Bernabé Mallo
Doctor en Filosofía por la Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)
Investigador
en neurofilosofía, evolución humana y origen del arte. / PhD in
Philosophy – University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)
Researcher in neurophilosophy, human evolution, and the origins of art.
A review of Christianne E. Strang's article (2024): Art therapy and neuroscience: evidence, limits, and myths
Introduction: more than drawing, an act of brain reconfiguration
Artistic creation has accompanied our species for millennia. But what happens in the brain when we paint, model, or sculpt? Is art therapy a practice with a neuroscientific foundation or a set of clinical intuitions dressed in a white coat?
Christianne E. Strang, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, published in 2024 in Frontiers in Psychology an article that dissects with precision the current state of the question (Strang, 2024). Her goal is twofold: on the one hand, to offer a rigorous overview of the neurobiological concepts applied to art therapy —neuroplasticity, mirror neuron systems, interoception—; on the other, to warn about the myths and simplifications that circulate in clinical practice.
Strang's thesis is clear: art therapy has a promising neuroscientific foundation, but we still know little about the precise mechanisms that explain its efficacy. Enthusiasm for linking creativity with brain biology should not lead us to confuse correlations with causations, nor to use neuroscientific explanations as an attractive but empty wrapper.
From the perspective of our research on the S/Y/C model and Surgical Philosophy, Strang's article offers an opportunity to contrast clinical and experimental approaches with our understanding of art as a biological and symbolic phenomenon (Mallo, 2023, 2025, 2026a, 2026b). The result, as we shall see, is an invitation to epistemic humility and conceptual precision.
The three neurobiological pillars of art therapy
Strang organises her analysis around three neurobiological concepts often invoked to explain the therapeutic effects of artistic creation: neuroplasticity, mirror neuron systems, and interoception (Strang, 2024). Let us examine each one.
Neuroplasticity: the brain that rewrites itself
Neuroplasticity is the brain's capacity to adapt and change in response to experience, through changes in the size and number of synaptic contacts (Strang, 2024). Strang notes that this capacity is altered in mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder, where reduced dendritic and synaptic density is observed in the cortex.
The link with art therapy is tempting: creativity is associated with changes in functional connectivity and in the expression of genes linked to synaptic plasticity (Strang, 2024). Artistic training appears to induce neuroplastic changes in frontal, emotional, and sensory circuits (Strang, 2024). If depression is characterised by dysfunctional plasticity, then interventions that foster creativity could be effective in alleviating symptoms.
However, Strang warns: the evidence is correlational, not causal. That creativity and plasticity are associated does not prove that art therapy produces specific neuroplastic changes. To establish this, studies are needed that measure those changes and correlate them with symptom reduction, controlling for other variables (Strang, 2024). As the author rightly notes, "the challenge will be to test whether art therapy produces neuroplastic changes that correlate with reduction of depression symptoms and whether those effects are specific to the intervention" (Strang, 2024).
Mirror neuron systems: neural empathy or projection?
Since their discovery in the 1990s in the frontal cortex of macaque monkeys, mirror neuron systems have been the object of fascination and also of exaggeration (Strang, 2024). It has been suggested that these systems underlie the ability to infer the intentions and emotions of others from our own internal experiences, and that their activation is related to empathy and social learning (Strang, 2024).
Strang introduces a note of caution. Mirror neurons also respond to non-natural movements of inanimate objects (Strang, 2024), and direct evidence that these systems are involved in high-level cognitive or empathic processes is limited (Strang, 2024). The author warns that, in the context of art therapy, it is tempting to speculate that activation of mirror systems in the therapist when observing the client might relate to psychodynamic concepts such as countertransference. But this speculation, however attractive, is not supported by solid data.
Moreover, any inference we make about the client's behaviour, cognition, and emotions, even if framed in terms of mirror neuron systems, still arises from our own internal visceromotor representations, based on our own learning and experiences (Strang, 2024). The warning is clear: we should not use a neuroscientific term as if it were an explanation when, in reality, it is not.
Interoception: the sense of the internal body
Interoception —the perception of internal bodily sensations, such as heartbeat, breathing, or viscera— is the third pillar Strang examines (Strang, 2024). Although her article does not dwell extensively on this concept, she mentions it as an emerging area of research with relevance to art therapy.
