Content uploaded by Thomas A Field
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas A Field on Dec 24, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
71
Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Neurocounseling
Volume 39/Number 1/January 2017/Pages 71-83 /doi:10.17744/mehc.39.1.06
Neurocounseling: A New Section of
the Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Eric T. Beeson
Northwestern University
Thomas A. Field
City University of Seattle
Despite the growing momentum to infuse neuroscience into counseling, neuroscience-related
publications are relatively scant in flagship counseling journals. In response, this January
2017 edition of the Journal of Mental Health Counseling introduces a new section entitled
“Neurocounseling” that will remedy this gap in the literature. This article provides a rationale
for the creation of the Neurocounseling section that includes a discussion of current trends in
research initiatives, the evolution of the term neurocounseling, and the existing neuroscience-re-
lated publications in flagship counseling journals. Additionally, this article outlines the vision
for the Neurocounseling section that will aid readers as they conceptualize and conduct neuro-
counseling research as well as prepare manuscripts for publication.
A new era of brain-based health and wellness is upon us. Government
funding for neuroscience research is at an all-time high (The White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2015), and the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) has outlined an ambitious research agenda to develop strategies
to enhance research into the neural correlates of the human experience in both
health and disease (NIH, 2014). Similarly, in 2008 the National Institute of
Mental Health (NIMH) created the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) as an
organizing system for neuroscience research that strives to identify new targets
for treatment, detect subgroups within functional systems, inform treatment
selection, and facilitate a more direct link between research and practice (Insel
et al., 2010). These research trends related to mental health and wellness
have led some to call neuroscience the newest force in counseling (D’Andrea,
2012), and it is likely that neuroscience findings over the next decade will sig-
nificantly alter the way we conceptualize and practice clinical mental health
counseling (CMHC).
The past 25 years of neuroscience research have already yielded results
that significantly alter our understanding of human emotion, cognition, and
Eric T. Beeson, Clinical Mental Health Counseling, The Family Institute @ Northwestern
University; Thomas A. Field, Division of Arts and Sciences, City University of Seattle.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eric T. Beeson, The Family Institute @
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60201. Email: eric.beeson@northwestern.edu
NEUROCOUNSELING
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
72 Journal of Mental Health Counseling
behavior. Neuroscience findings are already becoming the “practice standards
of the future” (Myers & Young, 2012, p. 21). The American Mental Health
Counselors Association (AMHCA) Standards for the Practice of Clinical
Mental Health Counseling (2016, Section V.A.) outlines a wide range of knowl-
edge (e.g., neurobiology of thinking, emotion, and memory) and skills (e.g.,
ability to describe the basic organization of the brain as it may relate to mental
health) in the biological bases of behavior necessary for the training and prac-
tice of CMHCs. An understanding of the underlying biological, neurological,
and physiological processes are core to a professional counselor identity and
“foundational knowledge required of all entry-level counselor education grad-
uates” (Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational
Programs (CACREP), 2015, p. 9). This trend in training standards highlights
our field’s acknowledgement of the importance of neuroscience to counseling;
unfortunately, counselors have been relatively absent from academic discourse,
and neuroscience manuscripts in the flagship counseling journals are scant in
comparison to journals in allied professions.
Despite a few empirical studies of neuroscience principles in the coun-
seling field (e.g., Crockett, Cashwell, Tangen, Hall, & Young, 2016; Field,
Beeson, & Jones, 2016), the neuroscience literature in the counseling field
is primarily conceptual in nature and attempts to generalize findings from
other disciplines to the practice of CMHC (e.g., Makinson & Young, 2012).
Additionally, only two manuscripts were identified in the flagship counseling
journals that even mentioned the RDoC (Hall, Jones, Tyson, Woods, & Keltz,
2016; Miller, 2016). This is especially concerning given that a large portion of
NIMH funding will only support research integrating the RDoC framework
(Hershenberg & Goldfriend, 2015).
If neuroscience is to be the newest force in counseling and counseling is
to remain a major mental health profession in an increasingly brain-based era
of mental health, then it is imperative for the counseling profession to create
a neuroscience-informed research agenda to address the gaps in our body of
literature. We must not only understand, but contribute to this rapidly grow-
ing body of knowledge if we are to remain a viable mental health profession.
As Associate Editors of the Neurocounseling section of the Journal of Mental
Health Counseling (JMHC), we believe this new section is the next step
towards establishing and propelling the integration of neuroscience into the
counseling profession. Therefore, the purpose of this manuscript is to discuss
the evolution of neurocounseling, briefly review the existing neurocounseling
literature, and outline the goals and objectives for the Neurocounseling section
of the Journal of Mental Health Counseling.
