Search

Background and Objectives: A plethora of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) analogue studies has shown that, in the short term, making eye movements (EM) during brief imaginal exposure ("recall + EM") blurs memories more than just imaginal exposure ("recall only"). Yet, results of the few studies that included a follow-up test are inconsistent. We improved this paradigm's ecological validity by including an extended intervention phase and multiple assessments per phase. We hypothesized that recall + EM results in larger immediate and 24 h reductions in memory vividness, negative valence, and distress than recall alone. We explored the persistence of the effects, as well as the predictive value of memory characteristics and individual differences., Methods: Students (N = 100) selected a negative autobiographical memory and were randomized to recall + EM or recall alone; both interventions lasted 32 intervals of 24s. During the interventions they rated the memory after every four intervals., Results: After 4 × 24s intervention, recall + EM resulted in memory deflation, while recall only caused memory inflation. After the full intervention (i.e., 32 × 24s), both conditions resulted in immediate and 24 h reductions on all outcome measures. Crucially, memory effects in the recall + EM condition partially relapsed 24 h later, while the effects in the recall only condition persisted. Change patterns were hardly explained by predictive variables., Limitations: We used a non-clinical sample; replication in clinical samples is warranted., Conclusion: Making EM during imaginal exposure leads to short-lived effects compared to imaginal exposure alone. However, EM may offer a response aid for those who avoid imaginal exposure., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: A recent, large randomized controlled trial employing different forms of eye (non-)movements in eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) showed that fixating the eyes either on a therapist's moving or non-moving hand led to equal reductions in symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, numerous EMDR lab analogue studies found that eye movements produce larger memory effects than eyes stationary. These beneficial effects are typically explained by differences in working memory (WM) taxation. We tested the degree of WM taxation of several eye (non-)movement conditions used in the clinical trial., Methods: All participants (N = 40) performed: (1) eyes moving by following the experimenter's moving finger, (2) eyes fixed on the experimenter's stationary finger, (3) eyes closed, or (4) looking unfocused into the room. Simultaneously they performed a simple reaction time task. Reaction times are an objective index of the extent to which different dual attention tasks tax WM., Results: Eyes moving is more taxing than eyes fixed, while eyes fixed did not differ from eyes unfocused. All conditions were more taxing than eyes closed., Limitations: We studied WM taxation in a laboratory setting; no clinical interventions were applied., Conclusions: In line with previous lab studies, making eye movements was more taxing than eyes fixed. We discuss why this effect was not observed for reductions in PTSD symptoms in the clinical trial (e.g., differences in dependent variables, sample population, and intervention duration). For more comprehensive future insights, we recommend integration of mechanistically focused lab analogue studies and patient-oriented clinical studies., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Simultaneously making eye movements and recalling a memory leads to competition in working memory (WM), which reduces memory vividness and emotionality. The dose-response relationship between WM taxation and aversive memory degradation is predicted to be either linear (i.e., more cognitively demanding tasks exhibit stronger effects) or follow an inverted U-curve (i.e., there should not be too little, but also not too much taxation)., Methods: Participants (N = 44) recalled four aversive autobiographical memories under four conditions that differed in WM taxation: complex, intermediate, simple, or no counting. Before and after each intervention, and at 24 h follow-up, participants recalled the aversive memory and rated it on vividness and unpleasantness. Using a Bayesian approach the linear and inverted U-shape relationships were directly compared., Results: Pretest to posttest drops in vividness and unpleasantness became larger with increased WM taxation of the counting conditions. There was no support for either hypotheses from pretest to follow-up for memory unpleasantness, whereas for memory vividness anecdotal evidence was found for a linear relationship., Limitations: A reaction time (RT) task was used to select counting tasks of varying difficulties. However, the validity of this task appears to be compromised under very strenuous conditions. Higher levels of WM taxation might have been possible with more difficult counting tasks., Conclusions: There is strong evidence for a linear dose-response relationship between WM taxation and memory degradation immediately after the intervention, and some unconvincing evidence for this pattern one day later. There was no evidence for an inverted U-curve., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Patients with post-traumatic stress disorder frequently and involuntarily experience intrusions, which are strongly linked to the trauma hotspot. Voluntary memory characteristics (i.e., vividness and unpleasantness) of this hotspot can be reduced by performing a dual-task, such as making horizontal eye movements, which is frequently used in Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing. We tested whether such dual-task interventions would also reduce involuntary memory (i.e., intrusions). Moreover, we examined if changes in hotspot vividness and unpleasantness predicted intrusion frequency. Additionally, we examined whether the effects were dependent on dual-task modality. We tested this in three experiments. Participants watched a trauma film and performed one of the interventions 10-min post-film (1) Recall + Eye movements, (2) Recall + Counting, or (3) No-Task Control. Before