Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Pilot Blinded, Randomized Study of Stimulation Type
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is becoming a recognized and accepted form of psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Yet, its mechanism of action remains unclear and much controversy exists about whether eye movements or other forms of bilateral kinesthetic stimulation contribute to its clinical effects beyond the exposure elements of the procedure. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with single-event PTSD (average Impact of Event Scale score: 49.5) received three consecutive sessions of EMDR with three different types of auditory and kinesthetic stimulation (tones and vibrations): intermittent alternating right-left (as commonly used with the standard EMDR protocol), intermittent simultaneous bilateral, and continuous bilateral. Therapists were blinded to the type of stimulation they delivered, and stimulation type assignment was randomized and counterbalanced. RESULTS: All three stimulation types resulted in clinically significant reductions of subjective units of distress (SUD). Yet, alternating stimulation resulted in faster reductions of SUD when only sessions starting with a new target memory were considered. CONCLUSIONS: There are clinically significant effects of the EMDR procedure that appear to be independent of the nature of the kinesthetic stimulation used. However, alternating stimulation may confer an additional benefit to the EMDR procedure that deserves attention in future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it