University of Hertfordshire.
Psychol Bull. 2014 Jan;140(1):98-104. doi: 10.1037/a0034677.
In the light of current controversy about the nature of intrusions in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the review by Brewin (2014) is timely and important. It will undoubtedly stimulate further research and guide researchers' quests for understanding the nature of flashbacks in PTSD. In this commentary, I briefly summarize and discuss key points made by Brewin and elaborate on some of the reasons behind the controversy. For example, the terms involuntary autobiographical memories, intrusive memories, and flashbacks are often used interchangeably. I propose a taxonomy revealing the key differences across these forms of memory. If flashbacks are characteristic of patients with PTSD only, it is essential that more research targeting this population is conducted with a variety of methods. Finally, some new avenues for research to study intrusive memories and flashbacks in PTSD, using a diary method and modified trauma film paradigm, are described.
鉴于当前关于创伤后应激障碍 (PTSD) 中侵入性本质的争议，Brewin（2014）的综述及时且重要。它无疑将激发进一步的研究，并指导研究人员探索 PTSD 中闪回的本质。在这篇评论中，我简要总结和讨论了 Brewin 提出的要点，并详细阐述了争议背后的一些原因。例如，术语非自愿自传体记忆、侵入性记忆和闪回经常互换使用。我提出了一个分类法，揭示了这些记忆形式之间的关键差异。如果只有 PTSD 患者才会出现闪回，那么针对这一人群，使用各种方法进行更多的研究至关重要。最后，描述了使用日记法和改良创伤电影范式研究 PTSD 中侵入性记忆和闪回的新途径。
