CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Memory Processes and InfluencesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reducing the vividness and emotional impact of distressing autobiographical memories: The importance of modality-specific interference

Kemps, Eva, Tiggemann, Marika·2007·Memory
DOI 10.1080/09658210701262017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Experimental analogues of post-traumatic stress disorder suggest that loading the visuospatial sketchpad of working memory with a concurrent task reduces the vividness and associated distress of predominantly visual images. The present experiments explicitly tested the hypothesis that interfering with the phonological loop could analogously reduce the vividness and emotional impact of auditory images. In Experiment 1, 30 undergraduates formed non-specific images of emotive autobiographical memories while performing a concurrent task designed to load either the visuospatial sketchpad (eye movements) or phonological loop (articulatory suppression). Participants reported their images to be primarily visual, corresponding to the greater dual-task disruption observed for eye movements. Experiment 2 instructed participants to form specifically visual or auditory images. As predicted, concurrent articulation reduced vividness and emotional intensity ratings of auditory images to a greater extent than did eye movements, whereas concurrent eye movements reduced ratings of visual images much more than did articulatory suppression. Such modality-specific dual-task interference could usefully contribute to the treatment and management of intrusive distressing images in both clinical and non-clinical settings.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09658210701262017

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Baddeley A. D., 1986, Working memory
  2. 10.1037/0022-006X.65.6.1026 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 117

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kemps, E., & Tiggemann, M.
Affiliations
Flinders University (AU)
Corresponding author
Kemps, Eva
ORCID
Venue
Memory
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2007-05
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
412-422
ISSN
  • 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0686
DOI
10.1080/09658210701262017
OpenAlex
W2090444075
Cited by
117
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
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
autobiographical memory, memory vividness, emotional impact, visuospatial sketchpad, phonological loop, working memory, eye movements, articulatory suppression, dual-task interference, auditory imagery, visual imagery, post-traumatic stress disorder, emotion regulation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Auditory Perception, Autobiographies as Topic, Emotions, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Memory, Models, Psychological, Pain, Visual Perception

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