A Commentary on : A Valid Test of Resource Development and Installation? Absolutely Not

Abstract

Researchers have published evidence supporting both the “working memory” and the “REM/Orienting Response” hypotheses as mechanisms underlying the documented treatment effects of EMDR on patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. Hornsveld et al. (2011) provide additional evidence of the impact of eye movements (EMs) on aspects of positive memory recall, but overstate their findings relevance to resource development and installation (RDI: Korn & Leeds, 2002) and to the interhemispheric interaction hypothesis (Propper & Christman, 2008). Most likely multiple mechanisms underlie the observed effects of EMDR and RDI. The needed RDI test is to randomly assign patients with Disorders of Extreme Stress not Otherwise Specified with measured coping difficulties to alternate conditions: one an RDI procedure without bilateral (or other distracting) sensory stimulation and one with bilateral EMs.

Stop the Use of Eye Movements in Resource Development and Installation, Until Their Additional Value Has Been Proven: A Rejoinder to

“…Results were astonishing; 77 participants found the procedure without EM superior and only 3 participants found EM to be superior. Contrary to the published study , subjects were stimulated to make associations, which Leeds and Korn (2012) purported to be essential to RDI; nevertheless, no evidence for a positive effect of EMs was found. 5.…”

“…If increased sensory detail and increased accessibility are specifically induced by the use of EMs, we should have found a positive (enhancing) effect on vividness and experienced strength of the resource quality; instead, we found significant decreases in both these variables. Leeds and Korn's (2012) critique of our study further concentrates on the fact that it was conducted among undergraduate students and not in a clinical population. They emphasize the potential importance of RDI for disorders of extreme stress, not otherwise specified (DESNOS, or complex posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]), and conclude at the end of their commentary that "only a study that randomly assigns DESNOS patients to either EM or no-EM conditions, with prebehavioral and postbehavioral measures, can assess the contribution of EMs to RDI" (p. 172).…”

“…Moreover, the empirical evidence of the claim that EMs facilitate memory reprocessing is extremely scarce. The research cited by Leeds and Korn (2012) consists of two studies of Kuiken and coworkers who found an increased cognitive flexibility-with small effect sizes, complicated designs, and samples with undergraduates (Kuiken, Bears, Miall, & Smith, 2002;Kuiken, Chudleigh, & Racher, 2010). The results are far less convincing than the bulk of evidence published to date favoring the working memory hypothesis.…”

“…

This brief article responds to Leeds and Korn's (2012) commentary on our article in which we found that eye movements (EMs) during recall of positive and resourceful autobiographic memories (such as those used in resource development and installation [RDI]) led to decreases of (a) vividness, (b) pleasantness, and (c) experienced strength of the intended quality or resource. Hence, we found an opposite effect than what was intended and critically discussed this in our article.

…”

“…In their commentary, Leeds and Korn (2012) continue to defend the use of EMs as a beneficial part of RDI. They stress the existence of positive clinical experience and the weaknesses of our study.…”