EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
Re: differential mechanism/ SUDS/ eye movements
Louise Maxfield · 11/10/01 at 6:21 PM ET
I am very much enjoying this interesting dialogue. Thanks to all participants. With regard to the decrease in SUD ratings found by Rogers et al. (1999) the ability of EMDR to reduce SUDS appears to be a robust finding. In many dismantling studies, although there was very little effect in main outcome measures, there was often a difference in SUD ratings. While the relevance of this is unclear, it does suggest a differential mechanism of action. This may be related to a phenomenon reported in four separate studies: Eye movements appear to decrease affect related to, and vividness of, autobiographical memories (Andrade et al., 1997, Kavanaugh et al., 2001; Sharpley et al., 1996; van den Hout et al., 2001). These studies did not use the EMDR clinical protocol, and participants were normal adults. The studies examined eye movements (EMs) in isolation, comparing brief trials of imaging the memory during EMs or controls such as exposure, imagery, relaxation, and tapping. While imagery/exposure showed a tendency to increase vividness and affect, and simple tapping had no effect, the EMs decreased vividness, and positive and negative affect. As noted above, SUD ratings also appear to consistently decrease with EMs in clinical studies. It appears possible that this effect may be an intrinsic human response. Andrade et al. (1997) and Kavanaugh et al. (2001) explain their results in terms of their theory of working memory; they hypothesize that EMs disrupt visual working memory, thereby decreasing image vividness, and that this results in decreased affect. Van den Hout et al. (2001) suggest an alternate explanation using the concept of “emotional reasoning.” They hypothesize that EMs decrease affect, and that this results in decreased vividness. They reason that some support for the latter theory is found because the effect of EMs persists after completion of the dual task (and supposed interference with working memory). These findings suggest that there may be a role for EMs in clinical practice. It could be that EMs make horrific memories more tolerable, and easier to access; if so, this benefit may be of value to a subgroup of clients. It is also possible that the reduction of distress and vividness may reduce the salience of the imaged memory, allowing activation of, and integration with, other memory networks.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
