Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30984063›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019

"Surprise" and the Bayesian Brain: Implications for Psychotherapy Theory and Practice.

Jeremy Holmes, Tobias Nolte

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jeremy HolmesUniversity College London, Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, London, United Kingdom.
Tobias NolteDepartment of Psychology, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Anna Freud Centre · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Dopaminergic encoding of counterfactual information in human striatumR01NS092701 · NINDS · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI MONTAGUE, P READ · 2015 to 2019
$2.6M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS092701Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The free energy principle (FEP) has gained widespread interest and growing acceptance as a new paradigm of brain function, but has had little impact on the theory and practice of psychotherapy. The aim of this paper is to redress this. Brains rely on Bayesian inference during which "bottom-up" sensations are matched with "top-down" predictions. Discrepancies result in "prediction error." The brain abhors informational "surprise," which is minimized by (1) action enhancing the statistical likelihood of sensory samples, (2) revising inferences in the light of experience, updating "priors" to reality-aligned "posteriors," and (3) optimizing the complexity of our generative models of a capricious world. In all three, free energy is converted to bound energy. In psychopathology energy either remains unbound, as in trauma and inhibition of agency, or manifests restricted, anachronistic "top-down" narratives. Psychotherapy fosters client agency, linguistic and practical. Temporary uncoupling bottom-up from top-down automatism and fostering scrutinized simulations sets a number of salutary processes in train.

Indexed as

active inferenceBayesian brainfree energy principlementalizationpsychoanalysispsychotherapy

Identifiers

PMID30984063
PMCPMC6447687
OpenAlexW2931034662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.