the purposeful regulation of emotions, and also the modulation of bottom-up priming processes (perhaps over time). This general approach has been highly investigated by James J. Gross at Stanford Uni, who is the world’s foremost expert in the psychophysiology of emotion regulation. ERT fits conceptually with his model of emotion, but is theoretically broader. My primary criticism of Gross’ work is methodological, as his evidence of modulation relies greatly on the assumption that a reduction in neural activation in the amygdala and subcortical regions which temporally relate to increased activity in frontal regions indicates modulation. This simply can’t be inferred due to the correlational and temporal uncertainty of the methodology. Gross seems to be aware of these limitations though, and is seeking answers to such issues in a scientifically rigorous way.

The Behavioural Activation System (BAS) and Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) are also key components of ERT, although their locality and even functional basis is so vague that applied research is currently difficult. They are largely based on pharmacological and biochemical research, which has demonstrated the importance of neurotransmitter systems such as the dopamine system. There is clearly good evidence of systems that are intimately involved in motivation, but simplifying the complexity of such systems to BIS and BAS does a great disservice to the complexity of applied research, and the hard work of scientists to overcome simplistic conceptualisations that undermine hard work. BIS and BAS largely remain conceptual ideas that have pragmatic utility, and also provide hypotheses for neuroscientific research.

Application to ERT

To use the BIS and BAS ideas, the BAS is largely associated with hope, and the BIS is largely associated with faith. Truth is a more cognitive concept, and is therefore ignored by these theories, which can be applied to other animals that lack ideas of truth.

ERT involves the regulation of experiences. These experiences may involve cognitive, emotional, and physical experiences, which are centred in frontal, subcortical, and parietal-occipital regions, respectively. Theoretically, ERT is likely to involve the modulation of these regions both directly (via neural modulation), and indirectly, via the modulation of thoughts, emotions, and behaviour for the purpose of the eventual alteration of experience.

To give an example, in reaction to an advertisement for World Vision, if I decide to donate some money in order to make myself feel better, by PFC will be affectively forecasting the effect of action, and carrying out the planning process involved in donating. It may also be modulating guilt via the top-down modulation of the amygdala. All of this will be experienced as feeling good because I’m doing something for a starving child. Alternatively, I may simply suppress the desire to help, which will involve top-down inhibitory action of the PFC on the amygdala, and priming for automatic bottom-up minimisation of future negative affect.

To be continued…