Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 4
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
This is a research review
I looked at this article, as a friend uses this technique, and it doesn't really seem to be a Wikipedia article. I appreciate the contributions that have been made, obviously by people who know a lot about the subject, but I'd draw your attention to the sources guidelines.
Wikipedia, which is intended for the general public, discourages the use of primary sources (e.g. original writings and scientific papers) in favour of secondary sources which are third-party references or reviews of the primary sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources which can be used sparingly - but there is the danger of circular references, so citing another Wiki article as a source is also discouraged.
It's unclear whether some of these sources are reviews or collections of original contributions so I'm reluctant to start cutting them out wholesale but the article does need substantial revision. Is the "Vocabulary" section needed? Presumably most of these terms are not used in a different sense than they are elsewhere in psychotherapy or psychology and how they are used elsewhere in Wikipedia.
A neutral point of view is also important, including criticisms of particular ideas where necessary, but that seems to have been at least partially resolved. Chris55 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this article needs a rewrite around WP:MEDRS as discussed extensively in the recently archived discussions.
- I think it would be appropriate to remove all content that is sourced only by primary sources or sources that fail MEDRS where it clearly applies. --talk) 17:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- ok, I've made an attempt at this, using SandyGeorgia's suggestions, by removing primary sources and material which depended entirely on that and also a number of repeated citations. I'm sure this will be controversial and I hope people will accept that this is done in good faith and use it as a starting point for future constructive changes. Chris55 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving it a try. I'm trying to figure out all that you did and why. In the future, please consider using muliple, small edits with detailed edit summaries so others can follow your train of thought. --talk) 17:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's my normal practice, Ronz, but in this case I took SandyGeorgia's advice to do it in a sandpit as I started yesterday afternoon. If you list the old version alongside you should be able to see the differences. The only structural changes were in the Approach section. I leave any changes to the warning flags to you or someone else. Chris55 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good work. I think the edit is a definite improvement, it's just hard to determine what you did from the diff. Pointing to your scratchpad version talk) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good work. I think the edit is a definite improvement, it's just hard to determine what you did from the diff. Pointing to your scratchpad version
- That's my normal practice, Ronz, but in this case I took SandyGeorgia's advice to do it in a sandpit as I started yesterday afternoon. If you list the old version alongside you should be able to see the differences. The only structural changes were in the Approach section. I leave any changes to the warning flags to you or someone else. Chris55 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving it a try. I'm trying to figure out all that you did and why. In the future, please consider using muliple, small edits with detailed edit summaries so others can follow your train of thought. --
- ok, I've made an attempt at this, using SandyGeorgia's suggestions, by removing primary sources and material which depended entirely on that and also a number of repeated citations. I'm sure this will be controversial and I hope people will accept that this is done in good faith and use it as a starting point for future constructive changes. Chris55 (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Other distraction modes
It seems that Drs. Taylor, Prochaska, and even Shapiro recognized that the more coherent attributed mechanism in EMDR is that the bilateral neuromotor distraction from the concious effort with the object experiences was to "enable the subconcious to process the experiences" in new or more effective ways. Allowing better integration of those experiences, and an improved sense of control, provides the patient more comfort with them, in a propitious cycle.
The usual title EMDR emphasizes only one of the distraction & integration modes. Qualified therapists commonly use recorded sounds, self-tapping, or other body movements which divide the concious attention, to make it easier to recruit the subconcious.
Wikidity (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Effect of eye movement on memory, cognitive processes, and physiology
This section begins with:
Although a wide range of researchers have proposed various models and theories to explain the effect of eye movement, and the possible role that eye movement may play in the process of EMDR, ...
This is just too vague! If it is so, why not summarise and cite some of the more scientific (i.e. potentially falsifiable) ones?
As it stands, the article doesn't tell me, for example, whether anybody has posited a connection between the eye movements of EMDR and the better-known psychophysiology of gaze direction during recall and invention ('lying').
It also fails to inform us whether any research has been done on other directions for the EMDR eye movements. In principle, it's not hard to outline six (more or less) different eye movement directions for comparison:
- horizontal,
- vertical,
- diagonal ascending from left to right and
- diagonal ascending from right to left,
- diagonal descending left to right,
- diagonal descending right to left.
