Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:28:39.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How childhood maltreatment alters perception and cognition – the predictive processing account of borderline personality disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2022

Philipp Herzog*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23562 Lübeck, Germany Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Niemannsweg 147, D-24105 Kiel, Germany Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Ostbahnstr. 10, 76829 Landau, Germany
Tobias Kube
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Ostbahnstr. 10, 76829 Landau, Germany
Eva Fassbinder
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Niemannsweg 147, D-24105 Kiel, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Philipp Herzog, E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental disorder, comprised of heterogeneous psychological and neurobiological pathologies. Here, we propose a predictive processing (PP) account of BPD to integrate these seemingly unrelated pathologies. In particular, we argue that the experience of childhood maltreatment, which is highly prevalent in BPD, leaves a developmental legacy with two facets: first, a coarse-grained, alexithymic model of self and others – leading to a rigidity and inflexibility concerning beliefs about self and others. Second, this developmental legacy leads to a loss of confidence or precision afforded beliefs about the consequences of social behavior. This results in an over reliance on sensory evidence and social feedback, with concomitant lability, impulsivity and hypersensitivity. In terms of PP, people with BPD show a distorted belief updating in response to new information with two opposing manifestations: rapid changes in beliefs and a lack of belief updating despite disconfirmatory evidence. This account of distorted information processing has the potential to explain both the instability (of affect, self-image, and interpersonal relationships) and the rigidity (of beliefs about self and others) which is typical of BPD. At the neurobiological level, we propose that enhanced levels of dopamine are associated with the increased integration of negative social feedback, and we also discuss the hypothesis of an impaired inhibitory control of the prefrontal cortex in the processing of negative social information. Our account may provide a new understanding not only of the clinical aspects of BPD, but also a unifying theory of the corresponding neurobiological pathologies. We conclude by outlining some directions for future research on the behavioral, neurobiological, and computational underpinnings of this model, and point to some clinical implications of it.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe and heterogeneous mental disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, affects, and a marked impulsivity (Chapman, Reference Chapman2019). Despite recent advances in treating BPD (Storebø et al., Reference Storebø, Stoffers-Winterling, Völlm, Kongerslev, Mattivi, Jørgensen and Simonsen2020), an analysis of the effectiveness in routine clinical care for BPD pointed to the need of improving the reduction of BPD-specific symptoms (Herzog et al., Reference Herzog, Feldmann, Voderholzer, Gärtner, Armbrust, Rauh and Brakemeier2020). To achieve this goal, a precise understanding of the psychobiological processes underlying BPD is required. Although a genetic vulnerability in BPD is unquestionable, genetics alone may have little influence on the development of BPD in a favorable environment as a large part of the explained variance is attributable to individually unique environmental factors (Skoglund et al., Reference Skoglund, Tiger, Rück, Petrovic, Asherson, Hellner and Kuja-Halkola2021). Hence, the genetic vulnerability may translate into disordered perceptions and cognitions in the presence of adverse environmental conditions (e.g. childhood maltreatment, CM), that, in turn, likely increase the risk for developing a BPD (Fontaine & Viding, Reference Fontaine and Viding2008). To improve the understanding of these psychobiological processes in BPD, the present article seeks to apply current theories from neuroscience to provide a novel mechanistic model of BPD. In particular, we use a predictive processing (PP) framework to explain how the experience of CM, which is common in many people with BPD (Kleindienst, Vonderlin, Bohus, & Lis, Reference Kleindienst, Vonderlin, Bohus and Lis2020; Porter et al., Reference Porter, Palmier-Claus, Branitsky, Mansell, Warwick and Varese2020), alters perception and cognition, resulting in distinct psychobiological dysfunctions.

Predictive processing – an impactful theory of how the brain works

Considering the brain as a ‘phantastic’, hypothesis-testing organ (Friston, Stephan, Montague, & Dolan, Reference Friston, Stephan, Montague and Dolan2014), PP has become a prominent theory of fundamental working principles of the human brain (Clark, Reference Clark2013, Reference Clark2016a; Friston, Reference Friston2005; Hohwy, Reference Hohwy and Hohwy2014). Specifically, it has been theorized that the brain relies on principles of Bayesian inference to minimize uncertainty by continuously testing hypotheses regarding the causes of sensory input. In doing so, a prior belief is combined with new information to compute a posterior belief. If new information critically deviates from the prior prediction, a prediction error (PE) is generated. The (healthy) brain seeks to refine its hypotheses and maximize evidence for its internal model of the world by minimizing PEs.

At the neurobiological level, PP has been conceived of in terms of cerebral hierarchies (Friston, Reference Friston2008). Specifically, in neural representations of higher levels of cortical hierarchies, predictions are generated (encoded by synaptic activity), which then descend to lower levels. In superficial pyramidal cells, such descending top-down predictions are compared with neural representations at lower levels of the cortical hierarchy to compute a PE (Bastos et al., Reference Bastos, Usrey, Adams, Mangun, Fries and Friston2012). The PE (i.e. a mismatch signal) is sent back up the hierarchy where it updates prior beliefs or expectations (that generate top-down predictions), associated with the activity of deep pyramidal cells (Kanai, Komura, Shipp, & Friston, Reference Kanai, Komura, Shipp and Friston2015). For a more detailed discussion of the neural architecture of PP, see Barrett and Simmons (Reference Barrett and Simmons2015), Parr and Friston (Reference Parr and Friston2018), and Shipp (Reference Shipp2016).

PP models also account for the outcomes of action, with the outcomes of actions being predicted based on causal knowledge (Heil, Kwisthout, van Pelt, van Rooij, & Bekkering, Reference Heil, Kwisthout, van Pelt, van Rooij and Bekkering2018). The human brain chooses the actions that are expected to produce the most preferred outcome or provides the most salient information. Briefly, this process suggests that such action-perception cycles operate to minimize uncertainty and optimize an individual's internal model of the world – a process referred to as active inference. Since perception in active inference is treated as a constructive process of hypothesis testing, where the brain aims to select the hypothesis that best explains sensory data, the brain must decide how much weight is given to new information relative to prior beliefs. This is referred to as precision-weighting, with precision being defined as ‘the certainty with which a model is believed to be true and the certainty of a particular afferent given an expectation’ (Paulus, Feinstein, & Khalsa, Reference Paulus, Feinstein and Khalsa2019). That is, precision can refer to both the reliability of new information and the confidence afforded to priors. Their balance critically determines the extent to which a prior is updated given new information. Put simply, if the prior is afforded low precision (referred to as ‘weak priors’), new information has more influence on the formation of the posterior, while the opposite is true for ‘strong priors’. In other words, if we are unsure about how much we can trust our beliefs, we prefer to rely on new information, provided that new information appears sufficiently valid. On the other hand, if priors are afforded overly much precision, they dominate perception such that information is consistent with prior predictions is prioritized and discrepant information is largely neglected (Powers, Mathys, & Corlett, Reference Powers, Mathys and Corlett2017).

Neurobiologically, the precision of sensory information is thought to be signaled by neuromodulators such as dopamine and encoded based on synaptic gain control mechanisms (Fiorillo, Newsome, & Schultz, Reference Fiorillo, Newsome and Schultz2008; Galea, Bestmann, Beigi, Jahanshahi, & Rothwell, Reference Galea, Bestmann, Beigi, Jahanshahi and Rothwell2012; Iglesias et al., Reference Iglesias, Mathys, Brodersen, Kasper, Piccirelli, denOuden and Stephan2013). Aberrations in precision-weighing have recently been related to a number of psychopathological dysfunctions and mental disorders, such as depression (Barrett, Quigley, & Hamilton, Reference Barrett, Quigley and Hamilton2016; Clark, Watson, & Friston, Reference Clark, Watson and Friston2018; Kube, Schwarting, Rozenkrantz, Glombiewski, & Rief, Reference Kube, Schwarting, Rozenkrantz, Glombiewski and Rief2020), stressors and psychological trauma (Krupnik, Reference Krupnik2020; Linson, Parr, & Friston, Reference Linson, Parr and Friston2020), PTSD (Kube, Berg, Kleim, & Herzog, Reference Kube, Berg, Kleim and Herzog2020a; Linson & Friston, Reference Linson and Friston2019; Wilkinson, Dodgson, & Meares, Reference Wilkinson, Dodgson and Meares2017), hallucinations in psychosis (Corlett et al., Reference Corlett, Horga, Fletcher, Alderson-Day, Schmack and Powers2019; Sterzer et al., Reference Sterzer, Adams, Fletcher, Frith, Lawrie, Muckli and Corlett2018) and in PTSD (Lyndon & Corlett, Reference Lyndon and Corlett2020), autism (Lawson, Rees, & Friston, Reference Lawson, Rees and Friston2014; Pellicano & Burr, Reference Pellicano and Burr2012), and somatization (Henningsen et al., Reference Henningsen, Gündel, Kop, Löwe, Martin, Rief and van den Bergh2018; Kube, Rozenkrantz, Rief, & Barsky, Reference Kube, Rozenkrantz, Rief and Barsky2020b; van den Bergh, Witthöft, Petersen, & Brown, Reference van den Bergh, Witthöft, Petersen and Brown2017).

The belief updating process is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the belief updating process. (a): Precision can refer to both the reliability of new information and the confidence afforded to priors. Their balance critically determines the extent to which a prior is updated given new information. Put simply, if the prior is afforded low precision (referred to as ‘weak priors’), new information has much influence on the formation of the posterior (b), while the opposite is true for ‘strong priors’ (c). In other words, if we are unsure about how much we can trust our beliefs, we prefer to rely on new information, provided that new information appears sufficiently valid. On the other hand, if priors are afforded overly much precision, they dominate perception such that information that is consistent with prior predictions is prioritized and discrepant information is largely neglected (Powers et al., Reference Powers, Mathys and Corlett2017).

In the present article, we apply this account to BPD, proposing that BPD is related to an imbalance of hierarchical priors – specifically, imprecise prior beliefs, relative to sensory evidence – based upon a learning history of CM. Before we will lay out the central tenets of this account, we first briefly review the literature on normal infant learning from a PP perspective to understand how adverse environmental conditions (that is, CM) perturbs the perceptual system, which can ultimately result in psychopathological dysfunctions as manifested in BPD.

Normal infant learning

Research has shown that PP may provide a unifying perspective on infant learning, including statistical learning principles, motor and proprioceptive learning, and developing a basic understanding of the self and their physical and social environment (Köster, Kayhan, Langeloh, & Hoehl, Reference Köster, Kayhan, Langeloh and Hoehl2020). Using Violation-of-Expectation paradigms (Sokolov, Reference Sokolov1963, Reference Sokolov1990), research has shown that infants use novel and unexpected experiences (i.e. PEs) to refine their predictive models of the world, as indicated e.g. in studies using event-related potential technique (Köster, Langeloh, & Hoehl, Reference Köster, Langeloh and Hoehl2019; Langeloh, Buttelmann, Pauen, & Hoehl, Reference Langeloh, Buttelmann, Pauen and Hoehl2020). Indeed, recent research has emphasized that infants build and update their predictive models of a changing environment early in their lives (Kayhan, Meyer, O'Reilly, Hunnius, & Bekkering, Reference Kayhan, Meyer, O'Reilly, Hunnius and Bekkering2019), suggesting that reducing uncertainty in a changing world is an important developmental goal.

