Research

PSYCHEDELICS, THOUGHT, AND MENTAL HEALTH

Psychedelic science is a growing field with particular recent increase in studies demonstrating the therapeutic potential of psychedelic (e.g., LSD and psilocybin) and empathogens (e.g., MDMA). Currently, psychedelic pharmaceutical companies are running clinical trials to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychedelics and empathogens as treatment methods for an array of psychiatric disorders. While these studies are showing promising results, there are several issues with the state of the field. One issue is that these companies have limited funds and therefore need to employ clinical trials which they believe will be highly successful. Because the basic science field investigating psychedelics and empathogens is incredibly limited (due to legal barriers), there is minimal work demonstrating connections between psychedelic or empathogen use and mental health. Therefore, more information is needed connecting psychedelic and empathogen use to mental health in order to encourage more rigorous clinical trial work in this area. A second issue is that while psychedelics and empathogens are being shown to reduce psychopathological symptoms, the mechanisms driving this reduction is unclear. We know that psychedelic and empathogen use causes alterations in thought processes while under the influence and we know that encouraging conscious alterations in thought processes is a core part of many therapeutic approaches in the mental health field, but we don’t know if psychedelic and empathogen use are related to long term changes in thought processes which may mediate the reduction in mental health symptoms.

 

The current work aims to investigate three main questions:

1. Is psychedelic and/or empathogen use related to a reduction in mental health symptoms?

2. Do those who have used psychedelics and/or empathogens show different resting thought patterns as compared to those who have not used these substances?

3. If so, do these thought-related differences mediate the relationship between psychedelic/empathogen use and mental health symptomatology?

 

While this work is primarily exploratory, we do have some specific hypotheses:

1. Psychedelic and/or empathogen use will be related to a reduction in mental health symptoms.

2. Those who have used psychedelics and/or empathogens will show differences in resting thought patterns.

3. These thought-related differences will mediate the relationship between psychedelic/empathogen use and mental health disorders.

​

​

THE IMPACT OF EMOTION ON THOUGHT

It is well established that emotional context impacts externalized attention. However, it is less clear how one’s current emotional state impacts internalized attention (better known as thought). As a relatively new field, the study of the impact of emotion on thought, has been limited to understanding how emotion impacts the occurrence of off-task thought as well as the content of thought (e.g., affective valence or temporal focus). Thought is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that includes dimensions beyond task focus and content. Understanding how emotion impacts multiple dimensions of thought is important for not only better understanding the human condition, but also in elucidating the contexts that might modulate thought patterns that are common across mental health disorders. The current study elaborates on previous research by examining the impact of emotional state on several dimensions of thought recently discovered to be particularly relevant in the prediction and occurrence of mental health issues. These dimensions are: 1) difficulty disengaging from thought; 2) freedom of movement of thought; 3) meta-awareness of thought. There are two main questions driving the current work:

 

1. Do different emotional states differentially affect different dimensions of thought?

2. How do different dimensions of thought impact subsequent affect?

 

We hypothesize that negative mood induction will result in greater difficulty disengaging from thought, less freely moving thought, and less meta-awareness of thought as compared to positive emotion induction. We also hypothesize that difficulty disengaging from thought will mediate the relationship between negative affect post-induction and subsequent levels of negative affect.

​

​

CLINICALLY RELEVANT DIMENSIONS OF THOUGHT

In the last decade, cognitive scientists have participated in a massive increase in the study of thought-related phenomena, particularly focused on the content of thought (e.g., valence) and the cognitive mechanisms and consequences of off-task thought (commonly referred to as ‘mind-wandering’). Simultaneously, clinical psychologists have been studying, describing, and working with thought since the birth of psychoanalysis.

 

There remains an elaborate array of terms to describe different types of thought from both the cognitive and clinical fields including (but not limited to): off-task thought, task-unrelated thought, mind-wandering, daydreaming, intrusive thought, automatic thought, rumination, perseverative thinking, and negative repetitive thinking. While some of these are clearly defined terms (e.g., rumination), others are vague (e.g., mind-wandering and automatic thought). Even those that are clearly defined are often multi-dimensional (e.g., rumination is negative, self-focused, repetitive, and difficult to disengage from) making connections difficult between the cognitive field, where isolated components of thought are often highlighted, and the clinical field, where components of thought are often combined.

​

There appears to be a gap or disconnect between these two fields. While some work has begun integrating the cognitive study of thought with clinical disorders and perspectives, the multi-dimensional nature of thought and the discrepancy in the use of certain terms makes this literature particularly complicated to summarize.

​

The goal of this review is bridge the gap between the cognitive and clinical fields and to highlight dimensions of thought that are particularly relevant in psychopathologies.

​

• Alperin, B., * Hammerdahl, E., *Pepin, K., *Vazquez, N. (in prep) Clinically relevant dimensions of thought.