Sensory deprivation: Difference between revisions

Short-term sessions of sensory deprivation are described as relaxing and conducive to [[meditation]]; however, extended or forced sensory deprivation can result in extreme [[anxiety]], [[hallucination]]s,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sireteanu |first1=R |last2=Oertel |first2=V |last3=Mohr |first3=H |last4=Linden |first4=D |last5=Singer |first5=W |year=2008 |title=Graphical illustration and functional neuroimaging of visual hallucinations during prolonged blindfolding: A comparison to visual imagery |journal=Perception |volume=37 |issue=12 |pages=1805–1821 |doi=10.1068/p6034 |pmid=19227374 |s2cid=12013790}}</ref> [[Delusion|bizarre thoughts]], and [[Depression (mood)|depression]].<ref>{{Bullet list|Harold I. Schwartz, [http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/2/153 Death Row Syndrome and Demoralization: Psychiatric Means to Social Policy Ends] [https://archive.phtoday/v9TJl20220329220706/http://jaapl.org/content/33/2/153.full Archive.] J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 33:2:153-155153–155 (2005)|Karen Franklin [http://www.karenfranklin.com/topix11-segregation.html Segregation Psychosis] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101005140616/http://www.karenfranklin.com/topix11-segregation.html |date=2010-10-05 }}|Haney [http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/49/1/124 Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and "Supermax" Confinement], [[Crime Delinquency]]. 2003; 49: 124-156|{{Cite journal |last=Matthews |first=Daryl |date=September 2009 |title=Physicians' Obligation to Speak Out for Prisoners' Health |url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12794.html |journal=Ethics Journal of the American Medical Association |volume=6 |pages=1 |via=[[American Medical Association|AMA]]}}|Stuart Grassian [http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement](PDF) This article is a redacted, non-institution- and non-inmate-specific version of a declaration submitted in September 1993 in Madrid v. Gomez, 889F.Supp.1146.|}}</ref>

Also, due to the inherent immobilization that is experienced in flotation REST (by not being able to roll over), which can become uncomfortable after several hours, the subject is unable to experience the session durations of chamber REST. This may not allow the subject to experience the changes in attitudes and thinking that are associated with chamber REST.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wallbaum |first1=Andrew |last2=Rzewnicki |first2=R |last3=Steele |first3=H |last4=Suedfeld |first4=P |year=1991 |title=Progressive muscle relaxation and Restricted Environmental Stimulation Therapy for chronic tension headache: A pilot study |journal=International Journal of Psychosomatics |volume=38 |issue=1–4 |pages=33–39 |pmid=1778683}}</ref> Additionally, the research questions asked between each technique are different. Chamber REST questions stemmed from research that began in the 1950s and explored a variety of questions about the need for stimulation, the nature of arousal and its relationship with external stimulation. Practitioners in this area have explored its utility in the treatment of major psychiatric dysfunctions such as substance abuse. In contrast, flotation REST was seen more as a recreational tool and was tested primarily for use with stress-related disorders, pain reduction, and insomnia.<ref name="suedREST" />

Numerous studies have debated which method is a more effective treatment process,; however, only one has explored this statistically. Nineteen subjects, all of whom used chamber or flotation REST to induce relaxation or treat [[smoking]], [[obesity]], [[alcohol (drug)|alcohol]] intake or chronic pain were analyzed. The statistic of interest, d, is a measure of the size of the treatment effect. For reference, d=0.5 is considered a moderate effect and d=0.8 a large effect. The 19 subjects who underwent chamber REST had d=0.53 and six flotation REST subjects showed d=0.33. Additionally, when examining subjects undergoing REST treatment and REST in conjunction with another treatment method, there was little difference.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Suedfeld |first1=Peter |last2=Coren |first2=Stanley |year=1989 |title=Perceptual isolation, sensory deprivation, and REST: Moving introductory psychology texts out of 1950s |journal=Canadian Psychology |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=17–29 |doi=10.1037/h0079795 |ref=SuedfeldREST1}}.</ref>

Sensory deprivation has been used to help support arguments by philosophers on how minds work. One example is the [[Floating man|floating man]] [[Philosophical argument|argument]] proposed by [[Avicenna|Ibn Sīnā]], whose primary objective is to affirm the existence of the human soul.