Childhood maltreatment in BPD

Learning from PEs in infancy can be hindered or disrupted by a harmful environment. For instance, a longitudinal study revealed that the experience of attachment disorganization and parental hostility in early childhood was associated with dysfunctions in several domains (i.e. attention, emotion, behavior, relationship, and self-representation) in middle childhood/early adolescence and, ultimately, symptoms of BPD in adulthood (Carlson, Egeland, & Sroufe, Reference Carlson, Egeland and Sroufe2009). Harmful learning experiences in childhood, such as neglect and abuse, have been referred to as CM. CM constitutes as a transdiagnostic risk factor for mental disorders (Gilbert et al., Reference Gilbert, Widom, Browne, Fergusson, Webb and Janson2009; Struck et al., Reference Struck, Krug, Yuksel, Stein, Schmitt, Meller and Brakemeier2020) and plays an important role in the development of personality disorders in general (Afifi et al., Reference Afifi, Mather, Boman, Fleisher, Enns, MacMillan and Sareen2011; Battle et al., Reference Battle, Shea, Johnson, Yen, Zlotnick, Zanarini and Morey2004) and BPD in particular (Brakemeier et al., Reference Brakemeier, Dobias, Hertel, Bohus, Limberger, Schramm and Normann2018; Pietrek, Elbert, Weierstall, Müller, & Rockstroh, Reference Pietrek, Elbert, Weierstall, Müller and Rockstroh2013; Quenneville et al., Reference Quenneville, Kalogeropoulou, Küng, Hasler, Nicastro, Prada and Perroud2020; Wota et al., Reference Wota, Byrne, Murray, Ofuafor, Nisar, Neuner and Hallahan2014). The majority of patients with BPD experienced some sort of maltreatment in their childhood (Battle et al., Reference Battle, Shea, Johnson, Yen, Zlotnick, Zanarini and Morey2004; Carlson et al., Reference Carlson, Egeland and Sroufe2009): A recent study showed that patients with BPD were over 13 times more likely to report childhood adversity than non-clinical controls and other clinical populations (Kleindienst et al., Reference Kleindienst, Vonderlin, Bohus and Lis2020; Porter et al., Reference Porter, Palmier-Claus, Branitsky, Mansell, Warwick and Varese2020). Among the most frequent subtypes of CM in BPD are emotional abuse and neglect compared to controls (Scheffers, van Vugt, Lanctôt, & Lemieux, Reference Scheffers, van Vugt, Lanctôt and Lemieux2019). While studies showed that BPD was associated with higher scores on sexual abuse beside of emotional abuse and neglect (Bradley, Jenei, & Westen, Reference Bradley, Jenei and Westen2005; Hernandez, Arntz, Gaviria, Labad, & Gutiérrez-Zotes, Reference Hernandez, Arntz, Gaviria, Labad and Gutiérrez-Zotes2012; Igarashi et al., Reference Igarashi, Hasui, Uji, Shono, Nagata and Kitamura2010; Lobbestael, Arntz, & Bernstein, Reference Lobbestael, Arntz and Bernstein2010; Ogata et al., Reference Ogata, Silk, Goodrich, Lohr, Westen and Hill1990; Weaver & Clum, Reference Weaver and Clum1993; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Chow, Wang, Yu, Dai, Lu and Xiao2013), particular in women (de Aquino Ferreira, Queiroz Pereira, Neri Benevides, & Aguiar Melo, Reference de Aquino Ferreira, Queiroz Pereira, Neri Benevides and Aguiar Melo2018), other studies indicated no independent relationship between sexual abuse and BPD (Cohen et al., Reference Cohen, Tanis, Bhattacharjee, Nesci, Halmi and Galynker2014; Widom, Czaja, & Paris, Reference Widom, Czaja and Paris2009) or reported small effect sizes for sexual abuse (Hengartner, Ajdacic-Gross, Rodgers, Müller, & Rössler, Reference Hengartner, Ajdacic-Gross, Rodgers, Müller and Rössler2013). In line, only emotional instability or vulnerability, impulsivity, and emotional abuse were found to be unique predictors of BPD (Bornovalova, Gratz, Delany-Brumsey, Paulson, & Lejuez, Reference Bornovalova, Gratz, Delany-Brumsey, Paulson and Lejuez2006). Moreover, social exclusion (ostracism) might be a psychosocial factor contributing to the development and persistence of BPD, in the sense of a vicious cycle where BPD increases the chance of being ostracized, and ostracism consolidates or even aggravates psychopathology (Reinhard et al., Reference Reinhard, Dewald-Kaufmann, Wüstenberg, Musil, Barton, Jobst and Padberg2020). For example, bullying and violence in schools and emotional abuse appear to be more salient markers of general personality pathology than other forms of childhood adversity (Hengartner et al., Reference Hengartner, Ajdacic-Gross, Rodgers, Müller and Rössler2013). Insights from a sibling design showed that both probands and sisters reported similar prevalence of intrafamilial abuse, although later BPD patients reported more severe intrafamilial physical and emotional abuse, and higher prevalence of physical abuse by peers (Laporte, Paris, Guttman, Russell, & Correa, Reference Laporte, Paris, Guttman, Russell and Correa2012). Furthermore, another study that prospectively followed a sample who had experienced childhood abuse showed an increase in risk for BPD primarily in children who experienced physical abuse and neglect (Widom et al., Reference Widom, Czaja and Paris2009). In particular, terrorizing predicted anxiety and somatic concerns, ignoring predicted depression scores and BPD features, and degradation predicted BPD features only (Allen, Reference Allen2008).

Psychological consequences of childhood maltreatment

Co-regulation and social communication in infancy are thought to underpin emotional dysregulation and social cognition deficits across development and these mechanisms are further potentiated by maladaptive social experiences in a series of positive feedback loops (Winsper, Reference Winsper2018; Winsper et al., Reference Winsper, Marwaha, Lereya, Thompson, Eyden and Singh2016). Interestingly, studies suggest an association between CM, especially emotional abuse and neglect, and emotion regulation difficulties in a way that emotion regulation difficulties influence the association between emotional abuse and acute symptomatology in BPD (e.g. Carvalho Fernando et al., Reference Carvalho Fernando, Beblo, Schlosser, Terfehr, Otte, Löwe and Wingenfeld2014), supporting the Emotional Dysregulation theory (Linehan, Reference Linehan1993). While CM impacts impulsivity and anger (Quenneville et al., Reference Quenneville, Kalogeropoulou, Küng, Hasler, Nicastro, Prada and Perroud2020), one study showed that difficulties in emotion regulation statistically mediated the effect of CM on impulsivity in BPD (Krause-Utz et al., Reference Krause-Utz, Erol, Brousianou, Cackowski, Paret, Ende and Elzinga2019), further supporting this theory.

Consistent with these findings, a study showed a moderate relationship between low emotional awareness (EA) (especially difficulties in identifying and describing emotions) and BPD (Derks, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, Reference Derks, Westerhof and Bohlmeijer2017). Of note, EA has recently been conceptualized within an active inference model: the authors showed that it can successfully acquire a repertoire of emotion concepts in its ‘childhood’, as well as acquire new emotion concepts in synthetic ‘adulthood’, and that these learning processes depend on early experiences, environmental stability, and habitual patterns of selective attention (Smith, Parr, & Friston, Reference Smith, Parr and Friston2019b). Distinct neurocomputational processes underlying EA have further been developed, e.g. mechanisms that (either alone or in combination) can produce phenomena – such as somatic misattribution, coarse-grained emotion conceptualization, and constrained reflective capacity – characteristic of low EA (Smith, Lane, Parr, & Friston, Reference Smith, Lane, Parr and Friston2019a). Relatedly, while one study found no specific association between parenting style with BPD (Hernandez et al., Reference Hernandez, Arntz, Gaviria, Labad and Gutiérrez-Zotes2012), a meta-synthesis study found that maladaptive parenting is a well-established psychosocial risk factor for the development of BPD (Steele, Townsend, & Grenyer, Reference Steele, Townsend and Grenyer2019). A prominent study showed that family environment, parental psychopathology, and history of abuse all independently predicted BPD (Bradley et al., Reference Bradley, Jenei and Westen2005).

Integrating the environmental factors from a lifespan perspective, literature suggests that vulnerability from mother to offspring may be partly transmitted via maladaptive parenting and maternal emotional dysfunction, i.e. mothers with BPD are more likely to engage in maladaptive interactions with their offspring characterized by insensitive, overprotective, and hostile parenting compared to mothers without BPD resulting in adverse offspring outcomes such as BPD symptoms, internalizing (e.g. depression) and externalizing problems, insecure attachment patterns, and emotional dysregulation (Eyden, Winsper, Wolke, Broome, & MacCallum, Reference Eyden, Winsper, Wolke, Broome and MacCallum2016). Importantly, CM and its link to BPD features exist already in children (Ibrahim, Cosgrave, & Woolgar, Reference Ibrahim, Cosgrave and Woolgar2018). One important factor might be negative emotional reactivity that seems to be a marker of vulnerability that increases the risk for the development of BPD (Stepp, Scott, Jones, Whalen, & Hipwell, Reference Stepp, Scott, Jones, Whalen and Hipwell2015). In the supplement, we also provide an extensive review of the psychological consequences of CM on social cognition and their implications for treatment (see online Supplemental Material 1). Here, we want to focus on how the effects of CM in individuals with BPD can be conceived of in PP terms.

Childhood maltreatment and predictive processing

In brief, we are proposing a developmental active inference and learning account of BPD that can be summarized as follows: Early traumatic experiences (i.e. CM) – particularly those involving disorganized attachment or emotional abuse/neglect – lead to an impoverished model of self and others, under which the consequences of social behavior are unpredictable. This has two consequences:

First, a loss of confidence or precision when selecting the course of action in social exchanges. This irreducible uncertainty – about ‘what would happen if I did that?’ – underwrites the emotional lability and impulsivity, characteristic of BDP. The implicit loss of precision, afforded prior beliefs about social narratives, renders belief updating overly sensitive to sensory evidence and social feedback.

To illustrate this key aspect of our argument, consider the example of a child being sad and crying because it feels alone, with the mother invalidating the child's experience by saying there is no reason to be sad and leaving the room. In this case, the child experiences a lack of understanding and feel that their emotions and thoughts are called into question by their parents or significant others (Musser, Zalewski, Stepp, & Lewis, Reference Musser, Zalewski, Stepp and Lewis2018), resulting in an impoverished model of the self in form of low emotional awareness (especially difficulties in identifying and describing emotions) (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Parr and Friston2019b; Smith et al., Reference Smith, Steklis, Steklis, Weihs, Allen and Lane2022) that has been linked to BPD (Derks et al., Reference Derks, Westerhof and Bohlmeijer2017). Relatedly, early risk factors for BPD in adulthood include the maternal withdrawal in infancy and separation of 1 month or more from the mother in the first 5 years of life (Steele & Siever, Reference Steele and Siever2010). Furthermore, an interesting candidate for a specific parent-child-relationship risk factor for BPD is parental inconsistency (Boucher et al., Reference Boucher, Pugliese, Allard-Chapais, Lecours, Ahoundova, Chouinard and Gaham2017), leading to the child's perception that other people's behavior is unpredictable. If such invalidating situations are frequently experienced, it is understandable that the child does not learn to place confidence in their beliefs and thus remains uncertain about the causes of their sensations. Put another way, such repeated experiences leave the child with the interpretation that their thoughts and emotions are ‘wrong’, leading in turn to increased uncertainty about their beliefs and perceptions that results in dysfunctional behavior (e.g. ineffective emotion regulation strategies). Indeed, a recent study indicated that BPD, compared to other mental disorders, is associated with a less frequent use of effective emotion regulation strategies (i.e. cognitive reappraisal, problem solving, and acceptance) and a more frequent use of dysfunctional emotion regulation strategies (i.e. suppression, rumination, and avoidance) (Daros & Williams, Reference Daros and Williams2019).Footnote *Footnote 1

Second, the failure to learn a suitably expressive generative model, during neurodevelopment, leaves patients with BDP with impoverished, coarse-grained models of self and other. The ensuing interpersonal ‘alexithymia’ manifests as rigidity and inflexibility in social or affective interactions. In other words, everything is ‘black or white’, with no ‘shades of gray’ that would support a nuanced inference about the intention of others (and self). In the absence of an expressive social world model, the only explanations available – for unpredicted sensory or social outcomes – are ‘I am worthless’ (i.e. self-critical explanations) or ‘you are punitive’ (i.e. paranoid explanations).

This developmental account rests upon the intimate relationship between learning and inference. Here, a failure to learn a sufficiently expressive model of interpersonal narratives precludes prosocial inference and planning that precludes subsequent learning or updating of self-other models. This is not unlike some accounts of severe autism and the failure to attain central coherence (Happé & Frith, Reference Happé and Frith2006; van de Cruys et al., Reference van de Cruys, Evers, van der Hallen, van Eylen, Boets, de-Wit and Wagemans2014). In autism, this developmental failure is sometimes attributed to failure of sensory attenuation (i.e. a failure to attenuate sensory precision in relation to prior precision). This suggests interesting parallels between self stimulation in autism and non-fatal self-harm in BPD.

In terms of the neurochemistry of uncertainty or precision encoding in the brain, our analysis speaks to the same kind of hyperdopaminergic state that may characterize certain forms of schizophrenia or delusional disorders. In our case, this can be read directly from the role of dopamine in active inference, as scoring the resolution of uncertainty about policies afforded by sensory evidence: in BPD, every piece of sensory (or social) information resolves uncertainty. This is because beliefs about the narrative currently being pursued are always uncertain or imprecise. The analogy with schizophrenia here may be useful in the sense that some people interpret delusions as an attempt to make sense of unattenuated sensory evidence (Sterzer et al., Reference Sterzer, Adams, Fletcher, Frith, Lawrie, Muckli and Corlett2018).

The predictive processing account of BPD

While most models of BPD take a lifespan approach and consider the complex interplay of biological vulnerabilities (e.g. genetics), psychological factors and social influences (Stepp, Lazarus, & Byrd, Reference Stepp, Lazarus and Byrd2016), BPD is currently viewed as a disorder of instability, i.e. instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, affects, and, relatedly, a marked impulsivity (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Here, we recast these core clinical aspects of BPD through the lens of a PP model (see Fig. 2). In doing so, we build upon a few previous accounts offering computational perspectives on BPD (Fineberg, Reference Fineberg2019; Fineberg, Stahl, & Corlett, Reference Fineberg, Stahl and Corlett2017; Fineberg, Steinfeld, Brewer, & Corlett, Reference Fineberg, Steinfeld, Brewer and Corlett2014b). For example, in an elaborated approach, Fineberg et al. (Reference Fineberg, Stahl and Corlett2017) put emphasis on the association between early disruption of mothers' physical care and social dysfunction as a key feature in BPD, explained by social learning depending on reinforcement learning though embodied simulations.

Fig. 2. Portrayal of the basic assumptions of the predictive processing account of BPD.

Affective instability

BPD is characterized by an affective instability, in terms of rapid changes of mood, ranging from chronic feelings of emptinessFootnote 2 to intense anger, anxiety, or dysphoria – and difficulties in handling these mood fluctuations. From a PP point of view, emotional states have been theorized to be a consequence of acting in the world with the aim of minimizing expected free energy, that is, the uncertainty about the future consequences of actions (Kiverstein, Miller, & Rietveld, Reference Kiverstein, Miller and Rietveld2020). In other words, emotional states reflect changes in the uncertainty about the somatic consequences of action (Joffily & Coricelli, Reference Joffily and Coricelli2013; Seth & Friston, Reference Seth and Friston2016; Wager et al., Reference Wager, Kang, Johnson, Nichols, Satpute and Barrett2015), with uncertainty relating to the precision with which motor and physiological states are predicted and inferred (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Watson and Friston2018). By this view, painful emotions have been thought to accompany events that elicit beliefs of unpredictability, whereas pleasant emotions refer to events that resolve uncertainty and convey a sense of control and confidence (Barrett & Satpute, Reference Barrett and Satpute2013; Clark et al., Reference Clark, Watson and Friston2018; Gu, Hof, Friston, & Fan, Reference Gu, Hof, Friston and Fan2013). Thus, the valence of emotional states relates to the resolution of uncertainty and the precision with which the consequences of action are predicted (Brown & Friston, Reference Brown and Friston2012; Clark et al., Reference Clark, Watson and Friston2018). Interestingly, BPD features predicted specific patterns of bias with regard to forecasting future (negative) emotional states (Hughes & Rizvi, Reference Hughes and Rizvi2019).