THE EVOLUTION OF NEUROCOUNSELING
Neurocounseling has developed rapidly over the past few years. The term
neuroscience is broadly defined as the scientific study of the nervous system. It
is a discipline with many branches, ranging from rigorous scientific disciplines
such as affective, cognitive, and social neuroscience, to applied disciplines
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
73
Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Neurocounseling
such as interpersonal neurobiology. The term neurocounseling first emerged
in a 2000 article published in the Journal of Counseling & Development (Erk,
2000). Erk (2000) described neurocounseling as the orientation-of-choice
when working with clients whose “diagnosis or the majority of the problem-
atic behaviors emanates from or can be attributed to the neurobiology or
neurochemistry of the client” (p. 395). Even though this article was limited
to clients diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
Erk (2000) highlighted the importance of neurocounseling. Specifically, Erk
indicated that helping clients and significant others develop a neurobiological
understanding of ADHD promoted a sense of acceptance and compassion
that propelled cognitive strategies to control symptoms. Notwithstanding Erk’s
contribution, this early conceptualization of neurocounseling was limited
to an understanding of pathology as opposed to the full spectrum of human
functioning that is advocated for by the current neuroscience research vision
of NIH and NIMH.
The neurocounseling term remained somewhat dormant until 2013,
when a column entitled “Neurocounseling: Bridging Brain and Behavior” was
first published in Counseling Today, the flagship magazine of the American
Counseling Association (ACA). The very first column introduced the term
neurocounselor in an article entitled “The Birth of the Neuro-Counselor?”
(Montes, 2013). Drawing on interviews with many neurocounseling experts
(e.g., Lori Russell-Chapin, Bill McHenry, Raissa Miller), Montes discussed the
tension between the humanistic principles of the counseling profession and the
growth of neuroscience in the counseling field. Although the term neurocoun-
seling was never used, this piece clearly foreshadowed the tremendous increase
in the application of neuroscience into the counseling profession.
At around the same time as the “Neurocounseling: Bridging Brain and
Behavior” column began, its editors, Laura Jones and Lori Russell-Chapin,
founded neuroscience interest networks in two major counseling associations,
the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) and ACA
respectively. Likewise, an AMHCA neuroscience interest network was estab-
lished in 2015, which quickly gained the most members of any AMHCA
interest network, with over 800 members at the time of this writing. The three
interest networks have worked collaboratively to promote neurocounseling,
which has resulted in the creation of several webinars, dissemination of neu-
roscience tracks at major counseling conferences, and formation of writing
circles for scholars with an interest in neurocounseling.
Many textbooks (e.g., Luke, 2015; McHenry, Sikorski, & McHenry,
2014) have also been published to provide counselors with an introduction
to neuroscience and to further delineate the specialty of neurocounseling.
Neurocounseling was highlighted in the 2014 book, A Counselor’s Introduction
to Neuroscience (McHenry et al., 2014), which provided an overview of core
competencies needed for neurocounseling. McHenry et al. (2014) described
how neurocounseling can be used for pre- and post-intervention outcome
evaluations, to assess real-time changes in the brain, and to target specific parts
of the brain with intentional skill delivery. Their excitement and advocacy was
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
74 Journal of Mental Health Counseling
tempered by a healthy appreciation for the humanistic tradition of counsel-
ing. McHenry et al. (2014) proposed that neurocounseling techniques were
another way to help us know our clients, a necessary feature of our humanistic
tradition, while also acknowledging the importance of variables that can not be
quantified and scientifically measured. Despite the contributions of this text,
the authors continued the trend of generalizing neuroscience findings from
other disciplines to the counseling field.
One of the most notable publications in recent history was the April 2016
issue of JMHC. In this special edition devoted to neurocounseling, Russell-
Chapin (2016) defined neurocounseling as “the integration of neuroscience
into the practice of counseling by teaching and illustrating the physiological
underpinnings of many of our mental health concerns” (p. 94). Russell-
Chapin asserted that psychoeducation was essential to the neurocounseling
process and, like Erk (2000), affirmed the normalizing power of a brain-based
understanding of the human experience during the counseling process. From
this foundational definition of neurocounseling provided by Russell-Chapin
(2016), we infer that neurocounseling can take several forms. Neurocounseling
includes using existing neuroscience findings from outside the counseling field
to better understand counseling processes and client presenting concerns,
known as translational neuroscience. Neurocounseling also includes conduct-
ing brain-based studies evaluating the counseling process and outcomes, such
as examining the neurological impact of specific microskills or the impact of
mindfulness on brain regions associated with dissociation. Neurocounseling
can also include the use of specialized brain-based techniques with clients,
such as neurofeedback and neurotherapy (Chapin & Russell-Chapin, 2014).
