Title |
Under the Hood: Using Computational Psychiatry to Make Psychological Therapies More Mechanism-Focused
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Psychiatry, March 2020
|
DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00140 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Akshay Nair, Robb B. Rutledge, Liam Mason |
Abstract |
Psychological therapies, such as CBT, are an important part of the treatment of a range of psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety. There is a growing desire to understand the mechanisms by which such therapies effect change so as to improve treatment outcomes. Here we argue that adopting a computational framework may be one such approach. Computational psychiatry aims to provide a theoretical framework for moving between higher-level psychological states (like emotions, decisions and beliefs) to neural circuits, by modeling these constructs mathematically. These models are explicit hypotheses that contain quantifiable variables and parameters derived from each individual's behavior. This approach has two advantages. Firstly, some of the variables described by these models appears to reflect the neural activity of specific brain regions. Secondly, the parameters estimated by these models may offer a unique description of a patient's symptoms which can be used to both tailor therapy and track its effect. In doing so this approach may offer some additional granularity in understanding how psychological therapies, such as CBT, are working. Although this field shows significant promise, we also highlight several of the key hurdles that must first be overcome before clinical translation of computational insights can be realized. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
United States | 1 | 4% |
Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
Belgium | 1 | 4% |
Colombia | 1 | 4% |
Puerto Rico | 1 | 4% |
Japan | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 18 | 69% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 15 | 58% |
Scientists | 7 | 27% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 13 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 15% |
Researcher | 10 | 12% |
Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
Other | 10 | 12% |
Unknown | 21 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 25 | 31% |
Neuroscience | 15 | 19% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
Other | 9 | 11% |
Unknown | 25 | 31% |