Artistic creation involves sensory and motor engagement that can modulate interoceptive awareness. Painting, modelling clay, or sculpting requires attention to bodily sensations, to hand pressure, to the texture of the material. This attention to the body could facilitate emotional regulation and the integration of traumatic experiences.
Myths and warnings: what neuroscience cannot (yet) explain
One of the most valuable contributions of Strang's article is her warning about the myths and simplifications that circulate in clinical practice (Strang, 2024). The author notes that people tend to prefer explanations of psychological phenomena that include a neuroscientific component, even when the information is irrelevant (Strang, 2024). This cognitive bias —the "seductive allure of neuroscience" — can lead therapists and clients to accept attractive but unfounded explanations.
Strang identifies several dangers. The first is the attribution of causality to correlational data. That two phenomena are associated does not mean that one causes the other. The second is excessive simplification, which reduces complex processes to a single brain region or a single neurotransmitter. The third is lack of updating, when obsolete scientific concepts continue to be used because they are familiar or attractive.
The author does not propose abandoning the neuroscientific approach in art therapy, but adopting it with critical rigour. This implies: (1) clearly understanding the terminology; (2) thinking critically about the data in context; (3) updating knowledge as new data become available (Strang, 2024). The choice to share neuroscientific information with clients should be made in the context of the individual treatment plan, and the information should be accurate.
Active creation versus passive observation
Although Strang's article focuses on art therapy —which involves active creation— it is relevant to highlight a distinction that runs through the neuroscientific literature: the difference between creating and contemplating. Passive observation of an artwork activates certain brain regions, but the active process of creation involves a much broader network: visual and tactile perception, emotion, memory, cognition, and voluntary and involuntary motor outputs (Strang, 2024).
This difference is crucial for research on the origin of art. Human art was not born as contemplation, but as action: hands that model, pigments that spread, tools that are wielded. Art therapy, by recovering this active dimension, connects us with a profound biological function that transcends mere aesthetic appreciation.
Connection with research on the origin of art (S/Y/C)
Strang's analysis resonates deeply with the research we have been developing on the S/Y/C model of neuronal functioning and the Law of Biological Coherence (Mallo, 2023, 2025, 2026a, 2026b). Her three neurobiological pillars —neuroplasticity, mirror neuron systems, and interoception— can be reinterpreted in light of our three dimensions.
The S (Survival) dimension is expressed in the connection between creativity and neuroplasticity. Plasticity is the brain's capacity to adapt and survive in a changing environment. Art therapy, by stimulating plasticity, would be acting on the biological substrate of adaptation. Art, in its origin, was a homeostatic tool that allowed humans to process stress, regulate emotions, and maintain internal balance.
The Y (Symbolon) dimension is central to understanding interoception and mirror neuron systems in the therapeutic context. Interoception connects us with our body, with our internal sensations. But art does not stop at sensation: it symbolises it. By painting or sculpting, we transform a bodily experience into a symbolic object that can be shared and recognised by others. Mirror neuron systems, for their part, allow us to resonate with the states of others, but art goes further: it allows us to share symbols, to create a bridge between the internal and external worlds.
The C (Wholeness) dimension manifests in the search for coherence that underlies both artistic creation and healing. The act of creating a work involves integrating fragments into a coherent totality. Art therapy, by facilitating this process, offers the patient an experience of wholeness that can be deeply reparative. Art, in its origin, was a technology of integration: it allowed our ancestors to connect dispersed experiences into a shared narrative.
Surgical Philosophy invites us to make a precise analytical cut in Strang's article. It is not about rejecting neuroscientific explanations nor accepting them uncritically. It is about distinguishing levels: the level of empirical evidence, the level of clinical interpretation, and the level of philosophical theory. Strang offers a valuable reminder: neuroscience provides correlates, not ultimate explanations. Neuroscience tells us what happens in the brain when we create art, but not why that process is meaningful for a human being seeking to survive, symbolise, and achieve wholeness.
Implications for future research
Strang's article opens several promising lines of work. The first is the need for hypothesis-driven research, not merely observational or correlational (Strang, 2024). To test whether art therapy produces specific neuroplastic changes, randomised controlled trials are needed that compare the intervention with active control conditions.
