Top-Down Regulation in Placebo Effects and Psychosomatics

Introduction: The Power of the Mind over the Body

The question of how mental processes can influence bodily processes has occupied science and medicine for centuries. Placebo effects, psychosomatic phenomena and even observations on the influence of psychological factors on cancer point to powerful top-down regulatory mechanisms that act on physiological processes from higher cognitive levels.

The information field model with its top-down influencing mechanisms provides a conceptual framework (Stegemann 2025) to systematically analyze and understand these phenomena. In the following, the five central top-down mechanisms — informational framing, field modulation, constraint propagation, metastability management and information channelling — are applied to these medical phenomena.

1. The placebo effect in the light of the information field

The placebo effect — the measurable, observable or perceived improvement in health that is not due to the therapeutic effect of medical treatment — is one of the most fascinating examples of top-down regulation in the human organism (Finniss et al., 2010).

1.1 Informational framing in placebo effects

The patient’s expectations and beliefs (higher level) define the range of possibilities of physiological reactions (lower level). This informational framing takes place through several channels:

Clinical context: The entire clinical environment — white coats, medical equipment, hospital atmosphere — provides a framework that makes certain physiological responses more likely.

Example: A study showed that the same analgesic substance has different effects depending on whether it is administered by a doctor in a white coat or by a caregiver in everyday clothes. The white coat as part of the informational framing reinforces expectations and thus the actual reduction in pain (Czerniak et al., 2016).

Verbal suggestion: The way a treatment is described has a significant influence on its effect.

Example: If doctor A says: “This drug can relieve your pain” and doctor B says: “This drug will definitely relieve your pain”, patient B shows a significantly greater reduction in pain — even if both receive identical placebos. Verbal suggestion has framed the informational space of possibility for the bodily reaction differently (Vase et al., 2002).

1.2 Field modulation in placebo effects

Expectations and beliefs directly modulate the “attractors” in the physiological information field:

Pain modulation: Expectations can directly modulate pain perception by altering activity in pain-processing brain regions.

Example: Functional MRI studies show that placebo analgesia correlates with reduced activity in pain-processing brain regions such as the anterior cingulate cortex and insula. The higher cognitive level directly modulated the attractors in the pain network (Wager et al., 2004).

Immunomodulation: Expectations can influence immunological parameters.

Example: Conditioning studies have shown that the repeated coupling of a neutral stimulus with an immunosuppressant can lead to the stimulus alone causing immunosuppressive effects later on. Here, the conditioned expectation directly modulates the attractors in the immunological network (Goebel et al., 2002).

1.3 Constraint Propagation in Placebo Effects

Expectations and therapeutic rituals set boundary conditions that cascade through various physiological systems:

Neuroendocrine cascades: Expectations set higher-level constraints that propagate through neuroendocrine cascades.

Example: The expectation of pain relief activates the endogenous opioid system in the brain, which sets a cascade of constraints on different levels: from the release of endogenous opioids to the activation of opioid receptors to the inhibition of pain fibers in the spinal cord. Each level propagates constraints to the next (Eippert et al., 2009).

1.4 Metastability management in placebo effects

Therapeutic contexts can modulate the stability of pathological versus healthy conditions:

Switching between pain attractors: Placebos can alter the stability of pain perception states.

Example: In chronic pain patients, the “pain state” has often established itself as a deep attractor. Placebo interventions can flatten this attractor while enhancing alternative “painless” attractors, facilitating the transition between these states. This is an essential mechanism of placebo analgesia in chronic pain (Hashmi et al., 2012).

1.5 Information channeling in placebo effects

The therapeutic context can specifically redirect or filter the flow of information between different physiological systems:

Directing attention: Therapeutic rituals selectively direct attention to certain parts of the body or sensations.

Example: In acupuncture placebo studies, it is observed that the targeted placement of the needles alone (even at “wrong” points) increases the sensory flow of information from this region of the body to the brain and at the same time reduces the flow of information from pain regions (Geuter et al., 2017).

2. Psychosomatic phenomena in the light of the information field

Psychosomatic phenomena — bodily states that are influenced by psychological factors — can also be analyzed by the top-down mechanisms of the information field.

2.1 Informational framing in psychosomatic phenomena

Beliefs, narratives and cultural models frame the space of possibility of bodily reactions:

Disease narratives: The way we conceptualize illness frames physiological processes.

Example: A person who conceptualizes back pain as “worn discs” develops different physiological patterns (e.g., relieving posture, muscle tension) than someone who frames it as a “stress response.” The narrative defines the space of possibility for bodily manifestations (Moseley & Butler, 2015).

Cultural syndromes: Culture-specific disease concepts frame the expression of symptoms.

Example: The phenomenon of “Hwa-Byung” (fire sickness), which is widespread in Asian cultures and characterized by the sensation of heat, palpitations and stomach problems in response to suppressed anger, exists primarily within the Korean cultural framework. Culture defines the space of possibility for the somatic expression of emotional states (Park et al., 2002).

2.2 Field modulation in psychosomatic phenomena

Emotional states directly modulate the attractors in physiological systems:

Emotional stress modulation: Emotional states modulate inflammatory parameters and autonomic functions.

Example: The activation of anxiety in patients with irritable bowel syndrome leads to measurable changes in intestinal motility and mucosal immune function. The emotional-cognitive level directly modulates the attractors in the enteric nervous system and gut microbiome (Mayer et al., 2001).

2.3 Constraint Propagation in Psychosomatic Phenomena

Chronic mental states set constraints that are propagated by various physiological systems:

Stress cascades: Chronic stress sets constraints on different levels.

Example: Prolonged psychosocial stress activates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis, which sets constraints for the immune system, which in turn sets constraints for inflammatory processes. These propagate to various organ systems and manifest as psychosomatic symptoms ranging from skin rashes to gastrointestinal complaints (McEwen, 1998).

2.4 Metastability management in psychosomatic phenomena

Mental states affect the stability of healthy versus pathological physiological patterns:

Chronic pain and neuronal plasticity: Psychological factors influence the stability of pain processing networks.

Example: In chronic pain patients, catastrophizing thoughts (“The pain will never go away”) lead to a strengthening and stabilization of maladaptive neural networks that process pain. Positive psychological interventions can destabilize these overstable states and promote adaptive networks (Tracey & Bushnell, 2009).

2.5 Information channeling in psychosomatic phenomena

Psychological factors channel the flow of information between different physiological systems:

Selective interoception: Psychological states selectively filter and amplify physical signals.

Example: In hypochondriacal states, the flow of information from normal, harmless body sensations to consciousness is amplified, while calming signals are filtered. This selective channeling increases symptom perception and fear of illness (Barsky & Wyshak, 1990).

3. Cancer and psychoneuroimmunological influences in the light of the information field

The possible role of psychological factors in cancer is a controversial topic. The information field model allows a differentiated consideration of possible top-down mechanisms without falling into simplistic causal models.

3.1 Informational framing in cancer

Beliefs and disease models frame the biological response to cancer:

Attribution of meaning and biological response: The meaning attributed to the disease frames immunological and neuroendocrine reactions.

Example: Studies show different immunological parameters in cancer patients who conceptualize their disease as a “struggle” versus a “journey” or “transformation”. Fight-oriented framing appears to be associated with increased stress hormone levels and potentially less favorable immune parameters (Lutgendorf & Sood, 2011).

3.2 Field modulation in cancer

Psychological conditions can directly modulate immunological and neuroendocrine attractors:

Stress modulation of the tumor microenvironment: Chronic stress modulates the tumor microenvironment.

Example: Animal studies show that chronic stress changes the composition of the tumor microenvironment — with increased levels of stress hormones, pro-inflammatory cytokines and angiogenesis factors that can promote tumor growth. The psychological level directly modulates the attractors in the complex ecosystem of the tumor (Antoni et al., 2006).

3.3 Constraint Propagation in Cancer

Psychological conditions can set constraints that propagate through neuroendocrine and immunological cascades:

Stress-HPA-immune cascade: Psychosocial stress propagates constraints through several biological systems.

Example: Chronic psychosocial stress activates the HPA axis, which causes increased cortisol levels. These set constraints for the immune system, especially for cellular immunity and immune surveillance. These immunological constraints continue to propagate and can interfere with the recognition and elimination of individual neoplastic cells (Sephton et al., 2000).

3.4 Metastability management in cancer

Psychological factors can influence the stability of health versus disease states:

Immunological vigilance: Psychological states influence the stability of immunological surveillance systems.

Example: Positive psychological interventions such as mindfulness meditation have been shown to increase the activity and stability of NK cells and T cells — they strengthen the attractors for active immune surveillance and weaken the attractors for immunosuppression (Carlson et al., 2007).

3.5 Information channelling in cancer

Psychological processes can modulate the flow of information between different biological systems:

Neuro-immune communication: Psychological states influence the communication between the nervous system and the immune system.

Example: Chronic stress has been shown to increase sympathetic input to lymphoid organs and tumors themselves, which alters communication between immune cells and modulates the flow of information between different immune components (Cole et al., 2015).

4. Clinical implications and applications

The analysis of placebo effects, psychosomatic phenomena and psychoneuroimmunological influences in cancer by the top-down mechanisms of the information field has significant clinical implications:

4.1 Integration of top-down elements into medical treatment

Communication strategies: The conscious design of the informational framing through communication.

Application: Doctors can communicate treatments in a way that maximizes positive expectations without giving misleading information. The targeted emphasis on positive aspects (“This treatment has helped many people with similar symptoms”) enhances the placebo effect, while the pure information about possible side effects without supportive framing is closer to the nocebo effect (Kelley et al., 2014).

4.2 Psychological interventions as top-down modulators

Stress reduction methods: Methods to reduce chronic stress reactions.

Application: Structured programs such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) have been shown to modulate neuroendocrine, immunological and autonomic parameters through top-down processes. In cancer patients, such programs show effects on cortisol profiles, inflammatory markers and NK cell activity (Davidson et al., 2003).

4.3 Behavioral Medicine Approaches to Indirect Influence

Behavioral activation: Structured change of activity patterns.

Application: Behavioral activation in depressed cancer patients not only improves mood, but also influences neuroimmunological parameters such as inflammatory markers and cortisol profiles via indirect constraint propagation (Hopko et al., 2011).

4.4 Informational interventions for self-regulation

Biofeedback: Feedback of physiological parameters for improved self-regulation.

Application: Top-down processes can be enhanced by visualizing physiological processes such as heart rate variability, skin conductance or muscle tension. The person gains access to otherwise unconscious physiological processes and can modulate them through attention control and mental strategies (Lehrer et al., 2003).

5. Limits and ethical considerations

5.1 Scientific limits

The application of the information field model to top-down processes in medicine must take into account the following limitations:

Limits of causality: While top-down influences on disease processes are detectable, they typically remain modulating factors, not primary causes.

Example: While psychosocial stress can influence the risk of cancer, it would be scientifically and ethically problematic to regard cancer primarily as a “psychosomatic” disease. Top-down processes are part of a complex multifactorial process, not sole determinants (Coyne et al., 2007).

5.2 Ethical considerations

Attribution of responsibility: The emphasis on psychological influences carries the risk of unjustified attribution of responsibility.

Consideration: Understanding top-down processes must not lead to blaming patients (“You don’t think positively enough about your disease”). Rather, it should lead to an expanded understanding of treatment that takes into account both bottom-up and top-down processes (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2000).

6. Conclusion: An integrative model for top-down regulation

The analysis of placebo effects, psychosomatic phenomena and potential psychoneuroimmunological influences in cancer through the top-down mechanisms of the information field offers a differentiated, scientifically based model for understanding the “power of the mind over the body”. This model:

• Avoids both reductionist and dualistic explanatory approaches
• Integrates findings from neuroscience, psychoneuroimmunology and clinical medicine
• Provides conceptual tools to develop targeted interventions
• Respects the complexity of biological systems and the multifactorial causes of disease

The information field model with its five top-down mechanisms — informational framing, field modulation, constraint propagation, metastability management and information channelling — enables a deeper understanding of how higher cognitive and emotional processes can affect physiological systems without falling into simplistic “mind-over-matter” narratives.

This perspective has the potential to place integrative medicine on a solid theoretical foundation and to build a bridge between conventional biomedical approaches and psychological interventions. It recognises the legitimacy of both perspectives and integrates them into a coherent model of disease development and management.

For clinical practice, this means recognizing that any medical intervention includes both bottom-up components (e.g., pharmacological effects) and top-down components (e.g., expectation effects, therapeutic relationship). Optimal medicine uses both dimensions and understands their complex interactions in the multidimensional information field of the human organism.

Bibliography

Antoni, M. H., Lütgendorf, S. K., Cole, S. W., Dhabhar, F. S., Sephton, S. E., McDonald, P. G., … & Sood, A. K. (2006). The influence of bio-behavioural factors on tumour biology: pathways and mechanisms. Nature Reviews Cancer, 6(3), 240–248.

Barsky, A. J., & Wyshak, G. (1990). Hypochondriasis and somatosensory amplification. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 157(3), 404–409.

Carlson, L.E., Speca, M., Faris, P., & Patel, K.D. (2007). One year pre–post intervention follow-up of psychological, immune, endocrine and blood pressure outcomes of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in breast and prostate cancer outpatients. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 21(8), 1038–1049.

Cole, S. W., Nagaraja, A. S., Lütgendorf, S. K., Green, P. A., & Sood, A. K. (2015). Sympathetic nervous system regulation of the tumour microenvironment. Nature Reviews Cancer, 15(9), 563–572.

Coyne, J. C., Stefanek, M., & Palmer, S. C. (2007). Psychotherapy and survival in cancer: The conflict between hope and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 367–394.

Czerniak, E., Biegon, A., Ziv, A., Karnieli-Miller, O., Weiser, M., Alon, U., & Citron, A. (2016). Manipulating the placebo response in experimental pain by altering doctor’s performance style. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 874.

Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Müller, D., Santorelli, S. F., … & Sheridan, J. F. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(4), 564–570.

Eippert, F., Bingel, U., Schoell, E. D., Yacubian, J., Klinger, R., Lorenz, J., & Büchel, C. (2009). Activation of the opioidergic descending pain control system underlies placebo analgesia. Neuron, 63(4), 533–543.

Finniss, D. G., Kaptchuk, T. J., Miller, F., & Benedetti, F. (2010). Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects. The Lancet, 375(9715), 686–695.

Geuter, S., Koban, L., & Wager, T. D. (2017). The cognitive neuroscience of placebo effects: concepts, predictions, and physiology. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 167–188.

Goebel, M. U., Trebst, A. E., Steiner, J., Xie, Y. F., Exton, M. S., Frede, S., … & Schedlowski, M. (2002). Behavioral conditioning of immunosuppression is possible in humans. The FASEB Journal, 16(14), 1869–1873.

Hashmi, J.A., Baria, A.T., Baliki, M.N., Huang, L., Schnitzer, T.J., & Apkarian, A.V. (2012). Brain networks predicting placebo analgesia in a clinical trial for chronic back pain. Pain, 153(12), 2393–2402.

Hopko, D. R., Armento, M. E., Robertson, S. M., Ryba, M. M., Carvalho, J. P., Colman, L. K., … & Lejuez, C. W. (2011). Brief behavioral activation and problem-solving therapy for depressed breast cancer patients: randomized trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(6), 834–849.

Kelley, J. M., Kraft-Todd, G., Schapira, L., Kossowsky, J., & Riess, H. (2014). The influence of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PloS One, 9(4), e94207.

Lehrer, P. M., Vaschillo, E., Vaschillo, B., Lu, S. E., Eckberg, D. L., Edelberg, R., … & Hamer, R. M. (2003). Heart rate variability biofeedback increases baroreflex gain and peak expiratory flow. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(5), 796–805.

Lütgendorf, S. K., & Sood, A. K. (2011). Biobehavioral factors and cancer progression: physiological pathways and mechanisms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 73(9), 724–730.

Mayer, E. A., Naliboff, B. D., Chang, L., & Coutinho, S. V. (2001). V. Stress and irritable bowel syndrome. American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, 280(4), G519-G524.

McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840(1), 33–44.

Moseley, G. L., & Butler, D. S. (2015). Fifteen years of explaining pain: the past, present, and future. The Journal of Pain, 16(9), 807–813.

Park, Y. J., Kim, H. S., Schwartz-Barcott, D., & Kim, J. W. (2002). The conceptual structure of hwa-byung in middle-aged Korean women. Health Care for Women International, 23(4), 389–397.

Sephton, S. E., Sapolsky, R. M., Kraemer, H. C., & Spiegel, D. (2000). Diurnal cortisol rhythm as a predictor of breast cancer survival. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92(12), 994–1000.

Stegemann, W., (2025). Top-down influencing mechanisms in the information field, http://jeetwincasinos.com/@drwolfgangstegemann/top-down-influencing-mechanisms-in-the-information-field-aefa5a40849a

Tracey, I., & Bushnell, M.C. (2009). How neuroimaging studies have challenged us to rethink: is chronic pain a disease? The Journal of Pain, 10(11), 1113–1120.

Vase, L., Riley, J.L., & Price, D.D. (2002). A comparison of placebo effects in clinical analgesic trials versus studies of placebo analgesia. Pain, 99(3), 443–452.

Wager, T. D., Rilling, J. K., Smith, E. E., Sokolik, A., Casey, K. L., Davidson, R. J., … & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Placebo-induced changes in FMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1162–1167.

Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2000). Thinking differently about thinking positive: a discursive approach to cancer patients’ talk. Social Science & Medicine, 50(6), 797–811.