MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115268131 · doi:10.1891/1933-3196.3.3.161

EMDR Works . . . But How? Recent Progress in the Search for Treatment Mechanisms

2009· article· en· W2115268131 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond W. Gunter, Glen E. Bodner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of EMDR Practice and Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye movement desensitization and reprocessingPsychotherapistMechanism (biology)PsychologyDistancingRelaxation (psychology)RecallCognitive psychologyTraumatic memoriesPsychological traumaAction (physics)Construal level theoryClinical psychologyPosttraumatic stressMedicineNeuroscienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is a highly scrutinized but efficacious psychotherapy commonly used in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Despite much theorizing and speculation, EMDR’s mechanism of action remains unspecified. This article reviews several accounts of how EMDR works to reduce symptoms and/or aid memory reprocessing, including disruption of a traumatic recollection in working memory, increased psychological distance from the trauma, enhanced communication between brain hemispheres, and psychophysiological changes associated with relaxation or evocation of a rapid-eye-movement–like brain state. Several gaps in knowledge are also identified: The working memory account has received considerable support but has yet to be evaluated using clinical samples. How psychological distancing translates into symptomatic improvement is unclear. Psychophysiological effects of EMDR are well demonstrated but leave open the question of whether they constitute a treatment mechanism or an outcome of memory processing. Multiple mechanisms may work to produce treatment gains in EMDR; hence, an integrative model may be necessary to capture its myriad effects.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.285
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EMDR Practice and ResearchSame topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207