A Working Memory Explanation for the Effects of Eye Movements in EMDR
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
Research has consistently demonstrated that performance is degraded when participants engage in two simultaneous tasks that require the same working memory resources. This study tested predictions from working memory theory to investigate the effects of eye movement (EM) on the components of autobiographical memory. In two experiments, 24 and 36 participants, respectively, focused on negative memories while engaging in three dual-attention EM tasks of increasing complexity. Compared to No-EM, Slow-EM and Fast-EM produced significantly decreased ratings of image vividness, thought clarity, and emotional intensity, and the more difficult Fast-EM resulted in larger decreases than did Slow-EM. The effects on emotional intensity were not consistent, with some preliminary evidence that a focus on memory-related thought might maintain emotional intensity during simple dual-attention tasks (Slow-EM, No-EM). The findings of our experiments support a working memory explanation for the effects of EM dual-attention tasks on autobiographical memory. Implications for understanding the mechanisms of action in EMDR are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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