An early theory limited in scope

• Orienting Reflex inhibiting fight or flight? by Leonard Holmes, 10/3/97
  
  

I am happy you are finding EMDR helpful in your client practice. As I've said in numerous forums, I don't care which theory one uses, as long as the results achieved are equivalent or superior to those derived from the information processing model I've offered. The theories as to why it works are many, and sometimes conflicting (see Shapiro, 1995).

The orienting response theory is covered in my 1995 textbook. I suggested back in 1991 that the client's response to accessing the traumatic memory involves automatic physiological states (fused in state-specific configuration). The addition of the eye movements may cause another configuration of physiological states and responses to intrude on the earlier associations. This may in turn cause a disruption of the complex of habitual physiological responses elicited by the traumatic memory. The disruption engendered by the simultaneous dual configurations may allow further processing to occur. In addition to the paper you cited, Lipke (1992), and Armstrong & Vaughan (1994/1996) and MacCulloch & Feldman (1996) have mentioned the possible elicitation of an orienting response. The inhibition of a fight or flight mechanism is intriguing. However, as I stipulated in the text, hypotheses regarding potential effects of the eye movements alone are insufficient to account for the wide range of treatment effects. For that one has to look at an interaction of the all the various procedural elements.

There are a number of problems with the Denny paper you reference. However, for now I'll mention two:

1) The equation of orientation and distraction: Distraction has been clearly shown to be antithetical to treatment effects (Grayson, Foa, & Steketee, 1982, 1986; Satory, Rachman & Grey, 1982). The conjectures of other researchers investigating the orienting response in EMDR is that the orientation response is specifically elicited by the eye movements. Denny mistakenly equates the eye movements with distraction activities which severely compromises his speculations.

2) The equation of therapeutic effects: As previously noted by me on this website, techniques that elicit short bursts of attention such as systematic desensitization, fractionated hypnosis, TFT, or thought stopping do not show the rapid or comprehensive level of cognitive changes, memory associations, and generalized effects observed in EMDR. Other theories are needed to explain the differences in the complex therapeutic effects and client experiences. For readers not familiar with EMDR effects, the specific types of rapid cognitions I am referring to can be seen in the transcripts of sessions (Shapiro & Forrest, 1997).

In sum, while the orienting hypothesis is interesting it is insufficient to fully explain effects and is not adequately addressed in the Denny article. However, for further investigation I've listed pertinent references below.

Armstrong, N. & Vaughan, K. (1994/1996) An orienting response model of eye movement desensitization Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 27, 21-32.

MacCulloch, M.J., & Feldman, M.P. (1996) Eye movement desensitization treatment utilizes the positive visceral elements of the investigatory reflex to inhibit the memories of Post traumatic stress disorder: A theoretical analyasis, British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 571-579

Lipke, H. (1992) Manual for the teaching of Shapiro's EMDR in the treatment of combat-related PTSD. Pacific Grove, CA: EMDR Institute.

Shapiro, F. (1991) Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing procedure: From EMD to EMDR: A new treatment model for anxiety and related traumata. Behavior Therapist, 14, 188.

Shapiro, F. (1995) Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures. New York: Guilford Press (chapter 12)

Shapiro, F. & Forrest, M.S. (1997) EMDR New York: BasicBooks

No Replies