Thus, neurocounseling provides a framework for counselors to inform their
current practices with neuroscience (i.e., translational neuroscience), to con-
duct brain-based research within the counseling field, and develop specializa-
tions in brain-based techniques (e.g., neurofeedback).
For the purpose of the Neurocounseling section, we extend Russell-
Chapin’s (2016) foundational definition of neurocounseling. We contend
that neurocounseling is a specialty within the counseling field, defined as the
art and science of integrating neuroscience principles related to the nervous
system and physiological processes underlying all human functioning into the
practice of counseling for the purpose of enhancing clinical effectiveness in
the screening and diagnosis of physiological functioning and mental disorders,
treatment planning and delivery, evaluation of outcomes, and wellness promo-
tion.
NEUROSCIENCE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY LITERATURE
Neurocounseling has benefited tremendously from neuroscience research
in the field of psychology. Several comprehensive reviews of outcome literature
have provided overwhelming evidence that psychotherapy leads to significant
changes in the brain following treatment (e.g., Barsaglini, Sartori, Benetti,
Pettersson-Yeo, & Mechelli, 2014; Linden, 2006; Peres & Nasello, 2008;
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
75
Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Neurocounseling
Weingarten & Strauman, 2015). From these findings, we can conclude that
various forms of psychotherapy (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy) change the
functioning of the central nervous system (e.g., increased prefrontal cortex
activation) in clients diagnosed with a variety of mental disorders (e.g., obses-
sive compulsive disorder), as measured using several methods of neuroimaging
(e.g., functional magnetic resonance imaging) across several meta-analyses.
Despite the robust pre- and post-treatment outcome literature related to
psychotherapy, there have been relatively fewer outcome studies related to the
process of psychotherapy (Weingarten & Strauman, 2015). It has been recom-
mended that brain imaging technology be used to identify in-vivo responses to
specific topics, techniques, and relationship dynamics during psychotherapy
(Goncalves & Perrone-McGovern, 2014; Weingarten & Strauman, 2015).
Previous research has shown that different therapeutic models (e.g., emo-
tion-focused, task-focused) activate different regions of the brain that could
work against each other if employed sporadically during a psychotherapy ses-
sion (Weingarten & Strauman, 2015). Additionally, certain interventions (e.g.,
cognitive reappraisal) may be more harmful depending upon how emotions are
generated (McRae, Misra, Prasad, Pereira, & Gross, 2012). Therefore, there is a
need to evaluate not only the outcomes of specific interventions, but how and
when they are applied.
Much of the neuroimaging research has focused on brain response to
cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and there is a need to extend this line
of inquiry to other models of counseling and psychotherapy (Weingarten &
Strauman, 2015). While the evaluation of existing treatment models and
techniques is important, many have called for a shift towards using brain-based
information to inform the creation of new theories and models of psychother-
apy (Weingarten & Strauman, 2015). In response, a new theoretical orienta-
tion of neuropsychotherapy (Dahlitz, 2015; Grawe, 2007; Rossouw, 2014) has
emerged. Neuropsychotherapy is defined as:
A neurobiologically informed framework for psychotherapy that
conceptualizes thought and behavior as emerging from the influ-
ence of motivational schemata developed to preserve or enhance
basic psychological needs. Therapeutic processes start from the
development of a safe and enriched environment to activate positive
approach motivational schemata utilizing a bottom-up neurological
approach, and proceed from a top-down approach to facilitate long-
term change in neural architecture. (Dahlitz, 2015, p. 64)
Neuropsychotherapy challenges the traditional top-down approach of
many psychotherapies (e.g., CBT) and provides a framework to integrate
genetic and epigenetic data related to physiology, emotion, cognition, behav-
ior, social experiences, and spiritual concepts into the practice of psychother-
apy with an emphasis on the therapeutic relationship and wellness promotion
(Rossouw, 2014). This conceptualization of neuropsychotherapy aligns well
with the NIMH’s RDoC initiative to structure neuroscience research using
several units of analysis including genes, molecules, cells, circuits, physiology,
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
76 Journal of Mental Health Counseling
behavior, self-report, and paradigms as well as developmental and environmen-
tal processes (NIMH, n.d.).