(plus variations, which include a back to front or front to back component. controlled, of course, for subject laterality (as expressed, e.g. by dominant hand).
Accordingly, I'm tagging the antecedent clauses as 'vague' and hope somebody can and will cite relevant material inline. yoyo (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Tagging spree
This article is in an abysmal state, so I have tagged the problem statements and issues as I see them. Please don't remove the tags until the issue(s) are addressed. Famousdog (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Added non-primary and reliable references where requested on the page
Two non-primary references were requested in the opening paragraph on the page. Added was references for two well known EMDR treatment manuals (one by Adler-Tapia & Settle, the other by Greenwald) in which authors open their books by stating that EMDR was originally developed by Francine Shapiro. Also added to the opening paragraph was references [6][8][7][9][10] to the statement of EMDRs efficacy to balance the statement "EMDR therapy remains somewhat controversial due to questions about its methods and theoretical foundations" for readers of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschubert (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Also added is some refernces to the "in children" section as references were requested. Added a reference to the International Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ISSTS - by Foa 2009) as this provides an up todate literature review on the use of EMDR with children. Also added reference to two well known treatment manuals for the use of EMDR with children (Adlier-Tapia & Settle, and Greenwald) as these also review the literature on EMDR with children. Also added is a review and a meta-analysis that appear in peer reviewed journals that examine and outline the most recent evidence for the use of EMDR with children. Also reerenced is the EMDR and Family Therapy Processes book - widely used by clinicians who use EMDR with children and families - however could someone take a look at how this is references as I cannot see what I have done that makes the reference not appear correctly on the page? I also had difficulty adding in the DIO links for ref#28:Rodenburg R (2009; DOI = http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.008), and ref#29 Fleming J (2012; DOI = http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.008). I'd be greatful if someone could assist with this also. Sschubert (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is EMDR
I found the article never clearly stated what EMDR is (although an attempt is made buried in the article) - modified opening sentence:
Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a form of psychotherapy in which the patient recalls a traumatic event while simultaneously undergoing bilateral stimulation that can consist of moving the eyes from side to side, vibrations or tapping movements on different sides of the body, or tones delivered through one ear, then the other, via headphones.
Also noted controversy. Leslie Eagle (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I worked on the introductory description to improve accuracy and general impression, according the Shapiro's main book. I particularly added free association, which occupies much more of the client's session time and effort than directly holding traumatic material. I also used "material" rather than "memory", since the system actually involves processing not only memories of the trauma but also current triggering stimuli and anticipated traumatic situations. I also improved the description of bilateral stimulation, in both substance and style. djlewis (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Proposal for Changes
We are undergraduate university psychology students and are working to help improve this wikipedia page for a class. We proposed to elaborate the introduction, create an operational definition for EMDR, revise the approach section, add more secondary sources to the entire article, and reiterate that there is no current research on the meta analysis of EMDR in the controversy section. Ralba007 (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nice to have someone new to work on this. Do take a look at past discussions and talk) 01:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, welcome. Do, though, take time to read wp:No original research. It sounds as if your intention is at odds with policy. Also, your use of "We are ... students" suggests that you may be editing as a group rather than individuals. Sharing of accounts or editing on behalf of others is not accepted. Each account should have one human responsible for all edits with that account. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are four of us in the class. We will post individually.. Thank you, Lundblader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, welcome. Do, though, take time to read wp:No original research. It sounds as if your intention is at odds with policy. Also, your use of "We are ... students" suggests that you may be editing as a group rather than individuals. Sharing of accounts or editing on behalf of others is not accepted. Each account should have one human responsible for all edits with that account. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Profit Bias
This article desperately needs some attention paid to the profit-centered nature of EMDR, which has been true of the movement since its inception. EMDR is arguably closer to an enterprise than to a scientific research paradigm. Tight control over practitioners and research, with financial gains enforced at every possible step, has typified the progression of EMDR. This financial bias does not prove that EMDR does not work, but someone reading the article will lack a complete picture of the story of EMDR without understanding its for-profit nature. For those exploring PTSD therapy options, there are the various therapy approaches that have been debated scientifically over the years -- and then there is the financial enterprise of EMDR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdmwiki (talk • contribs) 06:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- The same could be said of many modalities, but we would need wp:RS to work from. LeadSongDog come howl!13:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. I'm sure it is the underlying cause of the SPA and bias problems this article has had, and the lack of good research demonstrating that the eye-movement portion is beneficial in any way. --talk) 15:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Style issue about footnotes, references and bibliography
I'm changing this articles "References" section to "Notes" in accordance with the usual Wikipedia style conventions. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout for more help. One of the usual editors may desire to create a Bibliography or References section to list Shapiro's EMDR books. See China Marine (memoir) to see one way this can be done. Trilobitealive (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
talk ) 04:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Three different explanations ?From the article:
This statement is fairly useless, without listing the 3 explanations !
