{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02054794520547945, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.24793388429752, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
PSYCHOTHERAPY RESEARCH AND NEUROBIOLOGY: CHALLENGE, CHANCE, OR ENRICHMENT?

An increasing number of findings have plausible relevance for psychotherapy, but is the belief justified that approaching "hardware" makes methods and findings more reliable and valid? What can psychotherapy research contribute to neurobiology? What is the relative effectiveness of psychologically versus biologically based treatments? What is the value of neurobiological informedness for psychotherapists? Are there models with a potential of reducing the mind-body gap? What are the ethical implications? Tentative answers and illustrations are given, and a neural network concept for mental disorders is introduced, as is a simulation model for the functioning of patients that includes psychological as well as biological parameters. Unrealistic expectations toward neurobiology are questioned.