The growth of the neuropsychotherapy movement is evidenced by
the creation of a new credential (Certified Clinical Neuropsychotherapy
Provider), professional organization (The International Association of Clinical
Neuropsychotherapy), and peer-reviewed journal (International Journal of
Neuropsychotherapy). Despite the growth of neuropsychotherapy, much of the
training and scholarship in neuropsychotherapy originates outside of the United
States and has little exposure to the counseling field. Neuropsychotherapy is
an example of how neuroscience has been used to inform the creation of new
theory that can now be empirically validated. While this represents growth in
the field of psychotherapy, it is unclear what this model will mean for the coun-
seling profession and the establishment of neurocounseling as a specialty. Will
we continue the trend of generalizing neuroscience findings to the counseling
process or establish a truly independent body of neurocounseling literature?
THE CALL FOR AN INDEPENDENT BODY OF LITERATURE
The creation of an independent body of literature in the counseling field
is one of the major principles outlined to strengthen and unify the profession
(Kaplan & Gladding, 2011); yet counseling research has been criticized for
its largely descriptive nature and lack of process and outcome based designs
(Erford, Miller, Schein, McDonald, Ludwig, & Leishear, 2011; Ray et al.,
2011; Wester, Borders, Boul, & Horton, 2013). Notwithstanding the value of
the neuroscience literature related to psychotherapy, these findings have yet to
be replicated within a professional counseling framework. Although the use of
brain-based measures (e.g., EEG) is accessible, we have “largely failed to use
brain-based measure to substantiate [our] work” (Myers & Young, 2012, p. 26).
Many of the neuroscience findings from allied fields have been generalized
to the counseling field without empirical investigation. This reflects a larger
trend, that many of the “best-practices” in the mental health care field have
been “dictated to counselors by other mental health professions” (Kaplan &
Gladding, 2011, p. 371). Therefore, the need to create a neurocounseling
research agenda exists within a larger discussion regarding the need to create
an independent body of literature, enhance the quality of counseling research,
and empirically evaluate therapeutic outcomes.
While these concerns are notable, the increase in conceptual articles and
emergence of a few empirical studies related to neuroscience in counseling
is encouraging. As the counseling profession continues to establish itself as a
major mental health profession, it is imperative that we create an independent
body of knowledge that capitalizes upon our unique professional values and
philosophy. We believe that the burgeoning field of neuroscience and the
exploratory nature of the RDoC provides a tremendous opportunity for profes-
sional counselors to accomplish this goal.
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
77
Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Neurocounseling
THE CURRENT NEUROCOUNSELING LITERATURE
Although a complete content analysis of neuroscience-related publi-
cations in counseling journals is outside of the scope of this article, a brief
review of the existing literature is reviewed to provide a foundation for future
scholarship. In order to identify potential articles, several search terms were
used: mind, brain, neurocounseling, and neuroscience. Next, we used Academic
Search Complete, a database within EBSCO Host, to search for these terms
within flagship counseling journals including JMHC and the Journal of
Counseling & Development (JCD). Each term was searched for independently
using three field options: no field selected, as subject term, and in title. As can be
seen in Table 1, of the 690 total publications in JMHC from 1994-2016, only
a small percentage included these search terms.
A large portion of these JMHC articles focused on ADHD (e.g., Hall &
Gushee, 2002), while others included topics such as: exercise as a counseling
intervention (Okonski, 2003); holistic counseling techniques for clients with
traumatic brain injury (e.g., Patterson & Staton, 2009); neuroscience-informed
cognitive behavioral therapy (Field, Beeson, & Jones, 2015; Field et al., 2016);
mind-body techniques in integrated primary care settings (Glueck, 2015);
beliefs about the use of mind-body practices (Nichols, 2015); neuroscience
principles aligning with reality therapy (Wubbolding, 2015); neurofeedback
specialty practice (Chapin, 2016; Pacheco, 2016); the inflammatory hypothesis
of depressive disorders (Hall et al., 2016); experiences learning interpersonal
neurobiology (Miller & Barrio-Minton, 2016); and brain-based psychoedu-
cation (Miller, 2016). Notwithstanding the quality of these manuscripts, the
majority of these articles were conceptual in nature with only a few (e.g., Field
et al., 2016) including an empirical evaluation of neuroscience principles
in counseling. It should also be noted that many of these publications were
included in the aforementioned April 2016 special issue of JMHC, which
significantly increased the citation count of neuroscience articles in JMHC.
