Cited by 40Memory Processes and InfluencesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

The effectiveness of dual-task interventions for modulating emotional memories in the laboratory: A meta-analysis

Open access
Mertens, Gaëtan, Lund, Maren, Engelhard, Iris M.·2021·Acta Psychologica

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Dual-tasks (e.g., making horizontal eye-movements) while recollecting a memory are often used both in the lab and the clinic (such as in EMDR therapy) to attenuate emotional memories and intrusive mental images. According to working memory theory, dual-task interventions are effective because they limit cognitive resources available for the processing of emotional memories. However, there is still ongoing debate about the extent to which and under what conditions dual-task interventions are effective to interfere with emotional memories. In this meta-analysis, we assessed k = 53 laboratory studies investigating the effects of dual-task interventions on negative and positive memories. The effects were measured with the raw mean reduction in vividness and emotionality self-report ratings of emotional memories before compared to after the intervention on 100-point rating scales. Results showed that the dual-task interventions made both negative and positive memories less vivid (mean reduction negative images = 9.18, 95% CI [7.06, 11.29]; mean reduction positive images = 11.73, 95% CI [8.59, 14.86]) and less emotional (mean reduction negative images = 6.22, 95% CI [4.50, 7.94]; mean reduction positive images = 6.71, 95% CI [2.21, 11.20]). Several moderators were tested and are discussed in the light of working memory theory.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103424

Cites

114 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Higgins, J., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane collaboration (5th ed.). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
  2. Hornsveld, H., Ten Broeke, E., & De Jongh, A. (2018). Verschillen tussen het Nederlandse EMDR-standaardprotocol en het originele protocol van Shapiro. Deel V: Werkgeheugentheorie. EMDR Magazine, 6(18), 39-43.
  3. Ryan, R., & Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group. (December 2016). Heterogeneity and subgroup analyses in Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group reviews: Planning the analysis at protocol stage. http://cccrg.cochrane.org (accessed 02.04.2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mertens, G., Lund, M., & Engelhard, I. M.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Mertens, Gaëtan
Venue
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-10
Volume
220
Pages
103424
ISSN
0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3018891871
Cited by
40
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Psychologica (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (453-15-005)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
emotional memory, memory reconsolidation, eye movements, EMDR, working memory, memory vividness, emotionality, cognitive resource allocation
MeSH terms
Emotions, Eye Movements, Humans, Laboratories, Memory, Short-Term, Mental Recall

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review