The effect of motor interference therapy in traumatic memories: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Traumatic memories of events such as a life-threatening incident, serious injury, or sexual violence are a core symptom of stress-related disorders; they might be susceptible to positive modification with interference tasks (reconsolidation-based interventions). Our objective was to test the effect of performing a motor interference task (finger tapping in response to audio cues) on patients who suffer from traumatic memories. METHODS: We designed an uncontrolled pilot prospective clinical trial. Ten participants listened to an audio track that instructed them to tap their fingers in response to specific audio cues while trying to recall the traumatic event. Each patient underwent an assessment including the Spanish version of the PTSD Symptom Severity Scale-Revised (EGS-R), the visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) from EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), and a simple visual analogue scale (VAS) before the intervention, immediately after, and a week after the treatment. RESULTS: All measures exhibited a statistically significant improvement 1 week after the study. On the PTSD scale, 1 week later, 30% of the patients did not score high enough for such diagnosis. The VAS measured immediately following the intervention (4.4, SD = 2.22) also improved (p < .001), and 30% of the patients scored zero. One week after the intervention, the VAS improved more than 50% CONCLUSION: The rapid 1-week improvement on the PSTD scale and the VAS after a 30 min intervention support the idea of further research using a double-blind, controlled design powered to demonstrate the efficacy of motor interference, an easy-to-apply therapeutic tool, in the treatment of traumatic memories.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".