Is anything in psychotherapy definitively explained?Is there any explanation why watching your breath go in and out and fondling a raisin (that is, MBSR) works for stress, anxiety and chronic pain? Seriously, the psychologists and neuroscientists are working on both MBSR and EMDR, but I assure you they are not at all close to a definitive explanation of either. In fact, some research has suggested the eye movements and attentional breathing are related! Actually, it's even worse than that. I don't feel like digging up references right now, but many observers have noted that no psychotherapy technique or system has an adequate explanation (in scientific terms) for why it works, even those that are proven effective by high-quality scientific outcome studies. And the neuroscience of it all is still "pre-Newtonain", as at least two prominent neuroscientists have stated. I know why people pick on EMDR. The standard account -- it's all eye movements -- makes it seem just too far out, and the initial claims -- which have proven to be true -- for really helping PTSD sounded too outrageous to be taken seriously. Also, the early studies were weak. But there's lots more to EMDR than eye movements, and they are arguably not even the "active ingredient" but more of a catalyst to make the actual active ingredient, client-centered free association primed by traumatic memory, work better and faster. --David djlewis (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Effectiveness is irrelevantThe effectiveness, scientific validity or criticisms of EMDR are irrelevant to whether or not Wikipedia has an article on it. People come here looking for information, i.e. facts and Wikipedia has consistently presented those facts regardless of a particular point of view. If the EMDR article was presented with a biased POV, then we can fix that. I'm disappointed because I came to Wikipedia looking for facts, i.e. the theory behind EMDR and what I found was a discussion of whether it is pseudoscience. Western Medicine . Similarly EMDR, regardless of whether it is profit-driven pseudoscientific hogwash, still is a widely-practiced psychotherapeutic technique with its own research and theory.
If Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory had better research support than EMDR, that still wouldn't mean it merits an article where the latter does not. I'm pretty sure EMDR actually has more data behind it, but that doesn't matter to Wikipedia, or to people using Wikipedia.Trashbird1240 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Multiple issues in this articleIs it time to remove any/all of the issues cited at the beginning of the article? There are currently 3:
It seems to me that most of the concerns that people have raised have been dealt with and it's time to live with this article more reasonably. I propose the removal of these issues. Chris55 (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
MartinPoulter (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I don't see that anyone wants to retain the multiple issues on the overall article so I'll remove them, although the depression section needed better support. But since Ronz has already removed that section, it's irrelevant unless reinstated. MartinPoulter has made some useful suggestions that we could all use for improvements and there are some recent useful references in other articles (e.g. Power therapies) that could be used. Chris55 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Question about 'client'Hello, I have a question: Do you really call sick people "clients" instead of "patients"? It seems very strange to me; is this nomenclature specific to north america or universal? Of course I ask because I think the article could benefit from being written in the most universally understood way. 200.104.169.213 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Potential refI don't see it currently being used: Oren, E (2012). "EMDR therapy: An overview of its development and mechanisms of action". European Review of Applied Psychology. 62 (4): 197–203. Additional Information on Other Applications of EMDRI would like to hear feedback on this possible addition of information that could be useful to readers reading the EMDR page. Under the "Other Applications" heading, I would like to include that another application of EMDR that has been recently discovered is Induced After Death Communication. Induced After Death Communication. Many people experience this sensation during EMDR. There are thousands of people who perceive these interactions during EMDR which results in healing of grief. http://www.davemacdonaldlcsw.com/emdr_for_trauma_anxiety_growth/ This will allow the reader to see another type of application of EMDR that has not yet been brought up. --Egoldman87 (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egoldman87 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
SuggestionsI have recently been reading a revised book on psychotherapy. Prochaska, J.O., & Norcross, J.C.(2010) Systems of Psychotherapy: A Transtheoretical Analysis. They place EMDR under talk ) 11:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
