Models of causality for the out of body experience: The multi-etiological phenomenological approach.

(Professor) Vernon M Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, DFAPA, BN&NP, FRCPC, FFPsych

Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute, Seattle, WA and

Dept. of Psychiatry, St Louis University, St Louis, MO1

Abstract:

Current out-of-body experience (OBE) models have attempted to explain OBE through utilizing a single major explanation or approach, though frequently recognizing the lack of generalizability for all OBEs. These approaches are here classified into four main groups of unitary hypotheses: psychological, brain, psychopathological and experiential.

These several diverse models could imply different etiologies in different subpopulations. This logically leads to focusing particularly on a proposed new multi-etiological phenomenological approach that does not limit the model to any single etiology. By so doing this differentiates OBE phenomenologically into the many unitary approaches.

The unitary hypotheses

A, The psychological models:

The most well-known psychological models include:

  1. Blackmore’s reality distortion— OBEs involve attempts to regain control of one’s external realities and subjective OBE may be a misperception that never occurred.
  2. Palmer’s body concept model— OBEs involve changed proprioceptive feedback; they threaten the self-concept and activate unconscious processes by trying to reestablish the sense of identity. This uses both motivation and psychodynamic models.
  3. Irwin’s psychological absorption model, later dissociation model —reflecting pathological dissociation or a non-pathological absorption with fantasy proneness implying correlations of OBEs with certain trait related or personality phenomena and somatic features.
  4. Murray’s dissociation model—OBEs differ along several dimensions e.g. somatoform dissociation, self-consciousness and body dissatisfaction.

B. The brain model empirical approaches:

  1. The pathology model of OBEs deriving from brain stimulation. Rare empirically induced “OBE” descriptions on single epileptic subjects undergoing intracranial brain stimulation pre-surgery have produced non-identical loci e.g. Penfield (temporal cortex), Blanke (right angular gyrus) and de Ridder (parieto-temporal area). Occurrence across anatomical loci and absence of state-specific OBEs are problematic in these tiny samples. Phenomenologically, naming them OBEs is disputable. These induced Subjective-OBEs (S-OBEs) variably produced distorted body-image, depersonalization and derealization, visual perceptions of specific unchangeable loci, and associated other parieto-temporal state or trait features. These descriptions differ markedly from thousands of spontaneously reported S-OBEs in ostensibly “normal” individuals. These frequently involve subjectively extracorporeal consciousness with locality dependent perceptual experiences, clear imagery, polymodal perceptions and profound cognitive awareness. These dichotomous epiphenomena of subjectively interpreted “out-of-body experiences” require careful phenomenological differentiation— the induced S-OBE apparently greatly differs from the spontaneous S-OBE. Using one term for both endpoint expressions could produce incorrect clustering of entirely different phenomena with different origins and etiologies, inappropriately interpreted as of common basis.
  2. The “psychocerebral” models refer to explanations involving specific anatomical or physiological brain models. Three examples are:
    1. Persinger’s vectorial hemsiphericity
    2. Wettach’s model correlating near-death experiences with midbrain involvement and
    3. Nelson's physiological REM intrusion model: Are NDEs relevant? A controversy.
    4. Neppe’s temporal lobe model as the integrator of polymodal perceptual experience.

C. The psychopathological psychiatric perspective:

D. The experiential descriptive scientific subjective paranormal experient approach is

epitomized by:

  1. Whiteman's levels of separative experience based on 10,000 documented OBEs.
  2. Alvarado’s correlation of OBEs with psi experiences (not a model but emphasizing the psi base).

The multi-etiological phenomenological approach:

The presenter’s proposed multi-etiological phenomenological analysis model accommodates the multiplicity of causes and different subpopulations. It motivates for detailed multiquestion OBE screening. Like must be classified as like. Discrete population sample analysis of form, content, circumstance and predisposed populations is an empirically viable method in many other related areas such as déjà vu, olfactory hallucinations and temporal lobe symptomatology. Analyses by multidimensional scaling or correspondence analysis may not be attainable by a single screening question on OBEs.

Not all epiphenomena have common origins. Multifactorial etiologies and epiphenomena expressed could produce, for example, four nosological subtypes based on the four unitary perspectives above, namely:

  1. subjective paranormal non-experients reporting psychological experiences; the general population may deny spontaneous OBEs and have different perceptual input.
  2. epileptics or those with brain pathology who may experience distinct distorted cerebral-linked OBEs;
  3. the psychiatric population whose experiences may differ in content and process.
  4. subjective paranormal experients reporting qualitatively distinct subjective paranormal experiences (SPEs) including S-OBEs.

The possible phenomenological distinctiveness of these populations should be studied and can be subjected to appropriate correspondence analysis, multidimensional scaling or statistical review.


Bibliography