Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vivona, J. M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vivona, J. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Leaping From Brain To Mind: a Critique of Mirror Neuron Explanations of Countertransference

Jeanine M. Vivona

The College of New Jersey, jvivona{at}tcnj.edu, Department of Psychiatry, Pennsylvania Hospital,

In the current vigorous debate over the value of neuroscience to psychoanalysis, the epistemological status of the links between the data of brain research and the constructs of interest to psychoanalysts has rarely been examined. An inspection of recent discussions of mirror neuron research, particularly regarding countertransference, reveals gaps between psychoanalytic processes and the available brain activation data, and allows the evaluation of evidence for three implicit assumptions frequently made to bridge these gaps: (1) there is a straightforward correspondence between observed brain activity and mental activity; (2) similarity of localized brain activity across individuals signifies a shared interpersonal experience; (3) an automatic brain mechanism enables direct interpersonal sharing of experiences in the absence of inference and language. Examination of mirror neuron research findings reveals that these assumptions are either untested or questionable. Moreover, within neuroscience there are competing interpretations of mirror neuron findings, with diverse implications for psychoanalysis. The present state of mirror neuron research may offer us new hypotheses or metaphors, but does not provide empirical validation of the proposed models. More generally, as we attempt to learn from research findings generated outside psychoanalysis, we must strive to think scientifically, by minding the difference between data and interpretation.

Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 57, No. 3, 525-550 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0003065109336443


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?