First, EMDR is not based on habituation like exposure therapy as EMDR uses short 20- to 50-second, interrupted exposures rather than continuous 20- to 100-minute exposures, traditionally recommended for prolonged exposure. Second, EMDR is nondirective,allowing for free association. The client often moves quickly through events or skips scenes by spontaneously changing to other memories that come to mind. In EMDR, this is not considered to be avoidance but is instead viewed as effective memory processing (Lee & Drummond, 2008; Lee, Taylor, & Drummond, 2006). Third,in EMDR, reliving the traumatic memory in the present tense is not a requirement of effecitve therapy. Taking a third-party perspective on the trauma memory is also not seen as avoidance, and, unlike traditional exposure, reliving is not associated with improvement in EMDR (Lee & Drummond, 2008). Thus, according to the assumptions of emotional processing theory (Foa & Rothbaum, 1998),which underlie exposure therapy for PTSD, EMDR is not working through the processes of traditional exposure as the type of exposure that occurs in EMDR should result in minimal decreased fear if exposure is the proposed mechanism of change. Yet EMDR is effective in treating adult PTSD and associated symptoms, thus other processes and underlying working mechanisms are at play. Sschubert (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Excellent and accurate summary of how EMDR differs from prolonged exposure (PE) therapy. Yes, EMDR definitely involves exposure, that is, having the client vividly bring their traumatic event, events, triggers or future apprehensions to mind. Evidence so far indicates that this is a necessary step for any effective PTSD therapy aiming at remission rather than symptom reduction and management. The major difference is in the prolonged part. PE literally immerses the client in their traumatic memories for extended and intense periods -- that is mostly what it it about. EMDR does not have that intensive or prolonged aspect to exposure. Yet according to all recent meta-studies and endorsements, EMDR works just as well as PE, and there is now evidence that it works faster and better and especially better for depression associated with PTSD. To say that EMDR therefore works by a different mechanism than PE is hard to justify except as pure speculation. In fact, it is quite plausible, given current research, the PE works by the same mechanism as EMDR but simply not as well, hence it is generally slower and certainly requires more emotional pain and energy than EMDR. djlewis (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Profit Bias RejoinderThis is an inaccurate allegation. The only basis I can see is that EMDR is indeed a trademark, and to call oneself an EMDR therapist requires certification. Certification entails a modest training program (days, not weeks, months or years), a period of supervised practice, continuing yearly membership and occasional CEUs. I know a number of EMDR therapists, and I can assure you that the charges for all these are well in keeping with usual charges for professional certification and specialization, and after the initial period, are insignificant for a professional. I also know some EMDR therapists who provide group supervision, and they all charge their regular hourly client rate divided by the number of participants. Thus, if there are significant profits being by someone in the EMDR world, it isn't either off of or by the therapists. I also doubt if the national organization is making much money, as they carry out a significant and beneficial program of research, training and dissemination that is well worth the modest yearly dues. We could certainly discuss whether it is appropriate for a proven, highly effective and beneficial psychotherapy system such as EMDR to be controlled by a private organization. But my take on that would be that there is a sordid history in the psychology profession of opening up such systems, particularly those with somewhat unconventional elements, to unrestrained claims by practitioners. On the other side, it has limited the number of practitioners somewhat, but it does give a higher level of confidence to a client that a practitioner is well-trained and acting in a professional manner. Also since there are now a number of effective therapies for PTSD other than EMDR, if someone wants to treat PTSD clients (which is really hard and demanding work, by the way) but doesn't want to undertake EMDR certification for financial or any reason, there are plenty of options. But I bet most CB/PE therapists, for example, also undertook a good deal of training and belong to a specialty organization, in addition to their own licensing body such as the APA. So, unless you have some documented proof that someone is making significant profits off of EMDR, I seriously question this allegation, and it certainly does not belong in the article. (I also fixed the typo in your title.) djlewis (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC) What does "off of" mean? 109.145.83.54 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC) "if there are significant profits being by someone in the EMDR world, it isn't either off of or by the therapists" -- It means that nobody (such as EMDRIA) is making significant profits by selling services to EMDR therapists, and the therapists themselves are not making any more profit than other similarly qualified psychotherapists. Of course, as in any profession, there are people that make a living training professionals, and small companies that do so on a somewhat larger scale. But as in the whole psychotherapy business, that is decidedly at the cottage industry level. djlewis (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Quackwatch Article by Scott O. LillienfeldRESPONSE: The following link