More support for the working memory hypothesis: Results and clinical implications
Description
Eye movements (EMs) during retrieval of negative memories reduce the vividness and emotionality of these memories when they are being recalled later. This is a robust phenomenon and is the basis of the EMDR method. Of the many explanations that have been put forward to explain the benefits of EMs, the working memory (WM) explanation has – by far - the most empirical support.
The WM hypothesis will be explained and a new series of experiments will be presented that give additional support for the WM account and have some large clinical implications.
1.In over 50% of the EMDR treatments eye movements are replaced by other bilateral stimulation like auditory tones or tapping. These ‘variants’ lack empirical support. Several studies (in healthy subjects and patients) strongly suggest that these alternatives are inferior to eye movements. This is in line with the working memory account. 2.Eye movements are also used in (non-desensitization) procedures like the safe place and the RDI procedure. Again, there is no empirical support for the added value of eye movements. Our research indicates that – in line with the WM theory – EM’s seem counterproductive in RDI. 3.EMs also reduce the vividness and emotionality of (disturbing) images of feared future events: "flashforwards". Research data in a non-clinical sample and some clinical cases will be presented. Hornsveld,H.K. & van de Hout, M.A. Utrecht University, Dept of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht, Netherlands Marcel van den Hout, Iris Engelhard en Hellen Hornsveld received the 2010 EMDR Award for Outstanding Research.
The WM hypothesis will be explained and a new series of experiments will be presented that give additional support for the WM account and have some large clinical implications.
1.In over 50% of the EMDR treatments eye movements are replaced by other bilateral stimulation like auditory tones or tapping. These ‘variants’ lack empirical support. Several studies (in healthy subjects and patients) strongly suggest that these alternatives are inferior to eye movements. This is in line with the working memory account. 2.Eye movements are also used in (non-desensitization) procedures like the safe place and the RDI procedure. Again, there is no empirical support for the added value of eye movements. Our research indicates that – in line with the WM theory – EM’s seem counterproductive in RDI. 3.EMs also reduce the vividness and emotionality of (disturbing) images of feared future events: "flashforwards". Research data in a non-clinical sample and some clinical cases will be presented. Hornsveld,H.K. & van de Hout, M.A. Utrecht University, Dept of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht, Netherlands Marcel van den Hout, Iris Engelhard en Hellen Hornsveld received the 2010 EMDR Award for Outstanding Research.
Format
Conference
Language
English
Original Work Citation
Hornsveld, H. (2011, June). More support for the working memory hypothesis: Results and clinical implications. Presentation at the 12th European Conference on Traumatic Stress (ECOTS), Vienna, Austria
Citation
“More support for the working memory hypothesis: Results and clinical implications,” Francine Shapiro Library, accessed May 7, 2024, https://francineshapirolibrary.omeka.net/items/show/20919.