and after the intervention, participants rated the hotspot vividness and unpleasantness. They recorded intrusive memories about the film in a diary for a week. Unexpectedly, we found that hotspot vividness and unpleasantness ratings were not affected by the intervention. However, the prolonged (experiment 2), but not standard (experiment 1), dual-task interventions resulted in a lower number of intrusions, regardless of modality. However, this effect was not replicated in experiment 3. We discuss potential explanations and present suggestions for future research., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), patients make eye movements (EM) while recalling traumatic memories. Making EM taxes working memory (WM), which leaves less resources available for imagery of the memory. This reduces memory vividness and emotionality during future recalls. WM theory predicts that individuals with small working memory capacities (WMCs) benefit more from low levels of taxing (i.e., slow EM) whereas individuals with large WMC benefit more from high levels of taxing (i.e., fast EM). Objective: We experimentally examined and tested four prespecified hypotheses regarding the role of WMC and EM speed in reducing emotionality and vividness ratings: 1) EM--regardless of WMC and EM speed--are more effective compared to no dual task, 2) increasing EM speed only affects the decrease in memory ratings irrespective of WMC, 3) low-WMC individuals--compared to high-WMC individuals--benefit more from making either type of EM, 4) the EM intervention is most effective when--as predicted by WM theory--EM are adjusted to WMC. Method: Undergraduates with low (n=31) or high (n=35) WMC recalled three emotional memories and rated vividness and emotionality before and after each condition (recall only, recall + slow EM, and recall + fast EM). Results: Contrary to the theory, the data do not support the hypothesis that EM speed should be adjusted to WMC (hypothesis 4). However, the data show that a dual task in general is more effective in reducing memory ratings than no dual task (hypothesis 1), and that a more cognitively demanding dual task increases the intervention's effectiveness (hypothesis 2). Conclusions: Although adjusting EM speed to an individual's WMC seems a straightforward clinical implication, the data do not show any indication that such a titration is helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Earlier studies have shown that when individuals recall an emotional memory while simultaneously doing a demanding dual-task [e.g., playingTetris, mental arithmetic, making eye movements (EM)], this reduces self-reported vividness and emotionality of the memory. These effects have been found up to 1week later, but have largely been confined to selfreport ratings.This study examined whether this dual-tasking intervention reduces memory performance (i.e., accessibility of emotional memories). Undergraduates (N D60) studied word-image pairs and rated the retrieved image on vividness and emotionality when cued with the word.Then they viewed the cues and recalled the images with or without making EM. Finally, they re-rated the images on vividness and emotionality. Additionally, fragments from images from all conditionswere presented and participants identified which fragment was paired earlier with which cue. Findings showed no effect of the dual-task manipulation on self-reported ratings and latency responses. Several possible explanations for the lack of effects are discussed, but the cued recall procedure in our experiment seems to explain the absence of effects best. The study demonstrates boundaries to the effects of the "dual-tasking" procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Several treatments are effective in reducing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. We tested the effectiveness of an experimental intervention that consists of elements from two of these: virtual reality (VR) exposure therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. The latter is characterized by a dual-task approach: the patient holds a traumatic memory in mind while simultaneously making voluntary eye movements, resulting in reduced vividness and emotionality of the traumatic memory. If the experimental intervention is effective, it could provide a useful approach for highly avoidant individuals.Methods: Participants recalled negative memories induced by a VR paradigm. The experimental group viewed VR screenshots that represented these negative memories while carrying out a dual-task. One control group recalled negative memories while carrying out the same dual-task (a standard dual-task condition) and another merely viewed the VR screenshots. Pre-to-post changes in self-rated memory vividness/emotionality were measured.Results: The results indicate that viewing a screenshot only was outperformed by both dual-task interventions in terms of reductions in vividness/emotionality. Furthermore, the dual-task interventions had a comparable impact on vividness, but the screenshot variant led to greater decreases in emotionality.Limitations: Changes in memory vividness/emotionality were only assessed shortly after the interventions and no measures of avoidance behavior were included in the study.Conclusions: Looking at an image in VR that represents a memory while carrying out a dual-task may be at least as effective as recalling the memory during the dual-task. Interestingly, visually supporting a negative memory does not seem to prevent memory degrading by dual-tasking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to review recent research that is relevant to three controversies concerning memory for trauma. First, we briefly review the debate about recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse, summarizing a third interpretation distinct from both the repression and false-memory accounts. Second, we address new findings related to claims that memories of trauma, especially in people with posttraumatic stress disorder, are especially fragmented and disorganized. Third, we discuss research designed to test whether eye movements in eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy are effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]