Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To quickly return to the issue’s Table of Contents from an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

You can go back to to the issue’s Table of Contents in one click by clicking on the article title in the article view. What’s more, it will take you to the specific place in the TOC where the article appears.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Pally, R. (2007). The Predicting Brain: Unconscious Repetition, Conscious Reflection and Therapeutic Change. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 88(4):861-881.
    

(2007). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 88(4):861-881

The Predicting Brain: Unconscious Repetition, Conscious Reflection and Therapeutic Change

Regina Pally

Neuroscience indicates that ‘repetition’ is fundamental to brain function. The brain non-consciously predicts what is most likely to happen and sets in motion perceptions, emotions, behaviors and interpersonal responses best adapted to what is expected— before events occur. Predictions enable individuals to be ready ‘ahead of time’ so reactions occur rapidly and smoothly when events occur. The brain uses past learning as the guide for what to expect in the future. Because of prediction, present experience and responses are shaped by the past. Predictions from early life can be deeply encoded and enduring. Predictions based on the past allow for more efficient brain function in the present, but can lead to mistakes. When what is predicted does not occur, consciousness can be engaged to monitor and correct the situation. But if a perception or emotion seems reasonable for the situation, a person might not notice an error, and a maladaptive ‘repetition’ may remain unchanged. The author discusses how predictions contribute to psychological defenses and transference repetition, and how conscious self-reflection facilitates therapeutic change. The neuroscience of prediction indicates why, in certain cases, active engagement by the analyst may be necessary. The author makes the argument for use of a ‘neuroscience interpretation’.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.