We followed the same search protocol to identify neuroscience-related
publications in JCD. As can be seen in Table 2, of the 1,406 total publications
Table 1 Neuroscience Publications in JMHC (1994-2016)
Search term No field As subject term* In title*
Mind 7 (1.0%) 3 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)
Brain 11 (1.6%) 3 (0.4%) 2 (0.3%)
Neurocounseling 1 (0.1%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.1%)
Neuroscience 8 (1.2%) 6 (0.9%) 2 (0.3%)
Note. Search completed using Academic Search Complete Database through EBSCO Host and resulted in 690 total
publications. *Duplicates not removed from search findings.
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
78 Journal of Mental Health Counseling
in JCD from 1994-2016, an even smaller percentage of manuscripts on the
neuro-search terms were identified. Some of the notable articles identified
in this search focused on topics such as: limitations of left-right brain later-
alization interventions in counseling (Robbins, 1985); neuropsychological
assessment (Lewis & Sinnett, 1987); mind-body self-care (Schure, Christopher,
& Christopher, 2008); CBT, neuroscience, and post-traumatic stress disorder
(Makinson & Young, 2012); neurofeedback in counseling research and prac-
tice (Fragedakis & Toriello, 2014; Myers & Young, 2012); and neurodevel-
opmental components of the stress response system (Kindsvatter & Geroski,
2014). Continuing the trend identified in the JMHC articles, most of these
articles were conceptual in nature.
In addition to publications in JMHC and JCD, additional neurosci-
ence-related literature was found in several other counseling journals including
the Journal of Creativity in Counseling, Journal of Humanistic Counseling,
Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, Counseling and Values,
The Professional Counselor, and VISTAS. Although not exhaustive, additional
articles focused on topics such as: neurofeedback in the treatment of ADHD
(Russell-Chapin & Chapin, 2011); the relationship between magic, neurosci-
ence, and counseling (Echterling, Presbury, & Cowan, 2012); implications of
neuroscience for counseling and social justice (Ivey & Zalaquett, 2011); left-
right brain processes in counseling (Field, 2014); breathing characteristics and
symptoms of psychological distress (Crockett et al., 2016); and neuroscience
implications for Adlerian theory (Miller & Taylor, 2016).
There are at least three additional publications by professional counselors
outside of the counseling journals that are worth noting. Each of the studies
evaluated both process and outcome variables using electroencephalogram
(EEG) biofeedback, also called neurofeedback, in the treatment of ADHD
(Russell-Chapin et al., 2013), anxiety (Dreis et al., 2015), and emotional deci-
sion making (Collura, Zalaquett, & Bonnstetter, 2014). These three publica-
tions, in addition to a few others (e.g., Crocket et al., 2016; Field et al., 2016;
Miller & Barrio-Minton, 2016) represent the only empirical evaluation of
neurocounseling identified for the purposes of the current article.
Table 2 Neuroscience Publications in JCD (1994-2016)
Search term No field As subject term* In title*
Mind 311 (0.8%) 15 (0.4%) 2 (0.1%)
Brain 212 (0.9%) 1 (0.07%) 32 (0.1%)
Neurocounseling 1 (0.07%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Neuroscience 1 (0.07%) 1 (0.07%) 1 (0.07%)
Note. Search completed using Academic Search Complete Database using EBSCO Host and resulted in 1,406 total
publications. *Duplicates not removed from search findings.
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
79
Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Neurocounseling
Significant challenges exist to increasing the breadth and depth of neuro-
counseling scholarship within the counseling field. Anecdotal evidence from
neuroscience interest network meetings and our own experience suggests that
publishing neuroscience literature in the counseling journals is difficult due
perceptions of neurocounseling as too closely aligning with the medical model
and a lack of subject expertise among editorial board members. Additionally,
the articles that are published are not centrally located and many are published
outside of the counseling journals, making it very difficult for counselors to
gain access to this literature in an efficient manner. Given the largely concep-
tual nature of our existing neurocounseling literature, counselors are placed
in a position of continuing to generalize research findings from allied fields
such as psychology to the counseling process rather than conducting empirical
studies to validate and replicate these findings within a counseling framework.
It is common for neuroscience to be used to justify existing theories and
explain why things happen, and neuroscience is only recently being used to
inform the generation of innovative theories and techniques. It is time for the
counseling field to make a shift toward an empirical evaluation of the neu-
roscience implications for counseling, and produce a body of literature that
empirically supports the practice of neurocounseling. It is with this spirit that
we embark into the next generation of the neurocounseling movement and
continue AMHCA’s leadership in the advanced practice of CMHC through
this new section of JMHC.
OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES OF THE NEUROCOUNSELING SECTION
An understanding of the brain and the entire nervous system is impera-
tive for the continued evolution of our field. Despite many calls to action by
notable leaders in the counseling field (e.g., Myers & Young, 2012), we are just
beginning to establish a brain-based era in counseling, an era of neurocoun-
seling. As we strive for an independent body of literature and to contribute
to the interdisciplinary body of knowledge, it is important for the counseling
profession to have a dedicated space for neurocounseling research. Although
many counselors and counselor educators are doing innovative neurocoun-
seling work, anecdotal evidence suggests that there are barriers to publishing
neurocounseling literature in the flagship counseling journals. Therefore,
many counselors (e.g., Dreis et al., 2015) continue to publish outside of the
counseling field. Without a central location, it is difficult for counselors to
access neurocounseling literature.
The goal of the Neurocounseling section is to increase scholarship
related to neurocounseling by providing a dedicated space for academic dis-
course. This section provides CMHCs with an opportunity to enhance clinical
training and practice in a brain-based era of mental health and wellness. In
order to accomplish this goal, we have outlined several objectives for the
Neurocounseling section:
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
80 Journal of Mental Health Counseling
• Provide a dedicated space for neuroscience manuscripts in the coun-
seling field.
• Identify clinical outcomes in an era of neuroscience.
• Generate and evaluate new theories and techniques of clinical mental
health counseling grounded in neuroscience principles.
• Replicate and validate existing psychotherapy research within a coun-
seling framework.
• Increase exposure to the RDoC in the counseling field.
• Create an independent body of neurocounseling literature.
In order to meet these objectives, we encourage manuscripts that empha-
size innovative strategies and techniques demonstrating the theory, research,
and practice of neurocounseling. Although articles that critically review the
existing neuroscience literature as it pertains to counseling are welcomed,
preference will be given to original research that evaluates existing theories
and techniques using neuroscience principles as well as using these princi-
ples to generate new theories, techniques, and strategies of neurocounseling.
Researchers are encouraged to submit manuscripts that incorporate the RDoC
of the NIMH.
We acknowledge that our optimism about recent advances in neuro-
counseling should be tempered with empirical and practical realities, and
we do not believe neurocounseling to be the panacea for all clients. We also
recognize the potential for this neurocounseling movement to lead some to
believe that other counseling does not include neuroscience principles or is not
valuable; this could not be further from the truth. Rather, we hope and antic-
ipate that neuroscience will become so integrated into our training, research,
and practice that we will no longer need to call it neurocounseling or need a
special section in a journal, because all counseling will be neurocounseling
(or as Lori Russell-Chapin would say, “neuro-wise”). We hope that this new
Neurocounseling section of JMHC represents the next step in this growing
movement towards integrating neuroscience principles related to the nervous
system and physiological processes underlying all human functioning into the
practice of counseling for the purpose of enhancing clinical effectiveness in
the screening and diagnosis of physiological functioning and mental disorders,
treatment planning and delivery, evaluation of outcomes, and wellness promo-
tion, the next step to solidify CMHC as a leading mental health profession.
REFERENCES
American Mental Health Counselors Association. (2016). AMHCA standards for the practice of
clinical mental health counseling. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Barsaglini, A., Sartori, G., Benetti, S., Pettersson-Yeo, W., & Mechelli, A. (2014). The effects of
psychotherapy on brain function: A systematic and critical review. Progress in Neurobiology, 114,
1-14. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.10.006
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
81
Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Neurocounseling
Chapin, T. (2016). Developing a specialty in neurofeedback: Decision points. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 38, 155-169. doi:10.17744/mehc.38.2.06
Chapin, T., & Russell-Chapin, L.A. (2014). Introduction to neurotherapy and neurofeedback: Brain-
based interventions for psychological and behavioral problems. New York, NY: Routledge.
Collura, T. F, Zalaquett, C., & Bonnstetter, R. J., (2014). Toward an operational model of decision
making, emotional regulation, and mental health impact. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine,
28, 4-19.
Crockett, J. E., Cashwell, C. S., Tangen, J. L., Hall, K. H., & Young, J. S. (2016). Breathing
characteristics and symptoms of psychological distress: An exploratory study. Counseling and
Values, 61, 10-27. doi:10.1002/cvj.12023
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). (2015).
