In the last few decades, the fields of experimental psychology and neuroscience have gradually moved away from oversimplification of multisensory processing (Ghazanfar & Schroeder Reference Ghazanfar and Schroeder2006; Stein Reference Stein2012). In particular, we have witnessed the slow demise of the concept that external inputs are processed by distinct modules and only later associated (Fodor Reference Fodor1985; Kanwisher et al. Reference Kanwisher, McDermott and Chun1997; Luria Reference Luria2012), and the affirmation of the concept that external inputs are processed by partially overlapping networks (Felleman & Van Essen Reference Felleman and Van Essen1991; Lloyd Reference Lloyd2000; Macaluso & Driver Reference Macaluso and Driver2005; Pasqualotto Reference Pasqualotto2016; Pasqualotto et al. Reference Pasqualotto, Dumitru and Myachykov2016). Initially, brain functions were investigated using one sensory modality isolated from the others, which only later admitted more than one sensory input. The latter approach better suits what happens in the real brain, where sensory inputs conveyed by different sensory modalities are processed in parallel and influence one another (Pasqualotto & Proulx Reference Pasqualotto and Proulx2015; Pasqualotto et al. Reference Pasqualotto, Finucane and Newell2013; Stein Reference Stein2012; Wan et al. Reference Wan, Zhou, Woods and Spence2015). Moreover, different brain processes start to influence one another during the early phases of processing (Convento et al. Reference Convento, Vallar, Galantini and Bolognini2013; De Meo et al. Reference De Meo, Murray, Clarke and Matusz2015; Foxe & Schroeder Reference Foxe and Schroeder2005). For example, touch affects vision during the early phase of visual processing (Convento et al. Reference Convento, Vallar, Galantini and Bolognini2013). Progressively, research has showed that the clusters of brain areas (or networks) that were thought to be unisensory are actually multisensory (Kauffman et al. Reference Kauffman, Hamilton, Keenan, Warde and Pascual-Leone2000; Murray et al. Reference Murray, Molholm, Michel, Heslenfeld, Ritter, Javitt, Schroeder and Foxe2005; Zangaladze et al. Reference Zangaladze, Epstein, Grafton and Sathian1999). For example, parts of the visual network are active during tactile tasks (Zangaladze et al. Reference Zangaladze, Epstein, Grafton and Sathian1999). These findings have triggered theories such as “neural reuse” (Anderson Reference Anderson2010) and “metamodal brain” (Pascual-Leone & Hamilton Reference Pascual-Leone and Hamilton2001).

Together with advances in empirical research, improved technology has provided better understanding of partially overlapping brain networks. For example, improvements in fiber-tracking tools have shown the physical interconnections of different brain networks (Beer et al. Reference Beer, Plank and Greenlee2011; Le Bihan Reference Le Bihan2003; Uesaki et al. Reference Uesaki, Takemura and Ashida2018). Likewise, the development of multi-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA) has allowed us to understand the time course of their interactions (Furlan et al. Reference Furlan, Wann and Smith2013; Norman et al. Reference Norman, Polyn, Detre and Haxby2006; Woolgar et al. Reference Woolgar, Jackson and Duncan2016).

Borsboom et al. present convincing evidence that this novel paradigm is infiltrating clinical psychology too. Just as oversimplified models in experimental psychology and neuroscience were not able to convincingly depict sensory processing, it seems that similar mistakes in clinical psychology did not allow the adequate depiction and treatment of the pathological brain (Fornito et al. Reference Fornito, Zalesky and Breakspear2015). Brain complexity itself, and not network analysis or reductionism, has made earlier approaches not able to study and/or treat the pathological brain – a complexity that was first revealed between experimental psychology and neuroscience. The initial approach could be likened to looking at a grand panorama through a narrow tube; it would be very difficult to understand and appreciate what we are looking at (the cost of reducing the field of view was actually investigated by Loomis et al. Reference Loomis, Klatzky and Lederman1991).

Although the growing suspicion of reductionism in psychopathology may seem a recent phenomenon, the systemic approach is an early example of non-reductionist psychotherapies (Johnstone & Dallos Reference Johnstone and Dallos2013; Loriedo Reference Loriedo2005; Tomm Reference Tomm1984). This is not limited to the patient affected by a psychopathology, but involves his or her family (or relevant persons) as well. Instead of exclusively focusing on the patient (reductionist approach), the systemic approach has the advantage of involving the closest people to the patient; thus, it attempts to treat the patient and to correct the environment where he or she lives. A more recent example of a non-reductionist approach to psychopathology is provided by the use of acting to counter the symptoms of dyslexia (Whitfield Reference Whitfield2009; Reference Whitfield2016; Reference Whitfield2017). In particular, this approach is aimed to bypass the reading impairment using (non-verbal) visual imagery and action (acting) to remember a difficult-to-access text.

A recent development within the field of neuroscience may further speed the appreciation of brain complexity. In fact, apart from the gradual acceptance that the brain functions as a network or networks (Anderson Reference Anderson2010; Bressler & Menon Reference Bressler and Menon2010; Fair et al. Reference Fair, Cohen, Power, Dosenbach, Church, Miezin, Schlaggar and Petersen2009), neuroscience has recently started to consider the role of social interactions on brain functioning – social neuroscience (Gallese Reference Gallese2008; Immordino-Yang & Damasio Reference Immordino-Yang and Damasio2007; Steinberg Reference Steinberg2008). That is, starting from considering the brain as a set of individual modules, we moved to a model of the brain with partially overlapping networks and now consider the interaction among the brain and other individuals’ brains. Social neuroscience has been developing along two main research lines: one investigating the effect of social emotions on brain functioning (Kawamichi et al. Reference Kawamichi, Kitada, Yoshihara, Takahashi and Sadato2015; Kitada et al. Reference Kitada, Johnsrude, Kochiyama and Lederman2010; Lederman et al. Reference Lederman, Klatzky, Abramowicz, Salsman, Kitada and Hamilton2007), and one investigating the effect of cultural norms and attributes on brain functioning (Chiao Reference Chiao2009; Han et al. Reference Han, Northoff, Vogeley, Wexler, Kitayama and Varnum2013; Kitayama & Park Reference Kitayama and Park2010). To close the circle, this development within neuroscience substantiates the use of socio-cultural aspects in psychopathology (Hacking Reference Hacking1999; Murphy Reference Murphy2005).