The second line is the updating of obsolete concepts. Strang mentions, for example, that hemispheric asymmetry theory —the idea that the right hemisphere is "creative" and the left "logical"— continues to be used in clinical practice even though current science has disproved it (Strang, 2024). It is necessary to review these beliefs and align practice with updated knowledge.
The third line is the exploration of interoception as a therapeutic mechanism. How does attention to the body during artistic creation influence emotional regulation? Can art therapy interventions improve interoceptive awareness and, with it, the ability to process traumatic experiences?
From our perspective, this research should also incorporate a symbolic dimension. Neuroscience can measure brain activation, but the meaning the patient attributes to their creation —the symbolon that emerges from the process— is equally relevant. Art therapy is not merely a neurobiological exercise; it is an act of meaning-making.
Final considerations: art as encounter, not as formula
Christianne Strang's article reminds us that the link between art and neuroscience is promising but still incipient. We have clues, correlates, fascinating hypotheses. But we do not have a unified theory that explains how and why artistic creation heals.
This absence is not a weakness, but an opportunity. It invites us to maintain epistemic humility, not to confuse promise with evidence, not to use neuroscientific language as a wrapper for unvalidated clinical intuitions. Art therapy has a solid empirical foundation that continues to grow; but its mechanism of action remains, to a large extent, a mystery.
Perhaps that mystery points us to something deeper than neuroplasticity or mirror neurons. Art heals because it connects us with what we are: beings that need to survive (S), to symbolise (Y), and to achieve wholeness (C). Artistic creation is not a technique we apply to the brain from the outside; it is an expression of the single function of the nervous system. And as long as we remember that, art therapy will continue to be something more than a clinical intervention: it will be a testimony of our capacity to find meaning, and perhaps healing, in the act of creating.
References
Mallo, B. (2023). La construcción neuro-simbólica. Una aproximación al funcionamiento del cerebro desde una perspectiva multidisciplinar [Doctoral thesis, University of the Basque Country - Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea]. ADDI Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/10810/62701
Mallo, B. (2025). Arte y biología: Una aproximación neurofilosófica al origen de la experiencia estética. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y5WZMK
Mallo, B. (2025). Art and biology: A neurophilosophical approach to the origin of aesthetic experience. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y6C2XN
Mallo, B. (2026a). De la filosofía quirúrgica a la ley de coherencia biológica S/Y/C: Hacia una investigación sobre el origen del arte en la especie Homo. https://isbn.bibna.gub.uy/catalogo.php?mode=detalle&nt=57196
Mallo, B. (2026a). De la filosofía quirúrgica a la ley de coherencia biológica S/Y/C: Hacia una investigación sobre el origen del arte en la especie Homo [Kindle edition]. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GYGTJD5C
Mallo, B. (2026b). From surgical philosophy to the law of biological coherence S/Y/C: Toward a study of the origin of art in the Homo lineage. https://isbn.bibna.gub.uy/catalogo.php?mode=detalle&nt=57197
Strang, C. E. (2024). Art therapy and neuroscience: Evidence, limits, and myths. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1484481. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1484481
Autor / Author
Bernabé Mallo
Doctor en Filosofía – Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Investigador independiente en neurofilosofía, evolución humana y origen del arte.
Bernabé Mallo
PhD in Philosophy – University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Independent researcher in neurophilosophy, human evolution, and the origin of art.
Enlaces / Links
Página de autor Amazon / Amazon Author Page: https://www.amazon.com/author/bernabemallo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9002-9728
Plataforma EHUenRed / Link EHUenRed: https://www.ehu.eus/es/web/masterrak-eta-graduondokoak/red-latinoamericana-de-posgrados
Canal YouTube / Channel YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@neuroideas815
Canal YouTube / Channel YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBsf6OZ482NjST6QA-hvYtQ
Publicaciones y proyectos en desarrollo / Publications and projects:
https://www.amazon.com/author/bernabemallo
https://ehuenred.theglocal.network/ideas/el-origen-del-arte-en-el-cerebro-de-makapansgat-al-moma-del-primate-al-sapiens
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario