Why we started measuring
Inspired by a physician Dwight Mckee at a PATH Method Esalen workshop was to measure efficacy of the PATH Method. With Dwight's support, in 2016, we convened at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Twenty integrative physicians each did a full PATH Method session measured with the HearthMath's emWave® Pro heart-rhythm monitoring. By the end of the individual sessions, each participant showed the coherent heart-rhythm pattern HeartMath associates with parasympathetic activation.
That was an observation, not a study. There was no control condition and no protocol. It led us to ask, not does something happen, but where in the session does it happen? PATH Method moves through named phases in a fixed order, which means that question can actually be asked. Very few therapeutic methods are structured in a way that allows it.
That is why we ran the 2020 study.
The 2020 study
Between July and October 2020, 51 people completed a full PATH Method session at Path to Health Center while heart activity and skin conductance were recorded continuously on a Biopac AcqKnowledge system at 2000 Hz. The clinician marked eight phases of the PATH Method in real time, allowing the physiological change to be located against the specific phase of the PATH Method. Salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase were collected before and after each session.
Not every recording was clean enough to analyze. Usable traces were available for 49 of the 51, and the two findings below draw on the 44 and 28 participants with complete data for the phases in question.
What we found
Heart-rate variability, a standard index of parasympathetic activity, increased at two points in the session.
The first was the healing wish: the moment a person articulated what they actually wanted. A mean increase of around 20 ms, roughly 11.6%.
The second, and larger, was the resource-remedy: the moment a person brought a resource to the part of themselves that needed it. A mean increase of around 33 ms, roughly 19.2%.
Where the data corrected us
We had expected the turning point to be the witness phase, that stepping back to observe oneself would be where the nervous system began to settle. It was not. Heart-rate variability dipped slightly there. The increase came afterwards, when participants moved from observing to actively resourcing themselves with their internally created resource.
This changed how we teach the PATH Method. Witnessing sets the stage; on this evidence it is not sufficient on its own. We report it because it is the finding that most altered our own understanding.
What this study cannot tell us
- This study was conducted independently of Dr. Goldberg’s doctoral research. The 51 participants were sampled from Dr Goldberg's PhD dissertation study research.
- The sample was self-selected from a population in Cape Town and predominantly female, and the two findings draw on subsets of the whole cohort. All participation was voluntary and participants completed an informed consent and received information about the study.Data for one phase, supportive partnership, was incomplete for almost all participants.
- A within-session physiological change does not establish clinical benefit, and we do not present it as one.
What we are doing next
A full analysis of the phase-by-phase data is in preparation for submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Beyond that, we intend to make three things happen, in order to validate the PATH Method: a replication with a control condition, follow-up to test whether within-session change persists, and a systematic comparative review of PATH Method against adjacent frameworks.
Researchers and clinicians interested in the data or in collaboration are encouraged to reach out for collaboration and learning.