[Psychopathology and cognitive neurosciences: theoretical conflicts and experimental paradigms]

Clinical research may be seen in the context of the more general problem of an exchange of knowledge between psychopathology and neurosciences. While this interaction is not contested by the specialists in either field, we cannot, nonetheless, ignore the question of their various levels of congruence. More generally, we are increasingly aware of a need for enhanced formalization of the models derived from the two disciplines with a view to setting up transpositions or even cross fertilizations. The two communities, that of psychiatrists and that of neurobiologists, while they fascinate each other, have rarely been able to produce joint findings. The psychopathologist expects a positive validation of his clinical concepts from the neurobiologist, while the neurobiologist, who has frequently not resisted the etiological temptation, wants the clinician to give him pointers to enable him to refine his own experimental models. What is required, however, is that both the psychopathologist and the neurobiologist reduce their expectations and agree to move outside of their respective disciplinary autarkies. This would avoid two traps: that of the homological temptation which leads both to graft an experimental model onto clinical entities without checking the levels of congruence or non-congruence, making do with a simple behavioral similarity; the second error consists in using the complexity of the clinical picture as an unavoidable obstacle to any coming-together of the two disciplines. These two traps have not always been avoided, in particular in the context of the use of cognitive paradigms in nosographic clinical models.