Linking this account with the corollaries of CM as discussed above, we suggest that BPD is related to the failure to resolve uncertainty and the dominance of predictions of unpredictability, resulting in intense painful emotions. Relatedly, we propose that people with BPD afford their beliefs about the consequences of action little precision; as a result, interoceptive experience is largely influenced by sensory evidence. Hence, the exact emotional experience may vary greatly with respect to the nature and the source of sensory information. In other words, because people with BPD have learned to be uncertain about their consequences of action, their emotional experience fluctuates significantly depending on the (perceived) situational circumstances and other people's behavior. For example, as people with BPD have often grown up in an invalidating environment, they may have learnt that experiencing a certain emotion (e.g. sadness) and expressing a corresponding emotional need (e.g. being consoled by their parents) has no influence on their parents' actual response (e.g. neglect perceived as a negative consequence). Thus, they cannot resolve uncertainty and experience fluctuating intense emotions, by likewise generating a distorted internal model of emotions (e.g. no access to the concept of being consoled) and a reduced self-efficacy. In addition to the uncertainty inherent to beliefs of people with BPD, the experience of CM and the deficit in adaptive emotion regulation strategies may lead to the pervasive belief that emotions are uncontrollable. Due to the high precision afforded to it, this belief is difficult to be revised through new experiences.

Self-image instability

Besides affective instability, BPD is characterized by identity instability which leads to a markedly and persistently unstable, yet often negative, self-concept as well as a lack of a self-coherence. This cognitive instability is related to uncertainty in at least two of the following life domains: self-image, sexual orientation, long-term goals or career choice, type of friends desired, and values. From a PP point of view, this self-image instability manifests through low precision that is afforded to prior beliefs. As a result, beliefs are hastily updated in line with novel information. In other words, because the beliefs of people with BPD – about both the self and others – are fraught with uncertainty, they are often updated based on fairly thin evidence. This account is well in line with evidence from experimental studies, particularly research that has examined how people with BPD update their beliefs in response to social feedback. For instance, Korn, la Rosée, Heekeren, & Roepke (Reference Korn, la Rosée, Heekeren and Roepke2016a) found that people with BPD, in contrast to healthy people (Korn, Prehn, Park, Walter, & Heekeren, Reference Korn, Prehn, Park, Walter and Heekeren2012), adjusted their beliefs about themselves significantly in line with undesirable social feedback, that is, a single negative interpersonal experience (Korn et al., Reference Korn, Prehn, Park, Walter and Heekeren2012, Reference Korn, la Rosée, Heekeren and Roepke2016a). In line with that, Liebke et al. (Reference Liebke, Koppe, Bungert, Thome, Hauschild, Defiebre and Lis2018) showed in a virtual group-interaction paradigm (where participants interacted with a group of computer-controlled avatars, although they believed them to be real human co-players) that people with BPD updated their beliefs about being socially accepted in response to negative but not positive social feedback (Liebke et al., Reference Liebke, Koppe, Bungert, Thome, Hauschild, Defiebre and Lis2018). Interestingly, the authors demonstrated that people with BPD even behaved less cooperatively in a subsequent trust game if they had previously received positive social feedback. Similarly, another study found that whereas healthy people focus on the positive aspects of social feedback, people with BPD focus more on negative feedback, thereby maintaining negative self-views (Van Schie, Chiu, Rombouts, Heiser, & Elzinga, Reference Van Schie, Chiu, Rombouts, Heiser and Elzinga2020).

This volatility of belief updating – with more adjustments in response to negative feedback – can again be linked to the effects of early learning experiences and CM. In particular, children who experienced CM often receive negative social feedback, e.g. parents' scolding, which children seek to integrate in their attempt to satisfy their parents. When unexpectedly receiving positive feedback, children might be confused about how to interpret that, thus increasing the uncertainty in the children's perceptions and predictions. In computational terms, the world (i.e. the social feedback by significant others) seems unpredictable as the child is permanently exposed to PEs. Given the prevailing negative social feedback, though, people with CM learn to afford higher precision to negative than to positive feedback, while at the same time affording high precision to negative prior beliefs about the self. Both contributes to the above-described asymmetry in belief updating in BPD, with more rapid changes in line with novel negative information and the persistence of strong negative beliefs about the selfFootnote 3. This affects also social decision making and learning in a way that BPD patients expect higher volatility than control which underpins social and non-social belief updating in BPD (Fineberg et al., Reference Fineberg, Leavitt, Stahl, Kronemer, Landry, Alexander-Bloch and Corlett2018b).

Instability of interpersonal relationships

As a consequence of self-image instability and impaired social decision making, BPD is also associated with a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, while alternating between extremes in the perception of other people, i.e. idealization and devaluation. For example, patients' perceptions of their therapist can change rapidly, from beliefs such as ‘My therapist is the only person who has ever understood me’ to ‘My therapist wants to get rid of me’. From a PP perspective, idealization and devaluation is related to hasty changes of beliefs about other people, resulting from weak priors and high precision afforded to new information. This instability likely leads to difficulties in interpersonal relationships, with rapid alternations of desperate efforts to avoid abandonment and a premature relationship termination. In line with this notion, research has shown that BPD patients exhibit less trust during interpersonal interactions (Unoka, Seres, Áspán, Bódi, & Kéri, Reference Unoka, Seres, Áspán, Bódi and Kéri2009), reflecting the high degree of uncertainty people with BPD experience in social interactions. In a transdiagnostic clinical sample, it has been shown that a reduced confidence in how to act, rather than increased emotional conflicts, explains maladaptive approach-avoidance behaviors, i.e. a greater decision uncertainty during approach-avoidance conflicts (Smith et al., Reference Smith, Kirlic, Stewart, Touthang, Kuplicki, Khalsa and Aupperle2020). Consistent with that, a recent study found a 2-fold larger preferred interpersonal distance in BPD patients than in healthy people (Fineberg et al., Reference Fineberg, Leavitt, Landry, Neustadter, Lesser, Stahl and Corlett2018a).

In addition to instability in their relationships, people with BPD also form strong negative beliefs about relations to other people in their attempt to reduce uncertainty, as touched upon above. This rigidity in beliefs about other people may underlie another symptom cluster of BPD: transient, stress-related paranoid ideation (i.e. the belief that harm is intended by others). In line with this account, a recent study found that paranoia may make it harder to update beliefs and it is linked with an increased risk of violence towards oneself (Reed et al., Reference Reed, Uddenberg, Suthaharan, Mathys, Taylor, Groman and Corlett2020). More precisely, this study showed that uncertainty may be sufficient to elicit learning differences in paranoid individuals, even without social threat; and paranoia is associated with a stronger prior on volatility, accompanied by elevated sensitivity to perceived changes in the task environment (Reed et al., Reference Reed, Uddenberg, Suthaharan, Mathys, Taylor, Groman and Corlett2020). In other words, people with paranoia expect the world to change frequently, change their minds repeatedly, and have a harder time learning in response to changing circumstances. This finding is in line with the general high uncertainty of BPD patients and may explain paranoid ideation in BPD, further highlighting the interdependence between inference and learning in BPD. That is, BPD patients with higher scores on paranoid ideations might have more difficulty updating their beliefs in interpersonal situations (i.e. learning difficulties in response to changing circumstances), leading to more interpersonal problems. In fact, difficulties with trusting others and volatile impressions of others' moral character are often problems that result in the premature termination of a relationship. Of note, the moral inference differed: In patients with BPD, beliefs about harmful agents were more certain and less amenable to updating relative to healthy controls (Siegel, Curwell-Parry, Pearce, Saunders, & Crockett, Reference Siegel, Curwell-Parry, Pearce, Saunders and Crockett2020). For instance, when interacting with therapists within a mental health care setting, one specific focus is to build a strong therapeutic alliance. Conceivably, there are two possible outcomes: a weak therapeutic alliance will probably lead to premature treatment discontinuation – a common problem in the treatment of BPD (Barnicot, Katsakou, Marougka, & Priebe, Reference Barnicot, Katsakou, Marougka and Priebe2011). On the other hand, in the case of a strong therapeutic alliance, patients strive to avoid changes in the therapeutic setting (e.g. changing therapists due to leaves) as they often distrust other therapists – despite previous positive experiences and the fact that other therapists will probably also be kind to them. As such, this example highlights once more the lack of a suitably expressive social world model and the use of an impoverished, coarse-grained model of self and other that leads to rigidity and inflexibility in social interactions preventing a more nuanced inference about the intention of others. In line with that notion, interpersonal functioning was found to predict non-delusional paranoia in BPD (Oliva, Dalmotto, Pirfo, Furlan, & Picci, Reference Oliva, Dalmotto, Pirfo, Furlan and Picci2014) – some type of non-delusional paranoia was reported by 87% in a BPD sample (Zanarini, Frankenburg, Wedig, & Fitzmaurice, Reference Zanarini, Frankenburg, Wedig and Fitzmaurice2013).

Impulsivity

BPD is also characterized by a variety of impulsive behaviors, such as promiscuity and substance abuse. The most prominent example of such behaviors, which aim at reducing emotional tension, is non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). According to PP, such impulsive behaviors may seek to resolve uncertainty: if intense aversive emotions reflect the prediction of unpredictability (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Watson and Friston2018), any behavior aimed at reducing such intense aversive emotional states may convey a sense of control. In other words, people with BPD have learnt that certain behaviors, such as NSSI, lower their emotional tension, thereby increasing the certainty of the consequences of action.

In our account, impulsive behavior (such as NSSI) is considered more as a consequence of affective instability. In fact, NSSI may be reinforced by its affect stabilization function (Vansteelandt et al., Reference Vansteelandt, Houben, Claes, Berens, Sleuwaegen, Sienaert and Kuppens2017). In line, a recent study showed that affective instability was significantly greater in adolescents engaging in NSSI, and the number of BPD criteria met was positively correlated with affective instability in the NSSI group (Santangelo et al., Reference Santangelo, Koenig, Funke, Parzer, Resch, Ebner-Priemer and Kaess2017). Particularly, higher levels of momentary negative affect predicted greater subsequent urges to self-injure, but only when self-concept clarity was low, supporting interactive effects (Scala et al., Reference Scala, Levy, Johnson, Kivity, Ellison, Pincus and Newman2018). Remarkably, impulsivity as a personality trait per se is genetically influenced and heritable (Balestri, Calati, Serretti, & de Ronchi, Reference Balestri, Calati, Serretti and de Ronchi2014; Bevilacqua & Goldman, Reference Bevilacqua and Goldman2013; Bezdjian, Baker, & Tuvblad, Reference Bezdjian, Baker and Tuvblad2011; Fineberg et al., Reference Fineberg, Chamberlain, Goudriaan, Stein, Vanderschuren, Gillan and Potenza2014a; Khadka et al., Reference Khadka, Narayanan, Meda, Gelernter, Han, Sawyer and Pearlson2014).

The basic assumptions of the PP account of BPD are displayed in Fig. 2.

Neural specification of this account

Contemporary etiological theories of BPD assume that biological predispositions (i.e. genetic factors) are potentiated by environmental risk factors (i.e. CM). Studies estimating the heritability of the basic dimensions of personality disorders report approximately between 35% and 56% (Jang, Livesley, Vernon, & Jackson, Reference Jang, Livesley, Vernon and Jackson1996; Livesley, Jang, Jackson, & Vernon, Reference Livesley, Jang, Jackson and Vernon1993). Twin and family studies estimated a moderate to high heritability in BPD indicating a general genetic risk factor, but highlight also individually unique environmental influences (Distel et al., Reference Distel, Trull, Derom, Thiery, Grimmer, Martin and Boomsma2008, Reference Distel, Willemsen, Ligthart, Derom, Martin, Neale and Boomsma2010; Skoglund et al., Reference Skoglund, Tiger, Rück, Petrovic, Asherson, Hellner and Kuja-Halkola2021). Indeed, results from a longitudinal discordant twin design show that there might be a genetic influence underlying the association of traumatic events with BPD, rather than BPD being directly caused by a trauma (Bornovalova et al., Reference Bornovalova, Huibregtse, Hicks, Keyes, McGue and Iacono2013). Likely contributing biological factors include genes linked to dopamine, serotonin, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, and neuropeptides (Steele & Siever, Reference Steele and Siever2010). Research points to abnormalities in the dopamine system in people with BPD (Friedel, Reference Friedel2004; Oquendo & Mann, Reference Oquendo and Mann2000). The efficacy of dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) blocking antipsychotic drugs in BPD treatment also suggests the involvement of the dopamine system in the neurobiology of BPD (Nemoda et al., Reference Nemoda, Lyons-Ruth, Szekely, Bertha, Faludi and Sasvari-Szekely2010). Moreover, dopamine transporter (DAT1) gene variants increase the risk of BPD (Amad, Ramoz, Thomas, Jardri, & Gorwood, Reference Amad, Ramoz, Thomas, Jardri and Gorwood2014; Joyce, Stephenson, Kennedy, Mulder, & McHugh, Reference Joyce, Stephenson, Kennedy, Mulder and McHugh2013). This crucial role of dopamine is well in line with the PP account of BPD, because in PP dopamine is thought to encode the precision of beliefs that underwrite choices and behavior (Schwartenbeck, FitzGerald, Mathys, Dolan, & Friston, Reference Schwartenbeck, FitzGerald, Mathys, Dolan and Friston2015), and dopamine has been shown to modulate belief updating (Sharot et al., Reference Sharot, Guitart-Masip, Korn, Chowdhury and Dolan2012). Drawing on this previous work, we suggest that the increased integration of negative social feedback in BPD corresponds to enhanced levels of dopamine in the respective synaptic gains, accounting for the increased use of that information to update the prior prediction. Computationally, this is associated with high precision with which new information is encoded.