is not a bad review of some of the research issues with EMDR. In short, EMDR just piggybacks on proven methodologies such as exposure therapy, and the "trademarked" eye movement part is the added snakeoil for sale. Your claim that what is unique about EMDR is "proven, highly effective and beneficial" is laughably ambitious, to say the least, as is the claim that the intellectual property and related restrictions have not interfered with full objective scientific study and review. Let's see the collection of studies showing that EMDR is significantly more effective than the same therapy without the eye movement. But what has been successfully demonstrated with EMDR is the efficacy of a tightly controlled marketing campaign of pseudoscience over the years -- I'll certainly concede that. I'll also concede that Wikipedia articles are reference driven, and so the constricted nature of the research on EMDR would seem challenging to note in the main article as that is commentary. (And I am certainly not questioning that there should be a Wikipedia article on EMDR, given its prevalency.) As to the claim that effectiveness is irrelevant...really? http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emdr.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdmwiki (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC) That quackwatch article is suspect on several grounds. First, why does it lead with the original, long but outdated (now 18 years old) piece rather than the much more recent update. Second, the author uses some questionable rhetorical devices, such as this passage...
...rather than...
...which is true, more direct and leaves a more accurate impression. I know it's not polite to say this, but the author seems to be straining to create a negative impression from facts that do not support it, in fact, say the opposite. Third, the author makes several highly biased statements or recommendations against EMDR therapists who make excessive claims that could be equally said of prolonged exposure treatment or any therapy...
In fact, points 1 and 3 are scientific assertions without support! Given the apparent bias of the author and his attempt to twist words, I think consumers should be suspicious of his pronouncements. djlewis (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Relation to so-called "Brain Wave Vibration"As in the title of this section, I think there's some kind of connection here. Additionally I think both are related to stimulation of the cerebellum. The cerebellum is now thought to be intimately connected with emotion. Brain wave vibration link here and Wikipedia link here .
I have no connection to the above outfit. talk ) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
SynThe recent attempts at rewriting the controversies section to change the pov by means of original research has got to go. Sorry that I don't have the time atm to describe in detail, but see talk ) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
In case they can be used elsewhere, these two refs were removed in the process: -- talk ) 17:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Skeptic magazine (skeptic.com) reliable?I'm not finding a talk ) 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I will add your edit back in but using the Herbert paper as the reference. Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
My pov? You believe I wrote some of the sources that you are trying to restrict, or I might have a some other conflict of interest with them? If not, please redact your comments, and instead try to make a policy-based argument. If you instead want to continue with your assertions against me, provide some evidence and bring it to an appropriate noticeboard, rather than using the accusations here to detract from our policies. -- talk ) 17:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the tagging of the reference. If someone disputes that it is reliable at this point, please indicate why and start a discussion at talk ) 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Verification tagI have tried to address the VERIFICATION NEEDED tag on the McNally (2013) reference (currently footnote 40) by inserting the article page number where McNally's quote is found. When adding such information, is it appropriate for the editor to remove the VER.NEEDED tag him/herself?Saturn Explorer (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC) By the way, sorry I am showing up belatedly to this discussion. Greetings to all.Saturn Explorer (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.Saturn Explorer (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you Ronz. Regarding the McNally 2013 article: on page 9, the author writes, "Yet recent basic laboratory research (Gunter & Bodner, 2008), including with PTSD patients (van den Hout et al., 2012), indicates that secondary tasks, such as eye movements, that tax working memory during recollection of stressful memories attenuate their vividness and emotionality during subsequent recollection (van den Hout & Engelhard, 2012). Secondary tasks that do not tax working memory (e.g., passive listening to bilateral beeps) do not have this effect. In fact, the authors of a recent meta-analysis concluded, “the eye movements do have an additional value in EMDR treatments” (Lee & Cuijpers, 2013, p. 239)."Saturn Explorer (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I am not sure why the (van den Hout & Engelhard, 2012) reference is tagged, as it is