Neuro-Regulation Theory 1

Neuro-regulation theory 1

In the section in the Basic Concepts., A Paradigm Shift, I talked about the neuro-regulation model of evaluating people who have various psychiatric disorders. But what do I mean by neuro-regulation? The idea we are looking at here is that we know the brain, as well as the peripheral nervous system, provide the input to the rest of our body. We also know that the activity depends upon the complex interactions of our various brain structures. So, we have a variety of emotions and body responses, such as fear, anxiety, anger, sadness, a sense of safety, happiness, joy, and being distant or connected to one another. The question is, how does the brain do this? That is what neuro-regulation theory is all about.

Now a scientific theory is no just guess work about how we think things operate. A theory is a way to organize the knowledge and information we know in a structured way so we can communicate with each other, challenge our ideas, and have a close approximation about what we think is happening. So, a good scientific theory is true in a way, but only close to the truth. As we gain more knowledge, we revise our theories. For example, in the 19^th century Charles Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection which made disparate aspects of biology in a way that explained a lot. In the 20^th century Rosalind Franklin, James Watson, and Frances Crick determined the structure of DNA which exploded our knowledge of biology. It did not invalidate Darwin’s theory of natural selection. It enhanced our understanding of it. Another example is from the 17^th century. Isaac Newton proposed his theory of motion, which was the birth of modern physics. We later learned about quantum mechanics. This did not invalidate Newton’s ideas but expanded our understanding of them.

I want to make a comment here as well as an apology. This section is the most technical section in talking about the Somatic Resiliency approach. I believe the ideas presented here have significant clinical value. However. Each of us have various interest in neurobiology. Some of us have great interest, some have moderate interest, some a little interest, and some with really no interest at all. One of my friends who was one of the most caring and effective therapists I have known said,” I don’t care to know the neuroscience, just give me the clinical relevance!” And that is a fair and legitimate statement. What really is important for us as therapists is to understand the clinical relevance. What follows here is a detailed look at neuro-regulatory theory and its history. For those who just want the clinical relevance you can skip to Neuro-regulation Theory part 4.

As we go through, in some ways my understanding may be very wrong. If that is the case please e mail me so I can understand more clearly. Thank you.

The earliest I am aware of was in ancient Greece where physicians believed our body and minds were regulated by the interaction of what they thought of as the four basic fluids; water, blood, yellow bile, and black bile. It does not sound much different than our recent explanation of a “chemical imbalance”. Depression the was thought to be due too much influence of black bile or melan (black) cholia (bile). I think it is interesting that we still call the most severe depressions melancholic depression.

The Romans made some advancements when they learned that hot baths, music, and talking with others helped a number of mental and emotional problems. Off and on in many different cultures the regulation theories were demons, or curses, or witchcraft.

Over a period of years from the 14^th through the late 19^th century, the idea of the sympathetic nervous system as the mediator of the fight/flight response to danger became a consolidated theory. It was referred to as the sympathetic system, meaning the nerves grouped together working to activate the body. It was not until 1921 the other part of the autonomic nervous system was named the parasympathetic system, meaning beside or going along with the sympathetic system. At first the idea was simple. The sympathetic system was for activation, The parasympathetic for deactivation. This remains a brief way to describe these systems, but we have found out much more, in terms of how they relate and work together to regulate the body.

Another idea first came from Charles Darwin in his book, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. He noted that basic facial expressions of emotions were common across ethnic and social boundaries. He postulated that the pneumogastric nerve (now called the vagus) was somehow involved with emotional expression.

In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, most scientific interest was focused on the sympathetic system. Later on, interest turned towards the parasympathetic system. Now the parasympathetic system is mostly the vagal nerves which originate from the brainstem and innervate the heart, lungs, and the structures below the diaphragm, such as the stomach, small intestines, liver, and a large part of the colon. The greatest interest was and still is the regulation of the heart by both systems. We will come to more of that in sections 2 and 3.

I want to take a sidestep to look at another aspect of neuro-regulation, the influences of childhood experiences, both traumatic and safe. In the late 19^th century, two young men, one in Austria and one in France, both upper middle-class physicians did a remarkable thing. Sigmund Freud and Pierre Janet were both interested in the emotional and behavioral health of women. That is not remarkable. But they did something no other physician had done. They listened to the women they were seeing. They listened actively. They listened with curiosity. They listened with patience. And they listened deeply. They began to understand that childhood events had long term effects on the nervous system. And the most common childhood events of their patients which affected the nervous systems of these women was childhood sexual abuse. Freud and Janet recognized and brought to the medical establishment that traumatic events adversely affect long term emotional regulation. The other finding was almost as astonishing. Both recognized their professional relationship had great meaning for their patients, and that their persistent work with the patients had a positive effect on their emotional regulation.

I do not want to go further into the rest of the history of these two men at this time. There is a separate section for them in Other Important Issues. Freud used an analytic technique focused on repression and Janet used hypnosis focused on dissociation. They developed their theories further. They honed their techniques. Freud developed a following of disciples. Janet did not. What they did not recognize then and what we too often don’t recognize now, is that the strongest healing factor in their treatments was not their techniques (which were very different from one another) but their relationship with their patients. Their calm, persistent, reliable, curious, and caring presence along with taking these women seriously as human beings is what each of them did.