Search

We have been conducting research on the client–therapist relationship, which is considered an important healing factor in sandplay therapy, by examining brain activity interactions between the client（a healthy student）and the therapist in simulated sandplay sessions. NIRS has some advantages to MRI and EEG but also some disadvantages, including susceptibility, although small, to body movements and inability to completely remove the artifacts even with various methods. In previous NIRS studies, various measures to prevent body motion and to remove physical effects from post-measurement data have been attempted. Still, it seems difficult to completely remove the physical effects from the data after the measurement. In sandplay therapy, it is essential that both the brain and the body are involved, and we therefore cannot ignore the body. Thus, restricting bodily movements goes against the very nature of sandplay therapy, where“free and protected space”is essential. Furthermore, there is a view that body movements arising unconsciously are most important and that by excluding data parts where body movements have occurred, we may end up losing most of the meaningful material. The authors have been trying to find a compromise to this dilemma, searching for solutions in previous research on brain activity in psychotherapy. In the first place, however, unlike in verbal psychotherapy, the movements between the client and therapist in sandplay therapy are different, depending on their respective roles. This may lead to giving up measuring brain activity and only looking at peripheral physiological responses, but since the client is moving their hands, their heart rate and respiration will also be affected. At this point, it seems therefore difficult to make a strict distinction between brain activity and bodily factors, but it may be possible to carefully examine the data in conjunction with qualitative data, rather than excluding data from the areas where the body has reacted. In addition, paying attention to unconscious bodily reactions may be a possibility in the future. For example, the client and therapist both look at the miniatures or the sandbox. The gaze does not necessarily move in a conscious way. It has been known that joint attention is at the basis of mother-infant relationship. In the future, studying the gaze may add to our knowledge of unconscious interactions between the client and the therapist.

教育によって脳はどのような機序で生命科学的に変化するのだろうか。個体差を超えて生じる生体反応を理解することは教育実践や教育政策の立案においても必要であると考えられる。本総説においては，①幅広い分野の教育系研究者に有用であると考えられ②神経科学の基礎により多くの接点を持つエビデンスであることを基準として話題を選別し，脳が環境を知るメカニズム，大人と子どもの脳の違い，主体的な学びの重要性の根拠，現代の新しい技術によって脳が変化する可能性，などについて概説する。神経科学においては，「学習」は「環境からの外部刺激によって神経回路が構築される過程」，「教育」は「外部刺激を制御・補完する過程」として捉えられる。このことは，どのような脳を創出したいかを考えながら教育の起点である環境を構築していく必要があることを示している。