3.1. Therapeutic intervention and symptom change during proposed program
To analyze the effectiveness of the therapeutic intervention on the symptoms of the subject in every session, observation notes (dramatic changes in positive and negative emotions of the subject, self-reporting of his traumatic events, treatment with stabilization techniques) and the transcripts were qualitatively analyzed. The qualitative analysis was compared with the calculated HRV in each session. Its comparison is outlined below.
3.1.1. Session one: Exploring traumatic event and CPTSD symptoms, creating safety zone and training stabilization
In the first session, traumatic events and CPTSD symptoms were first explored. After that, the stabilization treatment to establish a safety zone for relieving and self-managing of the subject’s symptoms was performed.
Figure 1 shows 5-min RMSSD and SDNN in the first session. At 15 min from the start of the first session, the subject self-reported his core traumatic event (The “T” remark). The abrupt negative emotional change (The “N” remark) and abrupt drop in the RMSSD near the 15-min point appears related to this self-reporting. However, the SDNN near the 15-min point is increased in contrast to the RMSSD.
In the first session, the subject self-narrated his traumatic events at approximately minute 14 and minute 51 from the session start: “Hits for no reason...all my friends know.” “I’m still scared when I run into kids who look like mutts on the way. When I think of their faces, I get angry...scared.” The subject expressed negative emotions, such as shame and neglect, while recalling the above key traumatic events. The subject self-reported symptoms of CPTSD caused by these events, such as re-experience, avoidance, negative self-concept, and interpersonal difficulties. To address the core symptoms, a total of four safety-zone-making and stabilization techniques were performed from minute 35 to minute 52. When the subject recalled the traumatic event, he self-reported discomfort as “8” on the scale before the stabilization technique was implemented. After the stabilization technique was performed, he self-reported “4” for his discomfort level.
3.1.2. Session two: Cognitive reconstruction
In The second session was the stage of restructuring the subject’s distorted cognition by finding the core beliefs that have a significant impact on his core being. He identified his traumatic events with his other experiences. He self-narrated his traumatic events: “Sometimes I thought I might be mentally sick. When I see someone whom I don’t like, I just want to kill them...so I thought I had a mental disease.” “I’m just walking around...a random assault could happen to me.” [What is the random assault?] “It’s when suddenly, for no reason, someone just beats, assaults, and robs me.” [Is that the same as your experience when a friend slapped the back of your head on the bus in high school?] “Isn’t it the same thing?” [Can you tell me what you read in the newspaper about the random assault?] “It was an assault and threats with a knife.”
This is a typical symptom of CPTSD victims: a negative self-concept and cognitive distortion that cause the emotional changes. After the initial stabilization technique was implemented at the start of the session (approximately 5 min from the beginning), the subject self-reported his interpersonal experience until the middle of the second session. During this self-reporting period, the subject exhibited depression and an abrupt decrease of the SDNN (
Figure 2).
Immediately after the subject’s self-narration of traumatic events at approximately 4 min, both the SDNN and RMSSD increase in
Figure 3, which suggests that the self-narration induces the subject’s psychological change. At approximately 74 min, the preferred sense of the subject among the five senses was explored. Based on the explored preferred sense, the second stabilization technique was performed. Psychological stability was self-reported as “2” in terms of the discomfort level, and an increase in the SDNN and RMSSD is observed in
Figure 2.
The stabilization technique, a bottom-up process, produced an immediate response to HRV changes compared to the top-down process, such as the cognitive intervention method. Since the cognitive changes of those who experience CPTSD are chronic symptoms, the process of changing distorted cognition and thinking is likely a more difficult process. Therefore, during the top-down process, a dramatic change in HRV was not observed, unlike in the bottom-up intervention.
3.1.3. Session three: Sensory reconstruction and identifying resources
In the third session, the subject clearly revealed his negative self-concept, which was not integrated within himself. At the start of this session, a rapid decline in both the SDNN and RMSSD is observed in
Figure 3. At this point, the subject self-reported his unacceptable experience. In the transcript, this was described as follows: “Embarrassment is seven points. … Injustice is ten points. It’s really terrifying. It’s unfair I had to go through this experience.” “Just think about it for a moment...I wouldn’t have gone this far...I’m so sorry for him....It’s confusing. I’m sorry and I’m annoyed.... However, it was not that I was 100% kind, and he did that kind of thing afterward [after recalling the traumatic event].” “The maximum points, ten points (of discomfort)....Does this make sense? [a sigh and a deep breath...hesitating to talk].”
Since he had self-reported his negative self-experience at the beginning of the session, he self-narrated his traumatic symptoms up to the middle of the session. He scored his traumatic events as ten points, the maximum points. Although he reported negative events, as in Session 2, the previous session, he deconstructed and reconstructed his traumatic events in talking with the psychotherapist, which resulted in a symptom change. This process is a typical top-down one. In the process of discussing the traumatic events, the story is reassembled, which helps the CPTSD victim to have a new point of view toward the traumatic events. Here, it is suggested that the increasing trend of both the SDNN and RMSSD from approximately minute 18 to minute 50 in
Figure 3 is related to these verbal reports.
In this session, the stabilization technique, which involved exploring resources, was performed. First, the subject was to hug himself, identify an external resource (someone beside himself), and then experience the acceptance by the external resource. Next, the stabilization technique based on the subject’s preferred sense was performed similar to the second session. The subject rated his experience, ranging from ten points to six points after the second stabilization and to three points after the third stabilization.
3.1.4. Session four: Confirming one’s own change, exploring self-management plan, and projecting one’s one future (going into the world)
In the last session, the subject confirmed his own changes and explored self-management methods. These results appear related to the abrupt positive emotion changes at approximately minute 5 and minute 42 in
Figure 4. The HRV at both moments exhibits increasing tendencies, except the SDNN at 5 min. The subject described his positive emotion accordingly: [What kind of person do you think you are?] “I think I am growing a bit....I could say it is unnecessary to be upset. Let’s talk just about this situation.”
The stabilization technique in the last session utilized a timeline based on the subject’s preferred sense. As the intervention program progressed, the subject integrated his separate sense of self. He practiced maintaining these changes in the future. He talked about a problem centered on himself as the victim at approximately minute 45 (
Figure 4). This re-experience is a phenomenon that can happen to those who have experienced CPTSD. Therefore, through a future projection technique, the subject’s coping methods were checked in a future situation. After the projection process, breathing training and imagery training work were conducted. During these sessions, the subject experienced positive sensations of the five senses through Light Stream Mediation. Through a body scanning technique, he verbally reported a “warm and cozy sensation.” The HRV in
Figure 4 increased as well.
During the future projection process, the subject assessed himself accordingly: “Compared to five years ago, I am doing better....First of all, I’m getting older and getting to know the world more. I grew up.” [Are you punishing yourself like you did before?] “I don’t think so.” [What do you want to say to yourself in five years?] “Something cool. My future is wonderful. I would like to inherit something valuable.”
3.2. Statistical analysis of relation between the interventional event and the HRV change ratio
During all four sessions, the subject self-reported his traumatic event five times. Among the five trauma tellings, abrupt negative emotion changes within five minutes of the trauma tellings were observed four times. In the case of the only trauma telling not related to abrupt negative emotion change, the psychotherapist performed the stabilizing technique right after the trauma telling. Among the ten stabilizing techniques used in all four sessions, abrupt positive emotion change within five minutes was observed once. The trauma telling appears to alter the subject's psychological status.
To statistically evaluate the relations between the interventional events (the trauma telling, stabilization technique, positive emotion change, and negative emotion change) and the subject's psychological and physical status, change ratios of the calculated HRV factors (RMSSD, SDNN, VLF, LF, HF, and Ratio) were analyzed. The change ratios of the HRV factors were used for the statistical analysis instead of their absolute values because their change trends are more meaningful than their absolute values. The HRV factors in this investigation were calculated using the measured heart beat intervals for the latest five minutes. The RMSSD at minute 18 was calculated using the recorded heart beat intervals from minute 13 to minute 18. If the subject started to self-report his traumatic event at minute 14, it could affect the HRV factors at minute 18 or minute 23. To calculate the change ratio of the HRV factors, the difference from the former five-minute HRV factors to the present five-minute HRV factors was divided by the present five-minute HRV factors. To check the effect of the trauma telling at minute 14, the change ratio from the HRV factors at minute 13 to the HRV factors at minute 18 was calculated and noted as "Time 0". To track the slow effect of the trauma telling at minute 14, the change ratio from the HRV factors at minute 18 to the HRV factors at minute 23 was computed and remarked as "5 Min. later".
In summary, the "Time 0" change ratio was calculated as follows:
, and the “5 Min. later” was computed as follows:
where HRV
-5 is the HRV factors calculated with the heart beat intervals from minute -10 to minute -5, HRV
0 is from -5 to 0, and HRV
5 is from 0 to 5.
First of all, with respect to the cases marked as no interventional event, change ratios of the HRV factors were calculated. In all four sessions, the time-zero HRV change ratios of the non-noteworthy events were counted as 39. The five-min-later HRV change ratios were 23. The standard deviations of the RMSSD and SDNN were under 0.327, which were much smaller than the others'. The standard deviation range of the other HRV factors ranged from 0.489 to 1.803, and their average was 0.934. The average change ratio of the RMSSD and SDNN were -0.3% and -10.2% at time 0 and 1.1% and -11.9% five minutes later, respectively. The RMSSD showed almost no change during the ordinary status, but the SDNN showed a gradual decrease of around 10%.
Figure 5 exhibits the change ratio of the HRV factors when the subject told his traumatic event at time 0. In all four sessions, the trauma telling happened five times. The RMSSD and SDNN only showed reliable standard deviations. The SDNN increased by 10% at time 0 of the trauma telling and then decreased by 10% five minutes later. In relation to the average SDNN change ratio of the ordinary status (around -10%), it appears that parasympathetic change occurred due to the trauma telling and then returned to the ordinary status. Considering the above-mentioned relation between the trauma telling and the abrupt negative emotional change, the SDNN change ratio according to the trauma telling is explainable. Even though the standard deviation of the RMSSD is the least among all the HRV factors, its change ratio (under 10%) is negligible comparing with its change ratio at the ordinary status (around 0%).
The change ratio of the HRV factors when the psychotherapist performed the stabilizing technique at time 0 was as shown in
Figure 6. In all four sessions, the stabilizing technique was performed ten times. The RMSSD and SDNN only showed reliable standard deviations. The SDNN increased by about 23% at time 0 and then exhibited almost no change five minutes later. It is supposed that the stabilizing technique facilitated autonomic flexibility. Even though the standard deviation of the RMSSD is the least among all the HRV factors, its change ratio (under 10%) is negligible comparing with its change ratio at the ordinary status (around 0%).
Figure 7 showed the change ratio of the HRV factors when the subject's abrupt positive emotion change was observed at time 0. In all four sessions, the positive emotion change was observed four times. The RMSSD and SDNN only showed reliable standard deviations. The RMSSD at time 0 only increased by about 25%. The SDNN at time 0 decreased about 4.4%. Only at the positive emotional change in all the sessions, the RMSSD changed by over 10%. Considering these things, the 25% RMSSD increase at time 0 looked no consistency to represent subject's status at that time.
The change ratio of the HRV factors when the subject's abrupt negative emotion change was observed at time 0 was as shown in
Figure 8. In all four sessions, the negative emotion change was observed eight times. The RMSSD and SDNN only showed reliable standard deviations. The SDNN increased by about 4.5% at time 0 and then decreased by about 17% five minutes later since the negative emotion change. Considering the average SDNN change ratio of the ordinary status (around -10%), the 4.5% increase was a significant change, and the 17% SDNN decrease looked closer to the ordinary status. It is supposed that the abrupt negative emotion change affected the SDNN to increase at time 0. Even though the standard deviation of the RMSSD is the least among all the HRV factors, its change ratio (under 10%) is negligible comparing with its change ratio at the ordinary status (around 0%).
The results revealed that trauma telling had a significant impact on the subject's psychological status, as evidenced by the observed abrupt negative emotion changes within five minutes of the trauma tellings and 10% SDNN increasement at the time of the trauma tellings. This suggests that reliving the traumatic event through self-reporting can flex subject’s ANS as well as induce subject’s emotional distress. The abrupt negative emotion changes followed by the trauma-tellings increased the SDNN about 10.5%, which is about two times than the average SDNN increasement (4.5%) at the observed time of all the abrupt emotion change. The abrupt emotion change followed by the trauma telling looked to regulate subject’s ANS more.
The occurrence of abrupt negative emotion changes had a notable impact on the SDNN, which increased by approximately 4.5% on the average at the time of the negative emotion change. However, this increase was followed by a decrease of approximately 17% five minutes later, indicating a return to the subject's ordinary state. Furthermore, the stabilizing technique performed by the psychotherapist showed promising results in promoting autonomic flexibility. The change ratios of the HRV factors demonstrated an increase in SDNN by approximately 23% at the time of intervention, indicating a positive effect on the subject's physiological response. This suggests that the stabilizing technique may help the subject regulate their autonomic nervous system and achieve a more balanced state.
Additionally, the occurrence of abrupt positive emotion changes was observed to have confused influence on the HRV factors. While the RMSSD showed a considerable increase of around 25% at the time of positive emotion change, the other HRV factors exhibited decreases of under 10%. This indicates that the HRV factors may not be highly sensitive to transient positive emotional fluctuations. Therefore, relying solely on the RMSSD as a real-time indicator during psychological counseling may not be reliable.
Overall, the findings highlight the importance of considering different interventional events and their corresponding effects on subject's psychological and physiological status. While trauma telling and stabilizing techniques showed significant associations with emotional and autonomic responses, the impact of positive emotion changes was less pronounced, and the use of RMSSD as a real-time indicator may be limited. These findings contribute to our understanding of the complex dynamics between interventional events and the subject's well-being, emphasizing the need for comprehensive assessments in psychological counseling settings.