Theoretical model
Vital Electron Theory
A theoretical model of psychophysical regulation built on explicit postulates, from which quantitative predictions are derived, each accompanied by the condition that would falsify it.
Status of the document
This is a theoretical model. It is not a report of results and is not presented as established.
There is a single construction criterion: every prediction must be able to turn out false, and must differ from what the standard model predicts — that relaxation reduces anxiety through a generic increase in parasympathetic tone. Predictions the two models share are not included, because they do not discriminate.
Postulates
| Postulate | Statement |
|---|---|
| P₁ — indicator | Bodily sensations are not terminal responses to stimuli but state signals of the physiological regulation system. Their informational content concerns the configuration of the organism before the object of the stimulus. |
| P₂ — multi-centre coherence | The relevant variable is not the activity level of a single regulatory centre but the degree of phase coupling between the three centres that generate their own autonomous rhythms: brain, heart, gastrointestinal tract. |
| P₃ — precedence | A change in the coherence configuration precedes a change in subjective experience in time, and does not follow it. |
| P₄ — sensory route | Direct intervention on the sensory channel changes the state of coherence without requiring the mediation of a cognitive reappraisal of the content. |
| P₅ — electronic substrate | The state of coherence is coupled to the electron flow of oxidative metabolism: the mitochondrial electron transport chain and the balance of reactive oxygen species constitute the material level on which regulation is realised. |
| P₆ — spin | A fraction of these processes passes through radical pairs, whose reaction outcomes depend on spin evolution and are therefore sensitive to weak magnetic fields. In the absence of this route, the spin level plays no part in the model. |
P₆ is the postulate that exposes the model to the greatest risk and also the one that makes it distinguishable from a purely physiological model. Its plausibility rests on the radical-pair mechanism, currently the dominant model for biological magnetoreception.
Boundary of the model
The model does not predict the transfer of state between organisms by quantum correlation. Correlation between quantum systems carries no information: a measurement on one system leaves the local statistics of the other unchanged.
Every interpersonal transmission the model predicts passes through ordinary physical channels: sensory, behavioural, and physiological synchronisation in co-presence.
The multi-centre coherence index
The coherence postulate requires a measurable quantity. The index is defined as the mean of three couplings, each standardised within sample and each corresponding to an instrumental measure already validated in the literature.
| Component | What it measures | Instrument |
|---|---|---|
| Cardio-respiratory coupling | Phase locking between the respiratory phase and the oscillation of inter-beat intervals in the 0.08–0.12 Hz band, over a five-minute window. This is the coupling that peaks at the individual baroreflex resonance frequency. | Electrocardiogram and respiratory belt |
| Brain–heart coupling | Amplitude of the heartbeat-evoked potential, 200 to 400 ms after the R peak, at fronto-central derivations. Spontaneous fluctuations of this response predict conscious visual detection. | Electroencephalogram |
| Brain–gut coupling | Phase locking between the normogastric rhythm, about three cycles per minute, and the amplitude envelope of alpha activity. A brain network synchronised to the gastric rhythm is documented by simultaneous recording. | Surface electrogastrography and electroencephalogram |
The index is where the model stands or falls: if it adds nothing, the model adds nothing.
Predictions and conditions of failure
| Prediction | Content | Holds if | Fails if | Phase |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 — physiological precedence | The change in the coherence index precedes the change in reported anxiety. | Median lag ≥ 60 seconds, with direction physiological → subjective in at least 70% of participants | Lag ≤ 0, or prevailing reverse direction, or no peak distinguishable from noise | Pilot |
| P2 — beyond vagal amplitude | The coherence index explains additional variance in anxiety reduction, beyond that explained by the vagal tone index alone. | Incremental variance ≥ 0.05 with a confidence interval excluding zero | Incremental variance of zero: multi-centre coherence is redundant and postulate P₂ falls | Pilot |
| P3 — non-cognitive sensory route | In the sensory arm, anxiety reduction is not mediated by cognitive measures; in the cognitive arm it is. | Mediated share below 30% in the sensory arm and above 50% in the cognitive arm | Substantial cognitive mediation in the sensory arm too | Confirmatory |
| P4 — resonance specificity | The increase in coherence is greatest at the individual resonance frequency, compared within subject against two neighbouring frequencies. | Within-subject effect size ≥ 0.4 in favour of resonance | No difference between the three conditions: the effect is attributable to context, attention or expectancy | Pilot |
| P5 — oxidative coupling | A marker of oxidative balance changes and its variation correlates with that of the index. | Correlation with absolute value ≥ 0.30 | No change and no correlation: the metabolic substrate is not the level at which the intervention acts detectably | Exploratory |
| P6 — magnetosensitivity | Running the protocol in an environment shielded from the geomagnetic field produces a different response, blind to the participant. | A reliable and replicated difference, in either direction | No difference: postulate P₆ falls and the spin level leaves the model, which stands on the first five | Later phase |
In the pilot study the thresholds are not decision criteria: the pilot estimates the parameters and their precision. The thresholds apply to the confirmatory study and are declared in advance in order to constrain it.
Overall condition of failure
The model is to be abandoned as a mechanistic explanation, and kept at most as a teaching frame, if physiological precedence, the additional variance of coherence beyond vagal amplitude, and resonance specificity all fail together.
In that case the distinctive content is empty and what remains is an effective relaxation intervention described in a vocabulary of its own. Declaring this condition in advance is part of the model.
References
- Hore, P. J., & Mouritsen, H. (2016). The radical-pair mechanism of magnetoreception. Annual Review of Biophysics, 45, 299–344.
- Zadeh-Haghighi, H., & Simon, C. (2022). Magnetic field effects in biology from the perspective of the radical pair mechanism. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 19(193), 20220325.
- Lehrer, P. M., & Gevirtz, R. (2014). Heart rate variability biofeedback: how and why does it work? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 756.
- Park, H.-D., Correia, S., Ducorps, A., & Tallon-Baudry, C. (2014). Spontaneous fluctuations in neural responses to heartbeats predict visual detection. Nature Neuroscience, 17(4), 612–618.
- Rebollo, I., Devauchelle, A.-D., Béranger, B., & Tallon-Baudry, C. (2018). Stomach-brain synchrony reveals a novel, delayed-connectivity resting-state network in humans. eLife, 7, e33321.