This article describes an innovative model of couples therapy designed to mitigate marital instability. The authors suggest that combining ongoing couples therapy with a separate relationship-focused group for each partner favorably impacts each person's neuropsychophysiological regulation and their ability to participate in a stable intimate marriage. The neurobiology of attachment theory is seen as providing understanding of the affect regulation issues operational in many couple relationships. The safe and secure attachments worked out in the relationship-focused group therapy are seen as improving neuropsychophysiological integration and regulation.

This article discusses a new treatment paradigm combining couples therapy with a separate relationship-focused group therapy for each partner. This model is thought to be especially efficacious for those couples experiencing difficulty in making progress in couples treatment alone. The authors postulate that the addition of a separate group process utilizing object relations and self-psycho- logical theories, as well as concepts borrowed from Imago relationship therapy, enhance the probability of working through intractable transference projections that tend to be impervious to either treatment modality on its own. Challenges created by this combined approach as well as benefits are addressed. Theoretical rationale and treatment implications are discussed.

Geometrical stimuli (48 6-item arrays of familiar forms, e.g., circle), tachistoscopically presented in the right or left visual field, were more accurately perceived in the right than left visual field by 15 college students. Targets about half the length of the displays exposed here were perceived with equal facility in both visual fields (Bryden, 1960). Results suggest that length of array might affect the difference in perceptual accuracy of forms shown in the right and left visual fields. Figures in the right visual field were predominantly processed from left to right, and forms in the left visual field from right to left. Since more symbols were identified in the right than left visual field, the left to right encoding sequence may be more efficient than a right to left movement. Limited experience of most Ss in reading symbols from left to right is probably only one factor. Extensive experience reading alphabetical material from left to right might have developed the physiological mechanism underpinning this sequence more than the one serving the opposite movement.

No abstract

No abstract