2016 CACREP standards. Retrieved from www.cacrep.org
Dahlitz, M. (2015). Neuropsychotherapy: Defining the emerging paradigm of neurobiologically
informed psychotherapy. International Journal of Neuropsychotherapy, 3, 47-69. doi:10.12744/
ijnpt.2015.0047-0069
D’Andrea, M. (2012). Neuroscience: The newest force in counseling and psychotherapy. In A.
Ivey, M. D’Andrea, & M. Ivey (Eds.), Theories of counseling and psychotherapy: A multicultural
perspective (7th ed., pp. 49-86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dreis, S. M., Gouger, A. M., Perez, E. G., Russo, G. M., Fitzsimmons, M. A., & Jones, M. S.
(2015). Using neurofeedback to lower anxiety symptoms using individualized qEEG protocols:
A pilot study. NeuroRegulation, 2, 137-148. doi:10.15540/nr.2.3.137
Echterling, L. G., Presbury, J., & Cowan, E. (2012). Neuroscience, magic, and counseling. Journal
of Creativity in Mental Health, 7, 330-342. doi:10.1080/15401383.2012.739947
Erford, B. T., Miller, E. M., Schein, H., McDonald, A., Ludwig, L., & Leishear, K. (2011). Author
and article characteristics from 1994 to 2009. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 73-80.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00062.x
Erk, R. R. (2000). Effective treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Predominately
inattentive type. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 389-399. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.
tb01922.x
Field, T. A. (2014). Integrating left-brain and right-brain: The neuroscience of effective counseling.
The Professional Counselor, 4, 19-27.
Field, T. A., Beeson, E. T., & Jones, L. K. (2015). The new ABCs: A practitioner’s guide to
neuroscience-informed cognitive behavioral therapy. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 37,
206-220. doi:10.17744/1040-2861-37.3.206
Field, T. A., Beeson, E. T., & Jones, L. K. (2016). Neuroscience-informed cognitive-behavior
therapy in clinical practice: A preliminary study. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 38, 139-
154. doi:10.17744/mehc.38.2.05
Fragedakis, T. M., & Toriello, P. (2014). The development and experience of combat-related
PTSD: A demand for neurofeedback as an effective form of treatment. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 92, 481-488. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00174.x
Glueck, B. P. (2015). Roles, attitudes, and training needs of behavioral health clinicians in
integrated primary care. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 37, 175-188.
Goncalves, Ó. F., & Perrone-McGovern, K. M. (2014). A neuroscience agenda for counseling
psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 507-512. doi:10.1037/cou0000026
Grawe, K. (2007). Neuropsychotherapy: How the neurosciences inform effective psychotherapy. New
York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Hall, A. S., & Gushee, A. G. (2002). Medication interventions for ADHD youth: A primer for
school and mental health counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24, 140-153.
Hall, S. B., Jones, L. K., Tyson, L., Woods, K., & Keltz, A. (2016). The inflammatory hypothesis
of depression: Implications for diagnosis and practice. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 38,
124-138. doi:10.17744/mehc.38.2.04
Hershenberg, R., & Goldfriend, M. R. (2015). Implications of RDoC for the research and practice
of psychotherapy. Behavior Therapy, 46, 156-165. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2014.09.014
Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D.S., Quinn, K., . . . Wang, P. (2010).
Research domain criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on mental
disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 748-751. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379 ·
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
82 Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Ivey, A. E., & Zalaquett, C. (2011). Neuroscience and counseling: Central issue for social justice
leaders. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychotherapy, 3, 103-116.
Kaplan, D. M., & Gladding, S. T. (2011). A vision for the future of counseling: The 20/20 Principles
for Unifying and Strengthening the Profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 367-
372. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00101.x
Kindsvatter, A., & Geroski, A. (2014). The impact of early life stress on the neurodevelopment
of the stress response system. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 472-480. doi:10.1002/
j.1556-6676.2014.00173.x
Lewis, L., & Sinnett, E. R. (1987). An introduction to neuropsychological assessments. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 66, 126-130.
Linden, D. E. J. (2006). How psychotherapy changes the brain – the contribution of functional
neuroimaging. Molecular Psychiatry, 11, 528-538. doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4001816
Luke, C. (2015). Neuroscience for counselors and therapists: Integrating the sciences of mind and
brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Makinson, R. A., & Young, J. S. (2012). Cognitive behavioral therapy and the treatment of
posttraumatic stress disorder: Where counseling and neuroscience meet. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 90, 131-140. doi:10.1111/j.1556-6676.2012.00017.x
McHenry, B., Sikorski, A. M., & McHenry, J. (2014). A counselor’s introduction to neuroscience.
