Cited by 362Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMemory Processes and InfluencesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

How eye movements affect unpleasant memories: Support for a working-memory account

Open access
Gunter, Raymond W., Bodner, Glen E.·2008·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing can reduce ratings of the vividness and emotionality of unpleasant memories-hence it is commonly used to treat posttraumatic stress disorder. The present experiments compared three accounts of how eye movements produce these benefits. Participants rated unpleasant autobiographical memories before and after eye movements or an eyes stationary control condition. In Experiment 1, eye movements produced benefits only when memories were held in mind during the movements, and eye movements increased arousal, contrary to an investigatory-reflex account. In Experiment 2, horizontal and vertical eye movements produced equivalent benefits, contrary to an interhemispheric-communication account. In Experiment 3, two other distractor tasks (auditory shadowing, drawing) produced benefits that were negatively correlated with working-memory capacity. These findings support a working-memory account of the eye movement benefits in which the central executive is taxed when a person performs a distractor task while attempting to hold a memory in mind.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2008.04.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • EMDR interventions have generally been found to reduce the vividness and distress of targeted aversive memories compared to recall only.

    “EMDR interventions (including laboratory models of EMDR) have generally been found to reduce the vividness and distress of targeted aversive memories compared to recall only (e.g., Gunter and Bodner 2008;van den Hout et al. 2001), which may also come with memory reappraisal (Gunter and Bodner 2008).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 110 · Cited by 362

Authors
Gunter, R. W., & Bodner, G. E.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Gunter, Raymond W.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-08
Volume
46
Issue
8
Pages
913-931
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098106756
Cited by
362
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 33
FWCI
21.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) (submittedVersion)
  • Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary)
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
EMDR, autobiographical memory, working memory, central executive, post-traumatic stress disorder, memory vividness, memory emotionality, distractor task, interhemispheric communication
MeSH terms
Arousal, Attention, Desensitization, Psychologic, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Psychological, Young Adult

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