https://doi.org/ Clinical EEG and Neuroscience 1–7 © EEG and Clinical Neuroscience Society (ECNS) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1550059420916636 journals.sagepub.com/home/eeg Special Issue: Update on QEEG and NeuroBiofeedback Introduction The practice of mental health can benefit from brain-based models of emotional responses in a format that exposes an understanding of decision-making pathways. 1,2 There is a need for models that can be used by counselors and other mental health professionals with or without the use of extra physiologi- cal monitoring or biofeedback equipment. The creation of such a model must make use of scientific methods and processes that reveal brain activity related to thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, in a global context. From a neurological perspective, the brain is a pattern-rec- ognition and decision-making machine that is tailored to oper- ate in the body of a human. Even though it is a part of the human body, it has its own goals and its own means of seeking those goals. Whereas an individual may have goals that include safety, nourishment, comfort, social interactions, and other high-level goals, the brain itself has a much simpler scope. The brain’s goals are better understood in terms of the mechanics of recognizing patterns, detecting danger, considering options, determining the safety of various options, and, finally, control- ling the motor functions that allow the organism to operate in its environment. Neuroscience provides a unique perspective on human behavior and mental health. By understanding the underpin- nings of the brain’s roles and priorities, we can better under- stand why an individual would think, feel, and act in a certain way. The individual may believe that he or she is in control of their life, making their own decisions and setting their own pri- orities. But the fact that everyone is dependent on a properly functioning brain for this to happen means that what we think is going on may be far from the facts. We approached this problem from a conceptually high level. Given that we have tools that rely on self-report, which we have extensively analyzed using traditional statistical proto- cols, how can we produce corroborating measures that do not rely on the subject’s own perception and ultimate reporting? We are concerned with the fundamental problem of the reli- ability and veracity of self-report, given the myriad of compli- cating factors and hidden agendas that mediate internal awareness as well as the willingness or ability to disclose. Establishing the Ground Work for the Role of Emotions in Decisions In his book, Descartes’ Error; Emotions, Reasons, and the Human Brain, Antonio Damasio 2,3 describes his study of people with brain damage to parts of the brain where emotions are 1 Target Training International, Scottsdale, AZ, USA 2 Brain Enrichment Center, Bedford, OH, USA Corresponding Author: Ronald J. Bonnstetter, Target Training International, 17785 North Pacesetter Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85255, USA. Email: ron@ttisi.com Brain Activation Imaging in Emotional Decision Making and Mental Health: A Review—Part 1 Ronald J. Bonnstetter 1 and Thomas F. Collura 2 Abstract In part 1 of this article, we describe an approach and methodology that bridges 2 worlds: the internal, subjective experience of emotions and thoughts, and the external world of brain electrical activity. Using a novel event-related brain activation imaging method, we demonstrate that within single trials, short-term mental processes, on the order of 100 ms, can be clearly related to observed brain activation in controlled experiments. We use an ipsative assessment validation process that combines self- report with real-time EEG recordings to provide a combined picture of both the mental and the brain activity, during short-term reactions, emotions, and decisions regarding controlled information. Part 2 provides a detailed description of the emerging emotional decision-making model. Keywords EEG electroencephalograph, electromagnetic tomographic analysis, gamma asymmetry, response process validity, sLORETA, approach-avoidance, decision making, mental health, human performance Received May 29, 2019; revised February 28, 2020; accepted March 6, 2020.