Another psychobiological mechanism that might be involved in the psychopathology of BPD refers to the connectivity of different brain areas. Specifically, the increased integration of negative social feedback in BPD might be related to a reduced inhibitory control of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in PE processing. In particular, previous research has shown that PE processing in the reward system (i.e. ventral striatum) can be suppressed by the PFC, resulting in a lack of belief updating, as demonstrated for pain perception (Schenk, Sprenger, Onat, Colloca, & Büchel, Reference Schenk, Sprenger, Onat, Colloca and Büchel2017) and reward processing in depression (Greenberg et al., Reference Greenberg, Chase, Almeida, Stiffler, Zevallos, Aslam and Phillips2015). More specifically, research in the neuronal coding of PE (Schultz & Dickinson, Reference Schultz and Dickinson2000) has indicated that neurons in the dorsolateral prefrontal, orbitofrontal, and anterior cingulate cortex are activated in relation to errors in the prediction of reward (Niki & Watanabe, Reference Niki and Watanabe1979; Watanabe, Reference Watanabe1989), and these PEs are processed in combination with neurons in the striatum that code rewards relative to their unpredictability (Apicella, Legallet, & Trouche, Reference Apicella, Legallet and Trouche1997) and neurons in the amygdala signaling reward-predicting stimuli (Nishijo, Ono, & Nishino, Reference Nishijo, Ono and Nishino1988). Drawing on this work, we suggest that in BPD, the PFC might fail to execute inhibitory control over the processing of PEs from social feedback, thereby contributing to its increased integration.

Furthermore, research has focused on the neural base of distorted affective processing in BPD as supported by five meta-analytic reviews (de-Almeida et al., Reference de-Almeida, Wenzel, de-Carvalho, Powell, Araújo-Neto, Quarantini and de-Oliveira2012; Mitchell, Dickens, & Picchioni, Reference Mitchell, Dickens and Picchioni2014; Rodrigues et al., Reference Rodrigues, Wenzel, Ribeiro, Quarantini, Miranda-Scippa, de Sena and De Oliveira2011; Ruocco, Amirthavasagam, & Zakzanis, Reference Ruocco, Amirthavasagam and Zakzanis2012; Ruocco, Amirthavasagam, Choi-Kain, & McMain, Reference Ruocco, Amirthavasagam, Choi-Kain and McMain2013). In this line of (mostly fMRI) research, investigators have examined how people with BPD and healthy participants process negative emotional stimuli relative to neutral stimuli. Taken together, such neuroimaging studies suggest that dysfunctional fronto-limbic brain regions underlie the emotional dysregulation in BPD (Krause-Utz, Winter, Niedtfeld, & Schmahl, Reference Krause-Utz, Winter, Niedtfeld and Schmahl2014). Specifically, individuals with BPD showed structural and functional abnormalities in a fronto-limbic network including regions involved in emotion processing (e.g. amygdala, insula) and frontal brain regions implicated in regulatory control processes (e.g. anterior cingulate cortex, medial frontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, and dorsolateral PFC) (Krause-Utz et al., Reference Krause-Utz, Winter, Niedtfeld and Schmahl2014).

In line with the assumption of BPD as an emotion dysregulation disorder, a more recent multimodal meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies synthesized that BPD is related to abnormal activation of dorsolateral prefrontal and limbic brain regions (Hazlett, Reference Hazlett2016; Schulze, Schmahl, & Niedtfeld, Reference Schulze, Schmahl and Niedtfeld2016). In particular, BPD patients showed an increased activation of the left amygdala and posterior cingulate cortex, along with debilitated responses of the bilateral dorsolateral PFC while processing negative emotional stimuli. Interestingly, the functional corticolimbic connectivity, in particular between the right amygdala and right dorsolateral PFC, mediates the relationship between childhood adversities and symptom severity in BPD (Vai et al., Reference Vai, Sforzini, Visintini, Riberto, Bulgarelli, Ghiglino and Benedetti2018). Another fMRI study (Scherpiet et al., Reference Scherpiet, Brühl, Opialla, Roth, Jäncke and Herwig2014) found abnormalities not only in the perception but also in the anticipation of negative emotional stimuli. Collectively, this line of research is well in line with the PP account of BPD in that it provides neural evidence for the hypothesis BPD is related to the anticipation of negative events and experiences, increasing the likelihood of actually experiencing intense negative emotions, which is reflected by abnormal activity in fronto-limbic networks.

Although depending on the type, frequency and timing of exposure, CM has an influence on the child brain development with functional and structural changes observed even decades later in adulthood (Jedd et al., Reference Jedd, Hunt, Cicchetti, Hunt, Cowell, Rogosch and Thomas2015): Associations between CM and brain structures have been widely documented with the most frequent alterations related to CM in the function and structure of lateral and ventromedial fronto-limbic brain areas and neural networks (i.e. deficits in structural interregional connectivity) that mediate behavioral, cognitive and affect control (Hart & Rubia, Reference Hart and Rubia2012; Lim, Radua, & Rubia, Reference Lim, Radua and Rubia2014). In particular, CM is related to a reduced volume of the (adult) hippocampus (Paquola, Bennett, & Lagopoulos, Reference Paquola, Bennett and Lagopoulos2016; Teicher, Anderson, & Polcari, Reference Teicher, Anderson and Polcari2012), anterior cingulate and ventromedial and dorsallateral prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortices, as well as to the development of the corpus callosum (Teicher & Samson, Reference Teicher and Samson2016; Teicher, Samson, Anderson, & Ohashi, Reference Teicher, Samson, Anderson and Ohashi2016). Moreover, a review of fMRI studies found that CM is associated with altered functioning in a range of neurocognitive systems (i.e. threat processing, reward processing, emotion regulation and executive control) (McCrory, Gerin, & Viding, Reference McCrory, Gerin and Viding2017). In fact, an association was found with an enhanced amygdala response to threatening stimuli (Dannlowski et al., Reference Dannlowski, Stuhrmann, Beutelmann, Zwanzger, Lenzen, Grotegerd and Kugel2012), reduced ventral striatal response to the anticipation or receipt of reward, decreased connectivity between prefrontal regions and the amygdala, and increased volume and network centrality of the precuneus (Teicher et al., Reference Teicher, Samson, Anderson and Ohashi2016). In line with research on CM and brain alterations, a PET study showed a correlation between a dysfunction of the dorsolateral and medial PFC (including anterior cingulate) with the recall of CM specifically in BPD (Schmahl, Vermetten, Elzinga, & Bremner, Reference Schmahl, Vermetten, Elzinga and Bremner2004). Indeed, CM is associated with structural impairment in the (right) ventrolateral PFC and aggressiveness in patients with BPD (Morandotti et al., Reference Morandotti, Dima, Jogia, Frangou, Sala, de Vidovich and Brambilla2013). Further, some researchers found a hypoconnectivity between structures associated with emotion regulation and structures associated with social cognitive responses in BPD: Higher levels of CM were associated with reduced levels of brain connectivity, with different types of CM having differential effects on connectivity in BPD patients (Duque-Alarcón, Alcalá-Lozano, González-Olvera, Garza-Villarreal, & Pellicer, Reference Duque-Alarcón, Alcalá-Lozano, González-Olvera, Garza-Villarreal and Pellicer2019). In support of our account of CM, there is some evidence for complex gene-environment interactions involving CM that determine the risk or protection against BPD pathology (Goodman, New, & Siever, Reference Goodman, New and Siever2004). Indeed, CM impacts biological processes epigenetically (Prados et al., Reference Prados, Stenz, Courtet, Prada, Nicastro, Adouan and Perroud2015). Providing evidence of epigenome × environment interactions, epigenetic modifications of the glucocorticoid receptor gene (i.e. hGR methylation) were strongly associated with an increased vulnerability to psychopathology in CM (Radtke et al., Reference Radtke, Schauer, Gunter, Ruf-Leuschner, Sill, Meyer and Elbert2015). More and more evidence points to a severe relationship dysfunction being the core epigenetic expression of BPD (Steele & Siever, Reference Steele and Siever2010).

On a hormone level, early CM was associated with reduced plasma oxytocin (Kluczniok et al., Reference Kluczniok, Dittrich, Hindi Attar, Bödeker, Roth, Jaite and Bermpohl2019), highlighting the role of oxytocin in BPD (Herpertz & Bertsch, Reference Herpertz and Bertsch2015). In the pathogenesis of BPD, a beneficial effect of oxytocin on threat processing and stress responsiveness was found (Bertsch & Herpertz, Reference Bertsch, Herpertz, Hurlemann and Grinevich2018), despite considerable heterogeneity in the literature (Amad, Thomas, & Perez-Rodriguez, Reference Amad, Thomas and Perez-Rodriguez2015; Bertsch & Herpertz, Reference Bertsch, Herpertz, Hurlemann and Grinevich2018).

The neural specification of our PP account of BPD is displayed in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Neural specification of the predictive processing account of BPD.

Novelty of this account

The present article is the first to apply current thinking in neuroscience and computational psychiatry to provide a novel mechanistic model of BPD. Specifically, by highlighting how the experience of CM is thought to alter perception, our account provides a coherent explanation as to why people with BPD show rapid fluctuations of intense emotions, cognitions, and inconsistent behaviors. Moreover, proposing that CM leads to a dysbalance between the precision of prior beliefs and data, our account can also explain why people with BPD are highly sensitive to negative social feedback, whereas information processing in other domains is intact. Thus, in contrast to previous cognitive theories of BPD (Arntz, Reference Arntz1994; Arntz, Dietzel, & Dreessen, Reference Arntz, Dietzel and Dreessen1999; Arntz, Dreessen, Schouten, & Weertman, Reference Arntz, Dreessen, Schouten and Weertman2004; Baer, Peters, Eisenlohr-Moul, Geiger, & Sauer, Reference Baer, Peters, Eisenlohr-Moul, Geiger and Sauer2012; Beck, Davis, & Freeman, Reference Beck, Davis and Freeman2015; Butler, Brown, Beck, & Grisham, Reference Butler, Brown, Beck and Grisham2002), we suggest that BPD may not primarily be related to the presence of dysfunctional beliefs per se (i.e. their contents), but to aberrant precision afforded to them. This is consistent with recent theories from computational psychiatry (Kube & Rozenkrantz, Reference Kube and Rozenkrantz2021; Paulus et al., Reference Paulus, Feinstein and Khalsa2019). Moreover, our account goes beyond previous theories of BPD as a disorder of emotion regulation (Linehan, Reference Linehan1993) by assuming that the instability of affect, cognition, and behavior has one underlying pathology, that is, overly weak prior predictions. At the same time, our model can also account for the rigidity (or: lack of flexibility) of BPD patients by conceiving of it as an expression of the patients' impoverished generative model resulting from CM.

