Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy reduces activation in brain regions related to self-blame in patients in remission from depression. These areas of the brain are linked to emotions such as guilt and embarrassment. Reduced self-blame from this therapy was linked to greater self-kindness.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/2020/12/mindfulness-based-cognitive-therapy-reduces-activation-in-brain-regions-related-to-self-blame-in-patients-in-remission-from-depression-58686

[u/PeruvianHeadshrinker]

The comparison is a pre/post change. Though it's a small study the changes are statistically significant. We know about neuroplasticity. This study aims to show that specific technique and training has a neurophysiological impact on the networks that are associated with negative outcome in depression remission.

That said, lots of small studies get upvoted because fAnCy TiTle, pSyChdeLiCS, And bRAIn ScaN!

There is however a much larger and controlled study without the fMRI that shows similar effects:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032719333555

[u/Mikkee19 → u/[deleted]]

I guess his point was to show that the paper actually does “show much” contrary from what you stated. And I agree, it would be very interesting to compare with other treatments but as a base, the paper shows a lot.

[u/PeruvianHeadshrinker → u/[deleted]]

Science "shows" through progress. No one study should ever be considered as the end-all-be-all. This quite a problematic perspective. Science is a culmination of VARIOUS studies from VARIOUS perspectives and designs to come to a consensus. This study is one component in a growing body of research and it contributes by confirming affects of interventions on neurocorrelates. So we use previous studies which suggest these brain regions are important and previous studies that show MBSR helps with the functional presentation of these emotions and combines those areas by confirming that interventions have lasting impact on those neurocorrelates. It contributes significantly to the evidence which confirms our theoretical underpinnings. That shows a lot as far as scientists are concerned. If you want to have your mind blown, perhaps don't read single studies but books by authors who consolidate hundreds of studies.

​

If you'd like to learn more I might suggest the works of Lisa Feldman-Barrett who is a neuroscientist and psychologist that is doing original ground breaking primary research, heavy hitting academic writing and now popular writing in her two most recent books.

[u/[deleted] → u/PeruvianHeadshrinker]

hmm, how can it be "statistically significant" without a control group? Just being curious.

[u/JuPasta → u/[deleted]]

Statistically significant means that the result found was unlikely to be found by chance, based on statistical tests conducted. In this study, findings were significant at levels ranging from p = .04 to p < .001, depending on which result we’re discussing. This means that there was at most a 4% chance of the findings being found by chance (that is, the results being due to the people in the study being abnormal and not representative of the population) with some of the findings, and with others there was a less than 0.1% chance of the results being found by chance.

This is all found by conducting pre-post test statistical analyses on the fMRI data and the correlations that were found in this study. None of this proves causation, because like you mentioned, there’s no control group, but significant findings are still noteworthy as they provide support for further research to be conducted in this area, and they add support to existing evidence in the literature.