derived from the McNally (2013) quote. Advise please.Saturn Explorer (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I mean the opposite, yes, that 2012 is derived from 2013.Saturn Explorer (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is a quite from the vanden Hout & Engelhard paper- p.724-that verifies use of the citation as it is embodied in the McNally (2013) article.Van den hout: " Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) is an effective treatment for alleviating trauma symptoms, and the positive effects of this treatment have been scientifically confirmed under well-controlled conditions. This has provided an opportunity to explore how EMDR works. The present paper reports on the findings of a long series of experiments that disproved the hypothesis that eye movements or other dual tasks¹ are unnecessary." Saturn Explorer (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Regarding (current) fn #61-reference to Kuiken, et al. 2010: On page p.243, the authors state: "Together the effects of EMs on attentional adjustments to unexpected targets and the effects of EMs on the perceived strikingness of metaphoric sentences reinforces Shapiro’s (1991) original suggestion that the distinctive contribution of rapid EMs to the EMDR protocol is that they prompt novel shifts in memory (e.g.,diminution of threat), belief (e.g., recognizing unintentional responsibility), and emotion (e.g., changing fear to anger) among those living in the aftermath of trauma (see also Lee et al., 2006). . . " . I will remove the verification tag to this note.Saturn Explorer (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Regarding (current) fn #50-reference to van Etten & Taylor 1998, on page 126, the authors state: " "Among the psychological therapies, behaviour therapy and EMDR were most effective, and generally equally so. The most effective psychological therapies and drug therapies were generally equally effective." I will remove the verification tag to this note.Saturn Explorer (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC) unpublished synthesis of published materialCan someone please indicate which part(s) of "Controversies" section are being identified as having this problem? I would like to explore this. ThanksSaturn Explorer (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Ronz, Problem: How to edit the "working mechanisms" piece such that the reader can wee the state of research & findings, including the narrowing focus on the two referenced mechanisms, "working memory" and "orienting reflex"/REM sleep. The current text relies on primary sources, and this is clearly problematic with respect to Wikipedia policy. Might some words of caution to the reader regarding primary sources be useful, e.g., "The working mechanisms that underlie the effectiveness of EMDR therapy are still under investigation. There is as yet no definitive finding and no consensus on the effective mechanisms of this therapy. Those that have received the most attention and interest based on initial research include (1) taxing working memory[57][58][59] and (2) orienting response/REM sleep[60][61][62]" ?? Saturn Explorer (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Ronz. I've been distracted by other things, myself. I expect to be able to enter some more discussion of this topic and propose a chage later in this 24 hour period.Saturn Explorer (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) How about "The working mechanisms that underlie the effectiveness of the eye movements in EMDR therapy are still under investigation and there is as yet no definitive finding. The consensus regarding the underlying biological mechanisms involve the two that have received the most attention and research support: (1) taxing working memory and (2) orienting response/REM sleep. [Lee & Cuijpers, 2013]" Reason for putting it this way: Lee & Cuijpers 2013 conducted a meta-analysis of studies pitting eye movements against no eye movements in both clinical and non-clinical laboratory situations. After reporting results of their meta-analysis demonstrating the significant contribution of eye movements, they review studies examining the underlying mechanisms that make the eye movements effective. They report, "One account for the effect of eye movements is provided by working memory theories of EMDR (Andrade et al., 1997; Gunter & Bodnher, 2008; Maxfield et al., 2008; van den Hout et al., 2011)..... Another model to account for the possible role of eye movements that has some empirical support is that the eye movements elicit an orienting response (Barrowcliff, Gray, MacCulloch, Freeman, & MacCulloch, 2003; Sack, Lempa, Steinmetz, Lamprecht, & Hofmann, 2008; Schubert, Lee, & Drummond, 2011). According to orienting response theory the eye movements activate an "investigatory reflex" in which first, an alert response occurs, then, a reflexive pause produces dearousal in the face of no threat. This reflex results in a state of heightened alertness and permits exploratory behavior...." Saturn Explorer (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC) The above quote of Lee & Cuijpers came from p. 237 of their 2013 meta-analysis.Saturn Explorer (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Given the recent re-write of the mechanisms paragraph and the removal of primary sorce citation, can we remove the "unpublished synthesis" banner from this section?Saturn Explorer (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
|