How eye movements affect unpleasant memories: Support for a working-memory account
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Negative Flashforward Imagery in Adolescent Social Anxiety Disorder: A Pilot Study of Imagery Reports and a Short EMDR Intervention. (2024) · cites this paper as 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.
- ORCID
- Bodner, Glen E.
- 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
- green
- doi.org
- 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