Toward a method of neurophenomenological assessment and intervention.

Abstract

People who have sustained brain injury are administered standardized neuropsychological tests designed to evaluate brain dysfunction. Phenomenology is a descriptive method that seeks to explicate people's lived experience and hence goes beyond the realm of mere brain function. Our method of neurophenomenological assessment mitigates the dangers of reducing people to brain dysfunction, and facilitates collaborative assessment of people who have brain injury. We offer examples of how clinicians can supplement their understanding of brain-injured people, and we report concrete suggestions that relate to these clients' everyday lives. NeurophenomenologyMerleau-Ponty (1942) first made a case for the shared understanding of phenomenology and neuropsychology. He endeavored to understand human perception in relation to how consciousness is indivisible from our bodies and world. This allowed the possibility of understanding how psychological embodiment is related to the causal and material perspectives in brain science. Merleau-Ponty could be considered the first neurophenomenologist (Varela et al, 1991). However, Varela (1996) first formulated the term neurophenomenology. By incorporating Merleau-Ponty's (1962) work, and the findings of cognitive neuroscience, Varela hoped to further understand consciousness and what he called the embodied mind (Varela etal, 1991).Phenomenology began primarily as a study of consciousness or essences (Husserl, 1913). Further, much of the literature about the interrelationship.of phenomenology with cognitive science or neurology has been about consciousness (

How to Include Patients' Perspectives in the Study of the Mind: A Review of Studies on Depression

“…Neurophenomenological method should also help strengthening the doctor-client or interviewer- interviewed interaction. McInerney and Walker ( 2002 , p. 183–184) emphasize that phenomenology can be used to complement standard neuropsychological assessment methods aimed at gathering symptoms–rather than their subjective meanings–within an inequal relationship between client and investigator that do not open for clients' insights. As a start for a collaborative relationship with the client, the researcher must establish a dialogue by asking the person to give examples for situations where s/he has experienced a certain difficulty.…”

“…As a start for a collaborative relationship with the client, the researcher must establish a dialogue by asking the person to give examples for situations where s/he has experienced a certain difficulty. Accordingly, McInerney and Walker ( 2002 , p. 184) argue that clients should be encouraged to actively contribute to their own understanding of a specific situation. Moreover, Desbordes and Negi ( 2013 ) stress that neurophenomenology benefits from participants but also from researchers that are trained in contemplative practice.…”

Individualizing psychological assessment using the five-factor model: A phenomenological, enactivist approach.

“…Our decision to focus on these two is philosophically motivated insofar as both approaches have made extensive use of phenomenology. Despite the fact that phenomenology has been common to both, however, the two have rarely interfaced with one another (e.g., Hasek, 2016; McInerney & Walker, 2002). In dialoguing the individualized approach to psychological assessment with EB5T, our philosophical aim is to ameliorate this gap by illustrating the continuity between the human sciences and the cognitive sciences vis-à-vis their shared commitment to non-reductionism through phenomenology.…”

Poczucie frustracji i zagubienia w wypowiedziach słownych osób z dysfunkcjami mózgu – mechanizmy neuropsychologiczne. Studia przypadków

“…"Zrozumienie, co przeżywa pacjent w związku ze stanem funkcjonalnym swojego mózgu" i poznanie "obszaru przeżyć i doznań pacjenta" są warunkami wdrożenia adekwatnej pomocy/rehabilitacji neuropsychologicznej (Prigatano 2009, s. 40). Jednak to, co komunikuje pacjent, wymaga właściwej klinicznej interpretacji (Sacks 2001;McInerney, Walker 2002;Metzinger 2003;Fuchs 2010). Skargi chorego są bowiem wieloznaczne.…”