Implications for the treatment and prevention of BPD

On the basis of our review, two major clinical implications can be drawn. First, the crucial role of CM on the perception and cognition of a child and its emotional development. People generate a model of its environment (including the external world and the body) which predicts future sensory inputs and is updated by PEs, depending on how precise these error signals are. Expectation and attention increase the integration of top-down and bottom-up signals in perception (Gordon, Tsuchiya, Koenig-Robert, & Hohwy, Reference Gordon, Tsuchiya, Koenig-Robert and Hohwy2019). Interventions focusing on both enhancing sensitivity to the validity of sensory input/evidence and therefore PE; and attention on expectations v. sensory input to disentangle imbalance might be promising treatment approaches. In general, individuals tend to have an optimism bias, processing desirable information more frequently than undesirable information. Findings suggest that BPD patients appear initially more pessimistic about their personal future than healthy people but they might be able to overcome their pessimism when provided with relevant information (Korn et al., Reference Korn, la Rosée, Heekeren and Roepke2016b). Indeed, optimism training has potential to change individuals with mild dysphoria perceptions about the future (Yoshimura & Hashimoto, Reference Yoshimura and Hashimoto2020). By sampling precise empirical evidence, BPD patients might enhance their predictability of the world and reduce uncertainty in their beliefs. Before, traditional cognitive techniques such as the, Downward Arrow‘-technique – sometimes referred to as Vertical Descent (Leahy, Reference Leahy2017) – might be useful to identify relevant expectations (‘predictions’). Individual treatment should then focus on techniques to increase the attention of BPD patients to PEs by an elevated propensity to counterbalance and weight perceptual beliefs (priors) over sensory evidence and interventions to empirically examine the credibility of one's beliefs in order to strengthen the precision of one's priors and enhance belief updating. Attention alters PP indicating that there are top-down effects of attention on perception (Clark, Reference Clark2016b). Some researchers have proposed that salience is something that is afforded to actions that realize epistemic affordance, while attention per se is afforded to precise sensory evidence – or beliefs about the causes of sensations (Parr & Friston, Reference Parr and Friston2017). Indeed, attention and PE suggest that information sought by top-down-attention is prioritized (Ramamoorthy, Parker, Plaisted-Grant, Muhl-Richardson, & Davis, Reference Ramamoorthy, Parker, Plaisted-Grant, Muhl-Richardson and Davis2020). Attention optimizes the expected precision of predictions by modulating the synaptic gain of PE units, that is, attention increases the selectivity for mismatch information in the neural response to a surprising stimulus indicating that attention optimizes precision expectations during hierarchical inference by increasing the gain of PEs (Smout, Tang, Garrido, & Mattingley, Reference Smout, Tang, Garrido and Mattingley2019). Furthermore, it is widely accepted that predictions across different stimulus attributes (e.g. time and content) facilitate sensory processing. Content (‘what’) and temporal (‘when’) predictions engage complementary neural mechanisms in different brain regions, suggesting domain-specific prediction signaling along the cortical hierarchy (Auksztulewicz et al., Reference Auksztulewicz, Schwiedrzik, Thesen, Doyle, Devinsky, Nobre and Melloni2018). Moreover, as BPD patients perceive the world as ambiguous, building new expectations should be based on repetitions and hints which have been shown to facilitate perceptual experience of ambiguous images (Hertz, Blakemore, & Frith, Reference Hertz, Blakemore and Frith2020). Yet, people have two main pathways to determine the veracity of the sensory input: the perceived credibility of the source and direct-evaluation via first-hand evidence, i.e. testing the advice against observation. Beliefs are interpreted in light of the perceived credibility of the source in form of credibility-led biased interpretations of evidence (whether belief or suspicion confirming) that lead to further polarization of the perceived credibility highlighting the crucial role of credibility in belief updating (Pilditch, Madsen, & Custers, Reference Pilditch, Madsen and Custers2020), while cues including valence and relevance influence these credibility judgments suggesting a utility and credibility trade off during decision making (Gugerty & Link, Reference Gugerty and Link2020). Therefore, creating a more nuanced credibility picture in BPD patients might also be promising treatment target. By providing the brain with an intense inflow of salient and unambiguous bottom-up sensory input to shift the brains mapping of the observed body state, interoceptive interventions might provide a base for more directly targeting and manipulating those (attentional) processes regarding the interoceptive system and correcting somatic errors (Paulus et al., Reference Paulus, Feinstein and Khalsa2019) that also might foster ‘mineness’ (also called ‘subjective presence’ or ‘personalization’) as the feeling that experiences belong to a continuing self (Gerrans, Reference Gerrans2020). As such, exposure-based interventions (including exteroceptive as well as interoceptive exposure techniques) are useful to exacerbate somatic errors and therefore to adaptively adjust their prior expectations with new sensory input (evidence). As a slightly different approach to process aversive interoceptive sensations, mindfulness techniques as used as a central part in DBT might help minimize somatic errors by shifting attention away from the predicted body state and toward the observed body state (Farb et al., Reference Farb, Daubenmier, Price, Gard, Kerr, Dunn and Mehling2015), i.e. predictions of the body state and somatic error might naturally vanish as the mind attempts to function with low-precision priors triggering fewer regulatory responses and that allows the entire predictive model to be driven by incoming sensory input from the present moment in time. Traditionally not a standard tool in psychotherapy, new interventions such as the floatation-REST (Reduced Environmental Stimulation Therapy)Footnote 4 might be able to enrich current state-of-the-art treatments such as DBT (Feinstein et al., Reference Feinstein, Khalsa, Yeh, al Zoubi, Arevian, Wohlrab and Paulus2018). Furthermore, whole body hyperthermia (WBH) (Janssen et al., Reference Janssen, Lowry, Mehl, Allen, Kelly, Gartner and Raison2016), modulation of muscle tension via Swedish massage (Rapaport et al., Reference Rapaport, Schettler, Larson, Edwards, Dunlop, Rakofsky and Kinkead2016), yoga (Jeter, Slutsky, Singh, & Khalsa, Reference Jeter, Slutsky, Singh and Khalsa2015), and exercise (Smits, Berry, Tart, & Powers, Reference Smits, Berry, Tart and Powers2008); repeated brief exposures to high doses of CO2 (Wolpe, Reference Wolpe1987); and cyclic activation of the sympathetic nervous system and suppression of the immune response through cold immersion and CO2-modulation using alternating cycles of hyperventilation followed by breath holding (Kox et al., Reference Kox, Van Eijk, Zwaag, Van Den Wildenberg, Sweep, Van Der Hoeven and Pickkers2014) might also yield a future potential in this regard (Paulus et al., Reference Paulus, Feinstein and Khalsa2019).

Second, this account highlights the role of prevention of CM in risk populations with low educational skills, and in parents suffering also from mental disorders, in particular emotion regulation deficits (such as in the case of mothers with BPD). Both, parenting programs as well as mother-child-interventions might serve as important preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of CM. For example, in some clinics there exist group psychotherapy for mothers suffering from BPD, and evidence-based parenting programs such as the Triple p – Positive Parenting Program (Bodenmann, Cina, Ledermann, & Sanders, Reference Bodenmann, Cina, Ledermann and Sanders2008; Sanders, Reference Sanders1999, Reference Sanders2008, Reference Sanders2012). In a critical and sensitive phase in child development, children must be encouraged to build appropriate confidence (i.e. precision) in their expectations and beliefs (i.e. priors) by a validating environment that see their emotions and fulfill their needs appropriately leading to fewer PEs (i.e. minimizing uncertainty and surprise in the environment to make the world and behavior of others more predictable to them).

Limitations and future directions

Although the majority of patients with BPD report maltreatment in their childhood (Battle et al., Reference Battle, Shea, Johnson, Yen, Zlotnick, Zanarini and Morey2004; Carlson et al., Reference Carlson, Egeland and Sroufe2009) and patients with BPD were over 13 times more likely to report childhood adversity than non-clinical controls and other clinical populations (Kleindienst et al., Reference Kleindienst, Vonderlin, Bohus and Lis2020; Porter et al., Reference Porter, Palmier-Claus, Branitsky, Mansell, Warwick and Varese2020), a major limitation of our model is that it only explains aberrant belief updating in patients with BPD that have experienced some sort of CM. For BPD patients without CM in the past, genetics might be a more relevant risk factor in the pathogenesis of BPD as studies found a moderate to high heritability in BPD (Distel et al., Reference Distel, Trull, Derom, Thiery, Grimmer, Martin and Boomsma2008, Reference Distel, Willemsen, Ligthart, Derom, Martin, Neale and Boomsma2010; Skoglund et al., Reference Skoglund, Tiger, Rück, Petrovic, Asherson, Hellner and Kuja-Halkola2021). However, despite the potentially different etiology, we believe that a similar psychobiological pathology in the sense of PP (i.e. the role of priors, precision and likelihood) underlies also in those patients with BPD. Furthermore, although particularly relevant in BPD (Brakemeier et al., Reference Brakemeier, Dobias, Hertel, Bohus, Limberger, Schramm and Normann2018; Pietrek et al., Reference Pietrek, Elbert, Weierstall, Müller and Rockstroh2013; Quenneville et al., Reference Quenneville, Kalogeropoulou, Küng, Hasler, Nicastro, Prada and Perroud2020; Wota et al., Reference Wota, Byrne, Murray, Ofuafor, Nisar, Neuner and Hallahan2014), CM is considered as a transdiagnostic factor (Gilbert et al., Reference Gilbert, Widom, Browne, Fergusson, Webb and Janson2009; Struck et al., Reference Struck, Krug, Yuksel, Stein, Schmitt, Meller and Brakemeier2020) and future studies should investigate the specific causal contribution of CM to the pathogenesis of BPD. Though our account can build upon the wealth of literature on childhood adversities, no consensus has been reached about how to measure poor parenting or the invalidating environment to quantify the extent to which these types of specific factors contribute to BPD (Musser et al., Reference Musser, Zalewski, Stepp and Lewis2018). Also, different forms of CM may have different consequences. Similarly, there is a lack of assessment tools to measure a key element of our account: the precision of prior beliefs and new information. Therefore, much of what we proposed here as conceptually-based evidence still needs to be empirically tested in future work using rigorous experimental designs and computational modeling to generate data-based evidence.

Despite strong arguments in favor of PP (Seth, Millidge, Buckley, & Tschantz, Reference Seth, Millidge, Buckley and Tschantz2020; van de Cruys, Friston, & Clark, Reference van de Cruys, Friston and Clark2020), it should be noted there have also been some critical voices regarding PP as a ‘theory-of-everything’ (Hutto, Reference Hutto2020; Litwin & Miłkowski, Reference Litwin and Miłkowski2020; Sun & Firestone, Reference Sun and Firestone2020). Indeed, there seem overlapping features and similarities to traditional theories (F.A. França, Reference F.A. França2020) and some researchers urge for refinements of the PP theory in order to increase its explanatory power (Gilead, Trope, & Liberman, Reference Gilead, Trope and Liberman2020; Vilas, Melloni, & Melloni, Reference Vilas, Melloni and Melloni2020). This critique is in part also relevant to the present article as it applies one set of theoretical assumptions to explain a fairly heterogeneous disorder. Yet, we believe that PP has the potential to inspire future research and allows to derive some novel hypotheses about the psychopathology of BPD that may contribute to a more nuanced understanding of this complex disorder, particularly in view of the developmental psychopathology perspective PP offers.

For an overview of specific hypotheses that can be derived from our account, see Table 1.

Table 1. Testable hypotheses for future research

Note: BPD, Borderline personality disorder; CM, Childhood maltreatment; PE, prediction error; PFC, prefrontral cortex.

Conclusions

In this article, we proposed a Bayesian account of BPD that relies on the observation that many people with BPD experienced some sort of maltreatment in childhood. We argued that such adverse experiences lead to pervasive alterations in perception. In essence, we suggested that CM impairs the continuous refinement of predictive models of the world and precipitates the formation of weak and strong prior predictions, relative to sensory information. This entails a distorted belief updating in response to novel information, resulting in a marked instability of affect, cognitions, and behavior – that is, the core features of BPD.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291722002458.

Acknowledgements

Figure 3 was created using a template from Servier Medical Art by Servier (http://smart.servier.com/), licensed under a Creative Common Attribution 3.0 Unported License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Author contributions

P. H. conceived the main original ideas. All authors contributed to the development of the theoretical concept and design of the model. P. H. drafted the paper, and T. K. and E. F. provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the paper for submission.

Financial support

E. F. obtained funding from the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung (2018_A152). This research did not receive any other specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

E. F. has provided trainings, presentations and published books/chapters on the treatment of BPD. P. H. and T. K. have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Footnotes

* The notes appear after the main text.

1 In addition to these emotion regulation deficits, CM may also contribute to aberrant social cognition in BPD as discussed in further detail in the supplement (see online Supplemental Material 1).

2 In the online Supplemental Material 2, we provide an explanation for the other end of the emotional spectrum in BPD, i.e. chronic emptiness.

3 Of note, in domains that are not core to BPD, such as the integration of future life information, there seem to be less abnormalities in belief updating in BPD, although people with BPD have overall more pessimistic expectations than healthy people (Korn et al., Reference Korn, la Rosée, Heekeren and Roepke2016b).

4 A sensory-reduced intervention that attenuates exteroceptive sensory input to brain by reducing the impact of predictive models through the act of floating supine in a pool of water saturated with Epsom salts in order to heighten interoceptive awareness and physiological relaxation and better achieve mindful states (i.e. attention on the observed body state and on the present-moment sensation) (Feinstein et al., Reference Feinstein, Khalsa, Yeh, al Zoubi, Arevian, Wohlrab and Paulus2018).

References

Afifi, T. O., Mather, A., Boman, J., Fleisher, W., Enns, M. W., MacMillan, H., & Sareen, J. (2011). Childhood adversity and personality disorders: Results from a nationally representative population-based study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45(6), 814822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.11.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, B. (2008). An analysis of the impact of diverse forms of childhood psychological maltreatment on emotional adjustment in early adulthood. Child Maltreatment, 13(3), 307312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559508318394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amad, A., Ramoz, N., Thomas, P., Jardri, R., & Gorwood, P. (2014). Genetics of borderline personality disorder: Systematic review and proposal of an integrative model. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 40, 619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amad, A., Thomas, P., & Perez-Rodriguez, M. (2015). Borderline personality disorder and oxytocin: Review of clinical trials and future directions. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 21(23), 33113316. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612821666150619093019.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Apicella, P., Legallet, E., & Trouche, E. (1997). Responses of tonically discharging neurons in the monkey striatum to primary rewards delivered during different behavioral states. Experimental Brain Research, 116(3), 456466. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00005773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arntz, A. (1994). Treatment of borderline personality disorder: A challenge for cognitive-behavioural therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32(4), 419430. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)90005-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arntz, A., Dietzel, R., & Dreessen, L. (1999). Assumptions in borderline personality disorder: Specificity, stability and relationship with etiological factors. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37(6), 545557. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00152-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arntz, A., Dreessen, L., Schouten, E., & Weertman, A. (2004). Beliefs in personality disorders: A test with the Personality Disorder Belief Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(10), 12151225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auksztulewicz, R., Schwiedrzik, C. M., Thesen, T., Doyle, W., Devinsky, O., Nobre, A. C., … Melloni, L. (2018). Not all predictions are equal: ‘what’ and ‘when’ predictions modulate activity in auditory cortex through different mechanisms. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(40), 86808693. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0369-18.2018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baer, R. A., Peters, J. R., Eisenlohr-Moul, T. A., Geiger, P. J., & Sauer, S. E. (2012). Emotion-related cognitive processes in borderline personality disorder: A review of the empirical literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(5), 359369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.03.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balestri, M., Calati, R., Serretti, A., & de Ronchi, D. (2014). Genetic modulation of personality traits: A systematic review of the literature. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 29(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.1097/YIC.0b013e328364590b.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnicot, K., Katsakou, C., Marougka, S., & Priebe, S. (2011). Treatment completion in psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 123(5), 327338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01652.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, L. F., Quigley, K. S., & Hamilton, P. (2016). An active inference theory of allostasis and interoception in depression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1708). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, L. F., & Satpute, A. B. (2013). Large-scale brain networks in affective and social neuroscience: Towards an integrative functional architecture of the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 361372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.12.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, L. F., & Simmons, W. K. (2015). Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(7), 419429. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastos, A. M., Usrey, W. M., Adams, R. A., Mangun, G. R., Fries, P., & Friston, K. J. (2012). Canonical microcircuits for predictive coding. Neuron, 76(4), 695711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Battle, C. L., Shea, M. T., Johnson, D. M., Yen, S., Zlotnick, C., Zanarini, M. C., … Morey, L. C. (2004). Childhood maltreatment associated with adult personality disorders: Findings from the collaborative longitudinal personality disorders study. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(2), 193211. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.18.2.193.32777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, A. T., Davis, D. D., & Freeman, A. (2015). Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bertsch, K., & Herpertz, S. C. (2018). Oxytocin and borderline personality disorder. In Hurlemann, R. & Grinevich, V. (Eds.), Behavioral pharmacology of neuropeptides: Oxytocin. Current topics in behavioral neurosciences (Vol. 35, pp. 499514). Cham: Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2017_26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevilacqua, L., & Goldman, D. (2013). Genetics of impulsive behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1615). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bezdjian, S., Baker, L. A., & Tuvblad, C. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences on impulsivity: A meta-analysis of twin, family and adoption studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(7), 12091223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodenmann, G., Cina, A., Ledermann, T., & Sanders, M. R. (2008). The efficacy of the Triple p-Positive Parenting Program in improving parenting and child behavior: A comparison with two other treatment conditions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(4), 411427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.01.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornovalova, M. A., Gratz, K. L., Delany-Brumsey, A., Paulson, A., & Lejuez, C. W. (2006). Temperamental and environmental risk factors for borderline personality disorder among inner-city substance users in residential treatment. Journal of Personality Disorders, 20(3), 218231. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2006.20.3.218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornovalova, M. A., Huibregtse, B. M., Hicks, B. M., Keyes, M., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. (2013). Tests of a direct effect of childhood abuse on adult borderline personality disorder traits: A longitudinal discordant twin design. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(1), 180194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boucher, M-È, Pugliese, J., Allard-Chapais, C., Lecours, S., Ahoundova, L., Chouinard, R., & Gaham, S. (2017). Parent-child relationship associated with the development of borderline personality disorder: A systematic review. Personality and Mental Health, 11(4), 229255. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, R., Jenei, J., & Westen, D. (2005). Etiology of borderline personality disorder. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 193(1), 2431. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000149215.88020.7c.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brakemeier, E. L., Dobias, J., Hertel, J., Bohus, M., Limberger, M. F., Schramm, E., … Normann, C. (2018). Childhood maltreatment in women with borderline personality disorder, chronic depression, and episodic depression, and in healthy controls. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 87(1), 4951. https://doi.org/10.1159/000484481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, H. R., & Friston, K. J. (2012). Dynamic causal modelling of precision and synaptic gain in visual perception – an EEG study. NeuroImage, 63(1), 223231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, A. C., Brown, G. K., Beck, A. T., & Grisham, J. R. (2002). Assessment of dysfunctional beliefs in borderline personality disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(10), 12311240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00031-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, E. A., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (2009). A prospective investigation of the development of borderline personality symptoms. Development and Psychopathology, 21(4), 13111334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carvalho Fernando, S., Beblo, T., Schlosser, N., Terfehr, K., Otte, C., Löwe, B., … Wingenfeld, K. (2014). The impact of self-reported childhood trauma on emotion regulation in borderline personality disorder and major depression. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 15(4), 384401. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2013.863262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, A. L. (2019). Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation. Development and Psychopathology, 31(3), 11431156. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579419000658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A. (2016a). Attention alters predictive processing. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15002472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A. (2016b). Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. E., Watson, S., & Friston, K. J. (2018). What is mood? A computational perspective. Psychological Medicine, 48(14), 22772284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718000430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L. J., Tanis, T., Bhattacharjee, R., Nesci, C., Halmi, W., & Galynker, I. (2014). Are there differential relationships between different types of childhood maltreatment and different types of adult personality pathology? Psychiatry Research, 215(1), 192201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.10.036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corlett, P. R., Horga, G., Fletcher, P. C., Alderson-Day, B., Schmack, K., & Powers, A. R. (2019). Hallucinations and strong priors. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(2), 114127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.12.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dannlowski, U., Stuhrmann, A., Beutelmann, V., Zwanzger, P., Lenzen, T., Grotegerd, D., … Kugel, H. (2012). Limbic scars: Long-term consequences of childhood maltreatment revealed by functional and structural magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 71(4), 286293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.10.021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daros, A. R., & Williams, G. E. (2019). A meta-analysis and systematic review of emotion-regulation strategies in borderline personality disorder. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 27(4), 217232. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’astolfo, L., Kirchner, L., & Rief, W. (2020). No1LikesU! - A pilot study on an ecologically valid and highly standardised experimental paradigm to investigate social rejection expectations and their modification. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 2(2), 121. https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.v2i2.2997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de-Almeida, C. P., Wenzel, A., de-Carvalho, C. S., Powell, V. B., Araújo-Neto, C., Quarantini, L. C., & de-Oliveira, I. R. (2012). Amygdalar volume in borderline personality disorder with and without comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis. CNS Spectrums, 17(2), 7075. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852912000466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Aquino Ferreira, L. F., Queiroz Pereira, F. H., Neri Benevides, A. M. L., & Aguiar Melo, M. C. (2018). Borderline personality disorder and sexual abuse: A systematic review. Psychiatry Research, 262, 7077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.01.043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derks, Y. P. M. J., Westerhof, G. J., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2017). A meta-analysis on the association between emotional awareness and borderline personality pathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31(3), 362384. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Distel, M. A., Trull, T. J., Derom, C. A., Thiery, E. W., Grimmer, M. A., Martin, N. G., … Boomsma, D. I. (2008). Heritability of borderline personality disorder features is similar across three countries. Psychological Medicine, 38(9), 12191229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291707002024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Distel, M. A., Willemsen, G., Ligthart, L., Derom, C. A., Martin, N. G., Neale, M. C., … Boomsma, D. I. (2010). Genetic covariance structure of the four main features of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24(4), 427444. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2010.24.4.427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duque-Alarcón, X., Alcalá-Lozano, R., González-Olvera, J. J., Garza-Villarreal, E. A., & Pellicer, F. (2019). Effects of childhood maltreatment on social cognition and brain functional connectivity in borderline personality disorder patients. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10(MAR), 156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyden, J., Winsper, C., Wolke, D., Broome, M. R., & MacCallum, F. (2016). A systematic review of the parenting and outcomes experienced by offspring of mothers with borderline personality pathology: Potential mechanisms and clinical implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 47, 85105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.04.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
F.A. França, T. (2020). Predictive processing: Is the future just a memory? European Journal of Neuroscience, 52(10), 42304232. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farb, N., Daubenmier, J., Price, C. J., Gard, T., Kerr, C., Dunn, B. D., … Mehling, W. E. (2015). Interoception, contemplative practice, and health. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(JUN). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinstein, J. S., Khalsa, S. S., Yeh, H., al Zoubi, O., Arevian, A. C., Wohlrab, C., … Paulus, M. P. (2018). The elicitation of relaxation and interoceptive awareness using floatation therapy in individuals with high anxiety sensitivity. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(6), 555562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2018.02.005.Google ScholarPubMed
Fineberg, N. A., Chamberlain, S. R., Goudriaan, A. E., Stein, D. J., Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J., Gillan, C. M., … Potenza, M. N. (2014a). New developments in human neurocognition: Clinical, genetic, and brain imaging correlates of impulsivity and compulsivity. CNS Spectrums, 19(1), 6989. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852913000801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fineberg, S. K. (2019). Keep the change: Embracing variability as a path to richer theoretical models of borderline personality disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 86(12), 879880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.10.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fineberg, S. K., Leavitt, J., Landry, C. D., Neustadter, E. S., Lesser, R. E., Stahl, D. S., … Corlett, P. R. (2018a). Individuals with borderline personality disorder show larger preferred social distance in live dyadic interactions. Psychiatry Research, 260, 384390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.11.054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fineberg, S. K., Leavitt, J., Stahl, D. S., Kronemer, S., Landry, C. D., Alexander-Bloch, A., … Corlett, P. R. (2018b). Differential valuation and learning from social and nonsocial cues in borderline personality disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 84(11), 838845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.05.020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fineberg, S. K., Stahl, D. S., & Corlett, P. R. (2017). Computational psychiatry in borderline personality disorder. Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports, 4(1), 3140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40473-017-0104-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fineberg, S. K., Steinfeld, M., Brewer, J. A., & Corlett, P. R. (2014b). A computational account of borderline personality disorder: Impaired predictive learning about self and others through bodily simulation. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 5(AUG), 111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiorillo, C. D., Newsome, W. T., & Schultz, W. (2008). The temporal precision of reward prediction in dopamine neurons. Nature Neuroscience, 11(8), 966973. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fontaine, N., & Viding, E. (2008). Genetics of personality disorders. Psychiatry, 7(3), 137141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mppsy.2008.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedel, R. O. (2004). Dopamine dysfunction in borderline personality disorder: A hypothesis. Neuropsychopharmacology, 29(6), 10291039. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1300424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friston, K. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1456), 815836. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friston, K. (2008). Hierarchical models in the brain. PLoS Computational Biology, 4(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friston, K. J., Stephan, K. E., Montague, R., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Computational psychiatry: The brain as a phantastic organ. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1(2), 148158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70275-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galea, J. M., Bestmann, S., Beigi, M., Jahanshahi, M., & Rothwell, J. C. (2012). Action reprogramming in Parkinson's disease: Response to prediction error is modulated by levels of dopamine. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(2), 542550. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3621-11.2012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerrans, P. (2020). Pain asymbolia as depersonalization for pain experience. An interoceptive active inference account. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.523710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, R., Widom, C. S., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S. (2009). Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. The Lancet, 373(9657), 6881. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61706-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilead, M., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2020). Above and beyond the concrete: The diverse representational substrates of the predictive brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19002000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, M., New, A., & Siever, L. (2004). Trauma, genes, and the neurobiology of personality disorders. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1032, 104116. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1314.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, N., Tsuchiya, N., Koenig-Robert, R., & Hohwy, J. (2019). Expectation and attention increase the integration of top-down and bottom-up signals in perception through different pathways. PLoS Biology, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, T., Chase, H. W., Almeida, J. R., Stiffler, R., Zevallos, C. R., Aslam, H. A., … Phillips, M. L. (2015). Moderation of the relationship between reward expectancy and prediction error-related ventral striatal reactivity by anhedonia in unmedicated major depressive disorder: Findings from the EMBARC study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 172(9), 881891. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14050594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gu, X., Hof, P. R., Friston, K. J., & Fan, J. (2013). Anterior insular cortex and emotional awareness. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 521(15), 33713388. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.23368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gugerty, L., & Link, D. M. (2020). How heuristic credibility cues affect credibility judgments and decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(4), 620645. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000279.Google ScholarPubMed
Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2006). The weak coherence account: Detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(1), 525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, H., & Rubia, K. (2012). Neuroimaging of child abuse: A critical review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(52), 124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazlett, E. A. (2016). Neural substrates of emotion-processing abnormalities in borderline personality disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 79(2), 7475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.10.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heil, L., Kwisthout, J., van Pelt, S., van Rooij, I., & Bekkering, H. (2018). One wouldn't expect an expert bowler to hit only two pins: Hierarchical predictive processing of agent-caused events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(12), 26432654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817752102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hengartner, M. P., Ajdacic-Gross, V., Rodgers, S., Müller, M., & Rössler, W. (2013). Childhood adversity in association with personality disorder dimensions: New findings in an old debate. European Psychiatry, 28(8), 476482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2013.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henningsen, P., Gündel, H., Kop, W. J., Löwe, B., Martin, A., Rief, W., … van den Bergh, O. (2018). Persistent physical symptoms as perceptual dysregulation: A neuropsychobehavioral model and its clinical implications. Psychosomatic Medicine, 80(5), 422431. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernandez, A., Arntz, A., Gaviria, A. M., Labad, A., & Gutiérrez-Zotes, J. A. (2012). Relationships between childhood maltreatment, parenting style, and borderline personality disorder criteria. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26(5), 727736. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.5.727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herpertz, S. C., & Bertsch, K. (2015). A new perspective on the pathophysiology of borderline personality disorder: A model of the role of oxytocin. American Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 840851. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15020216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertz, U., Blakemore, C., & Frith, C. D. (2020). I haven't a clue! Expectations based on repetitions and hints facilitate perceptual experience of ambiguous images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(8), 831846. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000749.Google ScholarPubMed
Herzog, P., Feldmann, M., Voderholzer, U., Gärtner, T., Armbrust, M., Rauh, E., … Brakemeier, E. L. (2020). Drawing the borderline: Predicting treatment outcomes in patients with borderline personality disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hohwy, J. (2014). The predictive mind. In Hohwy, J (Ed.), The predictive mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682737.001.0001.Google Scholar
Hughes, C. D., & Rizvi, S. L. (2019). Biases in affective forecasting and recall as a function of borderline personality disorder features. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 200223. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2019.38.3.200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutto, D. D. (2020). The cost of over-intellectualizing the free-energy principle. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19002851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibrahim, J., Cosgrave, N., & Woolgar, M. (2018). Childhood maltreatment and its link to borderline personality disorder features in children: A systematic review approach. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 23(1), 5776. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104517712778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Igarashi, H., Hasui, C., Uji, M., Shono, M., Nagata, T., & Kitamura, T. (2010). Effects of child abuse history on borderline personality traits, negative life events, and depression: A study among a university student population in Japan. Psychiatry Research, 180(2–3), 120125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.04.029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iglesias, S., Mathys, C., Brodersen, K. H., Kasper, L., Piccirelli, M., denOuden, H. E. M., & Stephan, K. E. (2013). Hierarchical prediction errors in midbrain and basal forebrain during sensory learning. Neuron, 80(2), 519530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Vernon, P. A., & Jackson, D. N. (1996). Heritability of personality disorder traits: A twin study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 94(6), 438444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1996.tb09887.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janssen, C. W., Lowry, C. A., Mehl, M. R., Allen, J. J. B., Kelly, K. L., Gartner, D. E., … Raison, C. L. (2016). Whole-body hyperthermia for the treatment of major depressive disorder: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 73(8), 789795. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.1031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jedd, K., Hunt, R. H., Cicchetti, D., Hunt, E., Cowell, R. A., Rogosch, F. A., … Thomas, K. M. (2015). Long-term consequences of childhood maltreatment: Altered amygdala functional connectivity. Development and Psychopathology, 27(4 0 2), 15771589. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579415000954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeter, P. E., Slutsky, J., Singh, N., & Khalsa, S. B. S. (2015). Yoga as a therapeutic intervention: A bibliometric analysis of published research studies from 1967 to 2013. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 21(10), 586592. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2015.0057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joffily, M., & Coricelli, G. (2013). Emotional valence and the free-energy principle. PLoS Computational Biology, 9(6), e1003094. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyce, P. R., Stephenson, J., Kennedy, M., Mulder, R. T., & McHugh, P. C. (2013). The presence of both serotonin 1A receptor (HTR1A) and dopamine transporter (DAT1) gene variants increase the risk of borderline personality disorder. Frontiers in Genetics, 4(JAN). https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2013.00313.Google Scholar
Kanai, R., Komura, Y., Shipp, S., & Friston, K. (2015). Cerebral hierarchies: Predictive processing, precision and the pulvinar. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1668), 20140169. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kayhan, E., Meyer, M., O'Reilly, J. X., Hunnius, S., & Bekkering, H. (2019). Nine-month-old infants update their predictive models of a changing environment. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khadka, S., Narayanan, B., Meda, S. A., Gelernter, J., Han, S., Sawyer, B., … Pearlson, G. D. (2014). Genetic association of impulsivity in young adults: A multivariate study. Translational Psychiatry, 4(9), e451e451. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2014.95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiverstein, J., Miller, M., & Rietveld, E. (2020). How mood tunes prediction: A neurophenomenological account of mood and its disturbance in major depression. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2020(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niaa003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleindienst, N., Vonderlin, R., Bohus, M., Lis, S. (2020). Childhood adversity and borderline personality disorder. Analyses complementing the meta-analysis by Porter et al. (2020). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 143(2), 183184. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluczniok, D., Dittrich, K., Hindi Attar, C., Bödeker, K., Roth, M., Jaite, C., … Bermpohl, F. (2019). Oxytocin and maltreatment potential: Influence of maternal depression, borderline personality disorder and experience of early childhood maltreatment. Nervenarzt, 90(3), 267276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-019-0688-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korn, C. W., la Rosée, L., Heekeren, H. R., & Roepke, S. (2016a). Social feedback processing in borderline personality disorder. Psychological Medicine, 46(3), 575587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171500207X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korn, C. W., la Rosée, L., Heekeren, H. R., & Roepke, S. (2016b). Processing of information about future life events in borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research, 246, 719724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.07.067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korn, C. W., Prehn, K., Park, S. Q., Walter, H., & Heekeren, H. R. (2012). Positively biased processing of self-relevant social feedback. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(47), 1683216844. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3016-12.2012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Köster, M., Kayhan, E., Langeloh, M., & Hoehl, S. (2020). Making sense of the world: Infant learning from a predictive processing perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 562571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Köster, M., Langeloh, M., & Hoehl, S. (2019). Visually entrained theta oscillations increase for unexpected events in the infant brain. Psychological Science, 30(11), 16561663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619876260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kox, M., Van Eijk, L. T., Zwaag, J., Van Den Wildenberg, J., Sweep, F. C. G. J., Van Der Hoeven, J. G., & Pickkers, P. (2014). Voluntary activation of the sympathetic nervous system and attenuation of the innate immune response in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(20), 73797384. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322174111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraus, A., Valerius, G., Seifritz, E., Ruf, M., Bremner, J. D., Bohus, M., & Schmahl, C. (2010). Script-driven imagery of self-injurious behavior in patients with borderline personality disorder: A pilot FMRI study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 121(1), 4151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01417.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause-Utz, A., Erol, E., Brousianou, A. V., Cackowski, S., Paret, C., Ende, G., & Elzinga, B. (2019). Self-reported impulsivity in women with borderline personality disorder: The role of childhood maltreatment severity and emotion regulation difficulties. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-019-0101-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause-Utz, A., Winter, D., Niedtfeld, I., & Schmahl, C. (2014). The latest neuroimaging findings in borderline personality disorder topical collection on personality disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-014-0438-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnik, V. (2020). Trauma or drama: A predictive processing perspective on the continuum of stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kube, T., Berg, M., Kleim, B., & Herzog, P. (2020a). Rethinking post-traumatic stress disorder – a predictive processing perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 113(April), 448460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.04.014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kube, T., & Rozenkrantz, L. (2021). When beliefs face reality: An integrative review of belief updating in mental health and illness. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 247274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620931496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kube, T., Rozenkrantz, L., Rief, W., & Barsky, A. (2020b). Understanding persistent physical symptoms: Conceptual integration of psychological expectation models and predictive processing accounts. Clinical Psychology Review, 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kube, T., Schwarting, R., Rozenkrantz, L., Glombiewski, J. A., & Rief, W. (2020). Distorted cognitive processes in major depression – A predictive processing perspective. Biological Psychiatry, 87(5), 388398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.07.017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langeloh, M., Buttelmann, D., Pauen, S., & Hoehl, S. (2020). 12- to 14-month-olds expect unconstrained agents to act efficiently: Event-related potential (ERP) evidence from the head-touch paradigm. Developmental Psychology, 56(7), 12521267. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laporte, L., Paris, J., Guttman, H., Russell, J., & Correa, J. A. (2012). Using a sibling design to compare childhood adversities in female patients with BPD and their sisters. Child Maltreatment, 17(4), 318329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559512461173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawson, R. P., Rees, G., & Friston, K. J. (2014). An aberrant precision account of autism. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(MAY), 302. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leahy, R. L. (2017). Cognitive therapy techniques: A practitioner's guide. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Liebke, L., Koppe, G., Bungert, M., Thome, J., Hauschild, S., Defiebre, N., … Lis, S. (2018). Difficulties with being socially accepted: An experimental study in borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(7), 670682. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, L., Radua, J., & Rubia, K. (2014). Gray matter abnormalities in childhood maltreatment: A voxelwise metaanalysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(8), 854863. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13101427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive behavioral therapy of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Linson, A., & Friston, K. (2019). Reframing PTSD for computational psychiatry with the active inference framework. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 24(5), 347368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2019.1665994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linson, A., Parr, T., & Friston, K. J. (2020). Active inference, stressors, and psychological trauma: A neuroethological model of (mal)adaptive explore-exploit dynamics in ecological context. Behavioural Brain Research, 380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2019.112421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Litwin, P., & Miłkowski, M. (2020). Unification by fiat: Arrested development of predictive processing. Cognitive Science, 44(7). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Livesley, W. J., Jang, K. L., Jackson, D. N., & Vernon, P. A. (1993). Genetic and environmental contributions to dimensions of personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(12), 18261831. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.150.12.1826.Google ScholarPubMed
Lobbestael, J., Arntz, A., & Bernstein, D. P. (2010). Disentangling the relationship between different types of childhood maltreatment and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24(3), 285295. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2010.24.3.285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyndon, S., & Corlett, P. R. (2020). Hallucinations in posttraumatic stress disorder: Insights from predictive coding. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 129(6), 534543. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mccall, C. (2016). Mapping social interactions: The science of proxemics. In M. Wöhr & S. Krach (Eds.), Current topics in behavioral neurosciences (Vol. 30, pp. 295308). Cham: Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2015_431.Google Scholar
McCrory, E. J., Gerin, M. I., & Viding, E. (2017). Annual Research Review: Childhood maltreatment, latent vulnerability and the shift to preventative psychiatry – the contribution of functional brain imaging. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(4), 338357. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miano, A., Fertuck, E. A., Roepke, S., & Dziobek, I. (2017). Romantic relationship dysfunction in borderline personality disorder-A naturalistic approach to trustworthiness perception. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8(3), 281286. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, A. E., Dickens, G. L., & Picchioni, M. M. (2014). Facial emotion processing in borderline personality disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychology Review, 24, 166184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-014-9254-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morandotti, N., Dima, D., Jogia, J., Frangou, S., Sala, M., de Vidovich, G. Z., … Brambilla, P. (2013). Childhood abuse is associated with structural impairment in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and aggressiveness in patients with borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research – Neuroimaging, 213(1), 1823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2013.02.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Musser, N., Zalewski, M., Stepp, S., & Lewis, J. (2018). A systematic review of negative parenting practices predicting borderline personality disorder: Are we measuring biosocial theory's ‘invalidating environment’? Clinical Psychology Review, 65, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.06.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nemoda, Z., Lyons-Ruth, K., Szekely, A., Bertha, E., Faludi, G., & Sasvari-Szekely, M. (2010). Association between dopaminergic polymorphisms and borderline personality traits among at-risk young adults and psychiatric inpatients. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-6-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niki, H., & Watanabe, M. (1979). Prefrontal and cingulate unit activity during timing behavior in the monkey. Brain Research, 171(2), 213224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(79)90328-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nishijo, H., Ono, T., & Nishino, H. (1988). Single neuron responses in amygdala of alert monkey during complex sensory stimulation with affective significance. Journal of Neuroscience, 8(10), 35703583. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.08-10-03570.1988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogata, S. N., Silk, K. R., Goodrich, S., Lohr, N. E., Westen, D., & Hill, E. M. (1990). Childhood sexual and physical abuse in adult patients with borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147(8), 10081013. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.147.8.1008.Google ScholarPubMed
Oliva, F., Dalmotto, M., Pirfo, E., Furlan, P. M., & Picci, R. L. (2014). A comparison of thought and perception disorders in borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia: Psychotic experiences as a reaction to impaired social functioning. BMC Psychiatry, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0239-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oquendo, M. A., & Mann, J. J. (2000). The biology of impulsivity and suicidality. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 23(1), 1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-953X(05)70140-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paquola, C., Bennett, M. R., & Lagopoulos, J. (2016). Understanding heterogeneity in grey matter research of adults with childhood maltreatment – a meta-analysis and review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 69, 299312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parr, T., & Friston, K. J. (2017). Working memory, attention, and salience in active inference. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15249-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parr, T., & Friston, K. J. (2018). The anatomy of inference: Generative models and brain structure. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 12, 90. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2018.00090.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulus, M. P., Feinstein, J. S., & Khalsa, S. S. (2019). An active inference approach to interoceptive psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 97122. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellicano, E., & Burr, D. (2012). When the world becomes ‘too real’: A Bayesian explanation of autistic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(10), 504510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietrek, C., Elbert, T., Weierstall, R., Müller, O., & Rockstroh, B. (2013). Childhood adversities in relation to psychiatric disorders. Psychiatry Research, 206(1), 103110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2012.11.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilditch, T. D., Madsen, J. K., & Custers, R. (2020). False prophets and Cassandra's curse: The role of credibility in belief updating. Acta Psychologica, 202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porter, C., Palmier-Claus, J., Branitsky, A., Mansell, W., Warwick, H., & Varese, F. (2020). Childhood adversity and borderline personality disorder: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 141(1), 620. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powers, A. R., Mathys, C., & Corlett, P. R. (2017). Pavlovian conditioning–induced hallucinations result from overweighting of perceptual priors. Science (New York, N.Y.), 357(6351), 596600. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan3458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prados, J., Stenz, L., Courtet, P., Prada, P., Nicastro, R., Adouan, W., … Perroud, N. (2015). Borderline personality disorder and childhood maltreatment: A genome-wide methylation analysis. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 14(2), 177188. https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quenneville, A. F., Kalogeropoulou, E., Küng, A. L., Hasler, R., Nicastro, R., Prada, P., & Perroud, N. (2020). Childhood maltreatment, anxiety disorders and outcome in borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Research, 284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radtke, K. M., Schauer, M., Gunter, H. M., Ruf-Leuschner, M., Sill, J., Meyer, A., & Elbert, T. (2015). Epigenetic modifications of the glucocorticoid receptor gene are associated with the vulnerability to psychopathology in childhood maltreatment. Translational Psychiatry, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2015.63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramamoorthy, N., Parker, M., Plaisted-Grant, K., Muhl-Richardson, A., & Davis, G. (2020). Attention neglects a stare-in-the-crowd: Unanticipated consequences of prediction-error coding. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104519.Google ScholarPubMed
