ReviewFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2021
Forced Normalization Revisited: New Concepts About a Paradoxical Phenomenon.
Review in Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epilepsy-Related Psychosis in Drug-Resistant Epilepsy With Nonconvulsive Status Epilepticus and Difficult Antipsychotic Titration: A Case Report.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2026Article
- Perampanel-associated exacerbation of de novo psychosis and lateralized rhythmic delta activity: A case report.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2025Article
- Association between Dravet syndrome and Catatonia: a case report.Epilepsy & behavior reports · 2025Article
- Alterations of the Temporal Lobe Network in De Novo Psychosis After Epilepsy Surgery.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Article
- Psychosis of Epilepsy: An Update on Clinical Classification and Mechanism.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Stress, epileptiform symptoms in schizophrenia and neural information transmission.Translational neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The phenomenon of Forced Normalization (FN) was first described by Landolt in 1953, who described the disappearance of epileptiform discharges in the EEG of patients with epilepsy, concomitant with the development of psychotic symptoms. Later, Tellenbach coined the term "alternative psychosis" referring specifically to the alternation between clinical phenomena. Finally, in 1991, Wolf observed a degenerative process involved in the phenomenon, which he called "paradoxical normalization." Initially, FN was explained through experimental models in animals and the demonstration of the kindling phenomenon, in its electrical and pharmacological subdivisions. At this stage of research on the epileptic phenomenon, repetitive electrical stimuli applied to susceptible regions of the brain (hippocampus and amygdala) were considered to explain the pathophysiological basis of temporal lobe epileptogenesis. Likewise, through pharmacological manipulation, especially of dopaminergic circuits, psychiatric comorbidities began to find their basic mechanisms. With the development of new imaging techniques (EEG/fMRI), studies in the area started to focus on the functional connectivity (FC) of different brain regions with specific neuronal networks, which govern emotions. Thus, a series of evidence was produced relating the occurrence of epileptic discharges in the limbic system and their consequent coactivation and deactivation of these resting-state networks. However, there are still many controversies regarding the basic mechanisms of network alterations related to emotional control, which will need to be studied with a more homogeneous methodology, in order to try to explain this interesting neuropsychiatric phenomenon with greater accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.