[[Avicenna|Ibn Sīnā]], one of the most important philosophers of the medieval period, investigated the existence of the self and explored the self's nature. Like many others, he proposed an argument to support his claim regarding the relationship between the mind and the body. He based his investigation on the Floating Man argument where, he proposes, a man floating in the air or a vacuum where he cannot perceive anything, not even the substance of air.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Alwishah |first=Ahmed |date=2013 |title=Ibn Sīnā on Floating Man Arguments |url=https://pzacad.pitzer.edu/aalwisha/pdfs/Ibn_Sina_on_Floating_Man_Arguments.pdf |journal=Journal of Islamic Philosophy |volume=9 |pages=49–71|doi=10.5840/islamicphil201395 }}</ref> This man is unable to see anything external; his arms and legs are separated from the rest of his body; they do not meet or touch.<ref name=":0" /> In other words, the man is experiencing extreme sensory deprivation in order to separate what physical body and any perception of stimuli that a person can experience from what consciousness might be in Ibn Sīnā's [[thought experiment]]. The man later reflects on his existence. He will not question that he exists, but he will not be able to affirm if his legs, arms, or internal organs exist. He guarantees that his essence exists, but he will not have awareness of the length or depth of himself. Therefore, in the thought experiment, what the man can affirm to exist is the man's self and what he cannot affirm does not make part of his essence, like an arm or a toe.<ref name=":0" /> The argument concludes then that since the man can affirm his existence while being subjected to extreme sensory deprivation, his soul is something different from his physical body.<ref name=":0" /> His soul is then said to be an immaterial substance separate from his body. This is considered a dualist argument in the philosophy of mind as it separates the mind from the body to affirm the existence of oneself.  

A simple way to explain this theory of mind is to focus on what “dualism” suggests: '''two''' fundamentally different substances. [[Mind–body dualism|Dualism]] presupposes that the world is made up of physical (perceived through the senses), and immaterial (not perceived through the senses) substances.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Kind |first=Amy |title=Philosophy of Mind: The Basics |publisher=Routledge |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-138-80782-2 |location=Abingdon Oxon; New York, NY |pages=22–47}}</ref>

[[René Descartes]] was the philosopher who proposed [[Mind–body dualism|Cartesian dualism]], also called substance dualism, since it claims the existence of two kinds of “substances”: mental states and material stuff that takes up space. For Descartes, the mind is an entity, different from a physical entity since the mind, in DescarteDescartes's point of view, can exist independently, that is, without a physical body. For this reason, he concluded that the mind is a substance.<ref name=":1" />

The Irish government on behalf of the men who had been subject to the five methods took a case to the [[European Commission of Human Rights]] (''Ireland v. United Kingdom'', 1976 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on Hum. Rts. 512, 748, 788-94788–94 (European Commission of Human Rights)). The Commission stated that it "considered the combined use of the five methods to amount to torture."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070629145037/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/prohibits_torture.htm Security Detainees/Enemy Combatants: U.S. Law Prohibits Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment] Footnote 16</ref><ref>[[David Weissbrodt]] ''[http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/intlhr/chapter19.doc materials on torture and other ill-treatment: 3. European Court of Human Rights]'' (doc) [[cache:u7wX9dL11d4J:www1.umn.edu/humanrts/intlhr/chapter19.doc&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2&lr=lang_en|html]]: Ireland v. United Kingdom, 1976 Y.B. European Convention on Human Rights. 512, 748, 788-94788–94 (European Commission of Human Rights)</ref> This consideration was overturned on appeal, when in 1978 the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECtHR) examined the [[United Nations]]' definition of torture. The court subsequently ruled that the five techniques "did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture," however they did amount "to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment," which is a breach of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]], [[Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 3]].<ref name="Ireland.v.UK_167">[http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57506 Ireland v. the United Kingdom (1978)], paragraph 167</ref>