Rapaport, M. H., Schettler, P., Larson, E. R., Edwards, S. A., Dunlop, B. W., Rakofsky, J. J., & Kinkead, B. (2016). Acute Swedish massage monotherapy successfully remediates symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder: A proof-of-concept, randomized controlled study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 77(7), e883e891. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.15m10151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reed, E. J., Uddenberg, S., Suthaharan, P., Mathys, C. D., Taylor, J. R., Groman, S. M., & Corlett, P. R. (2020). Paranoia as a deficit in non-social belief updating. ELife, 9, 155. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinhard, M. A., Dewald-Kaufmann, J., Wüstenberg, T., Musil, R., Barton, B. B., Jobst, A., & Padberg, F. (2020). The vicious circle of social exclusion and psychopathology: A systematic review of experimental ostracism research in psychiatric disorders. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 270(5), 521532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-019-01074-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rilling, J. K., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 2348. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodrigues, E., Wenzel, A., Ribeiro, M. P., Quarantini, L. C., Miranda-Scippa, A., de Sena, E. P., & De Oliveira, I. R. (2011). Hippocampal volume in borderline personality disorder with and without comorbid posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis. European Psychiatry, 26(7), 452456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.07.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruocco, A. C., Amirthavasagam, S., Choi-Kain, L. W., & McMain, S. F. (2013). Neural correlates of negative emotionality in borderline personality disorder: An activation-likelihood-estimation meta-analysis. Biological Psychiatry, 73(2), 153160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.07.014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruocco, A. C., Amirthavasagam, S., & Zakzanis, K. K. (2012). Amygdala and hippocampal volume reductions as candidate endophenotypes for borderline personality disorder: A meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging studies. Psychiatry Research – Neuroimaging, 201(3), 245252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2012.02.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, M. R. (1999). Triple p-positive parenting program: Towards an empirically validated multilevel parenting and family support strategy for the prevention of behavior and emotional problems in children. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2(2), 7190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021843613840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, M. R. (2008). Triple p-Positive Parenting Program as a public health approach to strengthening parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 506517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanders, M. R. (2012). Development, evaluation, and multinational dissemination of the Triple p-Positive Parenting Program. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 345379. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santangelo, P. S., Koenig, J., Funke, V., Parzer, P., Resch, F., Ebner-Priemer, U. W., & Kaess, M. (2017). Ecological momentary assessment of affective and interpersonal instability in adolescent non-suicidal self-injury. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(7), 14291438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0249-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scala, J. W., Levy, K. N., Johnson, B. N., Kivity, Y., Ellison, W. D., Pincus, A. L., … Newman, M. G. (2018). The role of negative affect and self-concept clarity in predicting self-injurious urges in borderline personality disorder using ecological momentary assessment. Journal of Personality Disorders, 32(Suppl), 3657. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2018.32.supp.36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheffers, F., van Vugt, E., Lanctôt, N., & Lemieux, A. (2019). Experiences of (young) women after out of home placement: An examination of personality disorder symptoms through the lens of child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 92, 116125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.03.022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schenk, L. A., Sprenger, C., Onat, S., Colloca, L., & Büchel, C. (2017). Suppression of striatal prediction errors by the prefrontal cortex in placebo hypoalgesia. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(40), 97159723. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1101-17.2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scherpiet, S., Brühl, A. B., Opialla, S., Roth, L., Jäncke, L., & Herwig, U. (2014). Altered emotion processing circuits during the anticipation of emotional stimuli in women with borderline personality disorder. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 264(1), 4560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-013-0444-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmahl, C. G., Vermetten, E., Elzinga, B. M., & Bremner, J. D. (2004). A positron emission tomography study of memories of childhood abuse in borderline personality disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 55(7), 759765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.11.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schultz, W., & Dickinson, A. (2000). Neuronal coding of prediction errors. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23(1), 473500. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulze, L., Schmahl, C., & Niedtfeld, I. (2016). Neural correlates of disturbed emotion processing in borderline personality disorder: A multimodal meta-analysis. Biological Psychiatry, 79(2), 97106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.03.027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartenbeck, P., FitzGerald, T. H. B., Mathys, C., Dolan, R., & Friston, K. (2015). The dopaminergic midbrain encodes the expected certainty about desired outcomes. Cerebral Cortex, 25(10), 34343445. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seth, A. K., & Friston, K. J. (2016). Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1708). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seth, A. K., Millidge, B., Buckley, C. L., & Tschantz, A. (2020). Curious inferences: Reply to Sun and firestone on the dark room problem. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(9), 681683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharot, T., Guitart-Masip, M., Korn, C. W., Chowdhury, R., & Dolan, R. J. (2012). How dopamine enhances an optimism bias in humans. Current Biology, 22(16), 14771481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.05.053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shipp, S. (2016). Neural elements for predictive coding. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(NOV), 1792. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, J. Z., Curwell-Parry, O., Pearce, S., Saunders, K. E. A., & Crockett, M. J. (2020). A computational phenotype of disrupted moral inference in borderline personality disorder. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 5(12), 11341141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.07.013.Google ScholarPubMed
Skoglund, C., Tiger, A., Rück, C., Petrovic, P., Asherson, P., Hellner, C., … Kuja-Halkola, R. (2021). Familial risk and heritability of diagnosed borderline personality disorder: A register study of the Swedish population. Molecular Psychiatry, 26(3), 9991008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0442-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R., Kirlic, N., Stewart, J., Touthang, J., Kuplicki, R., Khalsa, S., … Aupperle, R. (2020). Greater decision uncertainty characterizes a transdiagnostic patient sample during approach-avoidance conflict: A computational modeling approach. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience: JPN, 46(1), 200032. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/t2dhn.Google Scholar
Smith, R., Lane, R. D., Parr, T., & Friston, K. J. (2019a). Neurocomputational mechanisms underlying emotional awareness: Insights afforded by deep active inference and their potential clinical relevance. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 107, 473491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R., Parr, T., & Friston, K. J. (2019b). Simulating emotions: An active inference model of emotional state inference and emotion concept learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R., Steklis, H. D., Steklis, N., Weihs, K. L., Allen, J. J., & Lane, R. D.. (2022). Lower emotional awareness is associated with greater early adversity and faster life history strategy. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/7NZQK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smits, J. A. J., Berry, A. C., Tart, C. D., & Powers, M. B. (2008). The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral interventions for reducing anxiety sensitivity: A meta-analytic review. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(9), 10471054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.06.010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smout, C. A., Tang, M. F., Garrido, M. I., & Mattingley, J. B. (2019). Attention promotes the neural encoding of prediction errors. PLoS Biology, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006812.Google ScholarPubMed
Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Perception and the conditioned reflex. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Sokolov, E. N. (1990). The orienting response, and future directions of its development. The Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 25(3), 142150. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02974268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steele, H., & Siever, L. (2010). An attachment perspective on borderline personality disorder: Advances in gene-environment considerations. Current Psychiatry Reports, 12(1), 6167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-009-0091-0.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steele, K. R., Townsend, M. L., & Grenyer, B. F. S. (2019). Parenting and personality disorder: An overview and meta-synthesis of systematic reviews. PLoS ONE, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stepp, S. D., Lazarus, S. A., & Byrd, A. L. (2016). A systematic review of risk factors prospectively associated with borderline personality disorder: Taking stock and moving forward. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(4), 316323. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stepp, S. D., Scott, L. N., Jones, N. P., Whalen, D. J., & Hipwell, A. E. (2015). Negative emotional reactivity as a marker of vulnerability in the development of borderline personality disorder symptoms. Development and Psychopathology, 28(1), 213224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579415000395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterzer, P., Adams, R. A., Fletcher, P., Frith, C., Lawrie, S. M., Muckli, L., … Corlett, P. R. (2018). The predictive coding account of psychosis. Biological Psychiatry, 84(9), 634643. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOPSYCH.2018.05.015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storebø, O. J., Stoffers-Winterling, J. M., Völlm, B. A., Kongerslev, M. T., Mattivi, J. T., Jørgensen, M. S., … Simonsen, E. (2020). Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012955.pub2.Google ScholarPubMed
Struck, N., Krug, A., Yuksel, D., Stein, F., Schmitt, S., Meller, T., … Brakemeier, E. L. (2020). Childhood maltreatment and adult mental disorders – the prevalence of different types of maltreatment and associations with age of onset and severity of symptoms. Psychiatry Research, 293, 113398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, Z., & Firestone, C. (2020). The dark room problem. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24, 346348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teicher, M. H., Anderson, C. M., & Polcari, A. (2012). Childhood maltreatment is associated with reduced volume in the hippocampal subfields CA3, dentate gyrus, and subiculum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(9), E563E572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115396109.Google ScholarPubMed
Teicher, M. H., & Samson, J. A. (2016). Annual Research Review: Enduring neurobiological effects of childhood abuse and neglect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(3), 241266. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teicher, M. H., Samson, J. A., Anderson, C. M., & Ohashi, K. (2016). The effects of childhood maltreatment on brain structure, function and connectivity. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(10), 652666. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tzieropoulos, H. (2013). The trust game in neuroscience: A short review. Social Neuroscience, 8(5), 407416. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2013.832375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unoka, Z., Seres, I., Áspán, N., Bódi, N., & Kéri, S. (2009). Trust game reveals restricted interpersonal transactions in patients with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(4), 399409. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vai, B., Sforzini, L., Visintini, R., Riberto, M., Bulgarelli, C., Ghiglino, D., … Benedetti, F. (2018). Corticolimbic connectivity mediates the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and symptom severity in borderline personality disorder. Neuropsychobiology, 76(2), 105115. https://doi.org/10.1159/000487961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Cruys, S., Evers, K., van der Hallen, R., van Eylen, L., Boets, B., de-Wit, L., & Wagemans, J. (2014). Precise minds in uncertain worlds: Predictive coding in autism. Psychological Review, 121(4), 649675. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Cruys, S., Friston, K. J., & Clark, A. (2020). Controlled optimism: Reply to Sun and firestone on the dark room problem. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(9), 680681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Bergh, O., Witthöft, M., Petersen, S., & Brown, R. J. (2017). Symptoms and the body: Taking the inferential leap. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 74(Pt A), 185203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Schie, C. C., Chiu, C. D., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., Heiser, W. J., & Elzinga, B. M. (2020). Stuck in a negative me: FMRI study on the role of disturbed self-views in social feedback processing in borderline personality disorder. Psychological Medicine, 50(4), 625635. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291719000448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vansteelandt, K., Houben, M., Claes, L., Berens, A., Sleuwaegen, E., Sienaert, P., & Kuppens, P. (2017). The affect stabilization function of nonsuicidal self injury in borderline personality disorder: An ecological momentary assessment study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 92, 4150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2017.02.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vilas, M. G., Melloni, L., & Melloni, L. (2020). A challenge for predictive coding: Representational or experiential diversity? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19003157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wager, T. D., Kang, J., Johnson, T. D., Nichols, T. E., Satpute, A. B., & Barrett, L. F. (2015). A Bayesian model of category-specific emotional brain responses. PLOS Computational Biology, 11(4), e1004066. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watanabe, M. (1989). The appropriateness of behavioral responses coded in post-trial activity of primate prefrontal units. Neuroscience Letters, 101(1), 113117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(89)90450-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weaver, T. L., & Clum, G. A. (1993). Early family environments and traumatic experiences associated with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 10681075. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.61.6.1068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widom, C. S., Czaja, S. J., & Paris, J. (2009). A prospective investigation of borderline personality disorder in abused and neglected children followed up into adulthood. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(5), 433446. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.5.433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, S., Dodgson, G., & Meares, K. (2017). Predictive processing and the varieties of psychological trauma. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(OCT), 1840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winsper, C. (2018). The aetiology of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Current Opinion in Psychology, 21, 105110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.10.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winsper, C., Marwaha, S., Lereya, S. T., Thompson, A., Eyden, J., & Singh, S. P. (2016). A systematic review of the neurobiological underpinnings of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in childhood and adolescence. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 27(8), 827847. https://doi.org/10.1515/revneuro-2016-0026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolpe, J. (1987). Carbon dioxide inhalation treatments of neurotic anxiety: An overview. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(3), 129133. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198703000-00001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wota, A. P., Byrne, C., Murray, I., Ofuafor, T., Nisar, Z., Neuner, F., & Hallahan, B. P. (2014). An examination of childhood trauma in individuals attending an adult mental health service. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 31(4), 259270. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipm.2014.49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshimura, S., & Hashimoto, Y. (2020). The effect of induced optimism on the optimistic update bias. BMC Psychology, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-0389-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Wedig, M. M., & Fitzmaurice, G. M. (2013). Cognitive experiences reported by patients with borderline personality disorder and axis ii comparison subjects: A 16-year prospective follow-up study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(6), 671679. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13010055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, T. H., Chow, A., Wang, L. L., Yu, J. H., Dai, Y. F., Lu, X., … Xiao, Z. P. (2013). Childhood maltreatment profile in a clinical population in China: A further analysis with existing data of an epidemiologic survey. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54(7), 856864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.03.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the belief updating process. (a): Precision can refer to both the reliability of new information and the confidence afforded to priors. Their balance critically determines the extent to which a prior is updated given new information. Put simply, if the prior is afforded low precision (referred to as ‘weak priors’), new information has much influence on the formation of the posterior (b), while the opposite is true for ‘strong priors’ (c). In other words, if we are unsure about how much we can trust our beliefs, we prefer to rely on new information, provided that new information appears sufficiently valid. On the other hand, if priors are afforded overly much precision, they dominate perception such that information that is consistent with prior predictions is prioritized and discrepant information is largely neglected (Powers et al., 2017).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Portrayal of the basic assumptions of the predictive processing account of BPD.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Neural specification of the predictive processing account of BPD.

Figure 3

Table 1. Testable hypotheses for future research

Supplementary material: File

Herzog et al. supplementary material

Herzog et al. supplementary material

Download Herzog et al. supplementary material(File)
File 118.5 KB