New York, NY: Routledge.
McRae, K., Misra, S., Prasad, A. K., Pereira, S. C., & Gross, J. J. (2012). Bottom-up and top-
down emotion generation: Implications for emotion regulation. Social Cognitive & Affective
Neuroscience, 7, 253-262. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq103
Miller, R. (2016). Neuroeducation: Integrating brain-based psychoeducation into clinical practice.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 38, 103-114. doi:10.17744/mehc.38.2.02
Miller, R. M., & Barrio Minton, C. A. (2016). Experiences learning interpersonal neurobiology:
An interpretive phenomenological analysis. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 38, 47-61.
doi:10.17744/mehc.38.1.04
Miller, R., & Taylor, D. D. (2016). Does Adlerian theory stand the test of time?: Examining
individual psychology from a neuroscience perspective. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 55,
111-128. doi:10.1002/johc.12028
Montes, S. (2013). The birth of the neurocounselor? Counseling Today, 56, 33-40.
Myers, J. E., & Young, S. J. (2012). Brain wave biofeedback: Benefits of integrating neurofeedback
in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90, 20-28. doi:10.1111/j.1556-
6676.2012.00003.x
National Institutes of Health, BRAIN Working Group. (2014). BRAIN 2025: A scientific vision.
Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group Report
to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH. Retrieved from https://www.braininitiative.nih.
gov/2025/
National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Retrieved from
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/rdoc/index.shtml
Nichols, L. M. (2015). The use of mind-body practices in counseling: A grounded theory study.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 37, 28-46.
Okonski, V. O. (2003). Exercise as a counseling intervention. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,
25, 45-56.
Pacheco, N. C. (2016). Neurofeedback for peak performance training. Journal of Mental Health
Counseling, 38, 116-123. doi:10.17744/mehc.38.2.03.
Patterson, F., & Staton, A. (2009). Adult-acquired traumatic brain injury: Existential implications
and clinical considerations. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 31, 149-163. doi:10.17744/
mehc.31.2.1p42572p01435173
Peres, J., & Nasello, A. G. (2008). Psychotherapy and neuroscience: Towards closer integration.
International Journal of Psychology, 43, 943-957. doi:10.1080/00207590701248487
Ray, D. C., Hull, D. M., Thacker, A. J., Pace, L. S., Swan, K. L., Carlson, S. E., & Sullivan, J. M.
(2011). Research in counseling: A 10-year review to inform practice. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 89, 349-359. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00099.x
Robbins, S. B. (1985). Left-right brain research and its premature generalization to the counseling
setting. Journal of Counseling & Development, 64, 235-239.
Volume 38/Number 4/October 2016/Pages xxx–xxx/doi:xxx/mehc.xxx
83
Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Neurocounseling
Rossouw, P. J. (Ed.). (2014). Neuropsychotherapy: Theoretical underpinnings and clinical
applications. Brisbane, AU: Mediros.
Russell-Chapin, L. A. (2016). Integrating neurocounseling into the counseling profession: An
introduction. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 38, 93-102. doi:10.17744/mehc.38.2.01
Russell-Chapin, L. A., & Chapin, T. J. (2011). Neurofeedback: A third option when counseling
and medication are not sufficient. Retrieved from http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas11/
Article_48.pdf
Russell-Chapin, L. A., Kemmerly, T., Liu, W.C., Zagardo, M. T., Chapin, T. D., Dailey, D., &
Dinh, D. (2013). The effects of neurofeedback in the default mode network: Pilot study results
of medicated children with ADHD. Journal of Neurotherapy, 17, 35-42.
Schure, M. B., Christopher, J., & Christopher, S. (2008). Mind-body medicine and the art of
self-care: Teaching mindfulness to counseling students through yoga, meditation, and qigong.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 47-56. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00625.x
The White House, Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2015). Obama administration
proposes over $300 million in funding for The BRAIN Initiative [Press Release]. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/brain_initiative_fy16_fact_sheet_
ostp.pdf
Weingarten, C. P., & Strauman, T. J. (2015). Neuroimaging for psychotherapy research: Current
trends. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 185-213. doi:10.1080/10503307.2014.883088
Wester, K. L., Borders, D. L., Boul, S., & Horton, E. (2013). Research quality: Critique of
quantitative articles in the Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 280-290. doi:10.1002/
j.1556-6676.2013.00096.x
Wubbolding, R. E. (2015). The voice of William Glasser: Accessing the continuing evolution of
reality therapy. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 37, 189-205. doi:10. l7744/m ehc.37.3.0l