Ulirich: You seem to be saying contradictory things in your post. First, you seem to be saying that, as a part of basic perception, an eyes fixed condition actually is an eye movement condition. Thus an eyes fixed condition is not an adeuate control group to test the eye movement hypothesis. Yet, you go on to say that when patients engage in voluntary eye fixation during EMDR, they tend to dissociate and thereby do not benefit from treatment. If it is true that voluntary fixation during EMD is functionally equivalent to conducting EMD with therapist directed eye movements, then what is the appropriate control condition to test the hypothesis? Would telling people to close their eyes while engaging in the trauma-related imagery be adequate? Or would this condition likely generate similar levels of eye movements? If you cannot identify an adequate comparison group, then the hypothesis is untestible and therefore unscientific. Remember, simply pointint out nominal flaws in research that fails to support your own hypothesis does not relieve you of the burden to provide positive evidence for your position. On the other hand, if it is true that voluntary eye fixation during EMD causes people to dissociate, and to thereby not benefit from treatment, why didn't EMD result in better outcome than the eyes fixed condition in the Lytle et al. study? Indeed, the within-group effect sizes on the IES total scores for the eyes fixed condition was numericall larger (1.37) than for EMD. Both the traditional eye movement hypothesis and your modified hypothesis that voluntary eye fixation causes dissociation which prevents improvement predict that EMD should have been superior to the eyes fixed condition.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.