Cognitive Neuroscience and Causal Inference: Implications for Psychiatry

Dijkstra, Nadine; Bruin, Leon de

doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00129

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, they are not different in kind. Explanatory power does not inform new practices, because neuroscientific evidence is meaningful only in its correlative relation to existing psychological concepts (Dijkstra & de Bruin, 2016).…”

Section: Clarifying the Support-inform Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Refined and Further Defined Argument on the Limits of Neuroscience in Counseling: Response to Field, Luke, and Beeson and Miller

Wilkinson

2019

J Humanistic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responding to multiple critiques of his article on the limits of neuroscience in counseling (Wilkinson, 2018), the author further explores and defines these limits, clarifying his perspective on the hard problem of consciousness, the support–inform distinction, and the quadripartite humanistic neuroscience model. Identifying naive mischaracterizations of humanistic principles and practices, the author also discusses the limits of neuroscientific support in relation to neurofeedback, neuroeducation, and explanatory power. Finally, the author calls into question the accuracy of the term neurocounseling and the notion that neuroscientific evidence lends greater legitimacy to the counseling profession.

show abstract

Section: Clarifying the Support-inform Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Refined and Further Defined Argument on the Limits of Neuroscience in Counseling: Response to Field, Luke, and Beeson and Miller

Wilkinson

2019

J Humanistic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neuroscience has already applied manipulation methods with imaging techniques (Wagner et al, 2007 ; Bestmann and Feredoes, 2013 ), for example, TMS with fMRI (Bestmann et al, 2008 ; Ruff et al, 2009 ; Siebner et al, 2009 ) and optogenetics with fMRI (Lin et al, 2016 ). With regard to methodological improvement, the manipulation approach is expected to be useful for solving the issue of causality (Dijkstra and de Bruin, 2016 ). For example, manipulation tests can rule out the correlational error in Figure 2B .…”

Section: Brain-manipulation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Research Strategies of Neuroscience and the Future of Legal Imaging Evidence

Jun

Yoo

2018

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroscientific imaging evidence (NIE) has become an integral part of the criminal justice system in the United States. However, in most legal cases, NIE is submitted and used only to mitigate penalties because the court does not recognize it as substantial evidence, considering its lack of reliability. Nevertheless, we here discuss how neuroscience is expected to improve the use of NIE in the legal system. For this purpose, we classified the efforts of neuroscientists into three research strategies: cognitive subtraction, the data-driven approach, and the brain-manipulation approach. Cognitive subtraction is outdated and problematic; consequently, the court deemed it to be an inadequate approach in terms of legal evidence in 2012. In contrast, the data-driven and brain manipulation approaches, which are state-of-the-art approaches, have overcome the limitations of cognitive subtraction. The data-driven approach brings data science into the field and is benefiting immensely from the development of research platforms that allow automatized collection, analysis, and sharing of data. This broadens the scale of imaging evidence. The brain-manipulation approach uses high-functioning tools that facilitate non-invasive and precise human brain manipulation. These two approaches are expected to have synergistic effects. Neuroscience has strived to improve the evidential reliability of NIE, with considerable success. With the support of cutting-edge technologies, and the progress of these approaches, the evidential status of NIE will be improved and NIE will become an increasingly important part of legal practice.

show abstract

“…He held that as a result, we cannot draw conclusions about the causal relation between mental states and brain states. In his reply to Baumgartner (2009) , Woodward (2015) proposed to adjust these intervention criteria in order to make room for supervenience relations and to secure causal claims for cognitive neuroscience investigations (see Dijkstra and De Bruin, 2016 ). (The interventionist theory of causality is roughly that C causes E if and only if an intervention on C would bring about a change in E .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relation between mental events and brain events ( Kim, 1998 , 2011 ) is also important in psychiatry ( Dijkstra and De Bruin, 2016 ). For example, we may find that functional connectivities between some brain areas are different in schizophrenia and depression, and are correlated with the symptoms ( Rolls et al, 2020 ; Rolls, 2021a ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Neuroscience Levels of Explanation Approach to the Mind and the Brain

Rolls

2021

Front. Comput. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relation between mental states and brain states is important in computational neuroscience, and in psychiatry in which interventions with medication are made on brain states to alter mental states. The relation between the brain and the mind has puzzled philosophers for centuries. Here a neuroscience approach is proposed in which events at the sub-neuronal, neuronal, and neuronal network levels take place simultaneously to perform a computation that can be described at a high level as a mental state, with content about the world. It is argued that as the processes at the different levels of explanation take place at the same time, they are linked by a non-causal supervenient relationship: causality can best be described in brains as operating within but not between levels. This allows the supervenient (e.g., mental) properties to be emergent, though once understood at the mechanistic levels they may seem less emergent, and expected. This mind-brain theory allows mental events to be different in kind from the mechanistic events that underlie them; but does not lead one to argue that mental events cause brain events, or vice versa: they are different levels of explanation of the operation of the computational system. This approach may provide a way of thinking about brains and minds that is different from dualism and from reductive physicalism, and which is rooted in the computational processes that are fundamental to understanding brain and mental events, and that mean that the mental and mechanistic levels are linked by the computational process being performed. Explanations at the different levels of operation may be useful in different ways. For example, if we wish to understand how arithmetic is performed in the brain, description at the mental level of the algorithm being computed will be useful. But if the brain operates to result in mental disorders, then understanding the mechanism at the neural processing level may be more useful, in for example, the treatment of psychiatric disorders.

show abstract

Cognitive Neuroscience and Causal Inference: Implications for Psychiatry

Cited by 14 publications

References 27 publications

A Refined and Further Defined Argument on the Limits of Neuroscience in Counseling: Response to Field, Luke, and Beeson and Miller

A Refined and Further Defined Argument on the Limits of Neuroscience in Counseling: Response to Field, Luke, and Beeson and Miller

Three Research Strategies of Neuroscience and the Future of Legal Imaging Evidence

A Neuroscience Levels of Explanation Approach to the Mind and the Brain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About