Omitting continuous memory recall from dual-task interventions does not reduce intervention effectiveness.

In Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing a patient recalls a traumatic memory, while simultaneously performing a dual-task (e.g., making horizontal eye movements, tapping a pattern). Earlier lab studies show that increasing the load of a dual-task -and leaving fewer resources for memory recall-results in larger decreases in memory vividness and emotionality compared to control conditions. Therefore, we investigated whether it is necessary to continuously and deliberately recall the memory next to performing high taxing dual-tasks. In two online experiments, participants (N = 172, N = 198) recalled a negative autobiographical memory and were randomly assigned to (1) Memory Recall + Dual-Tasks, (2) Dual-Tasks Only, or (3) No Intervention Control. The dual-tasks were complex pattern tapping and spelling out loud. Before and after the intervention the memory was rated on vividness, emotionality, and accessibility. High taxing dual-tasks, regardless of whether there was continuous memory recall, resulted in the largest reductions in all dependent variables compared to control. Unexpectedly, there was no evidence that the addition of continuous memory recall added to these reductions. These results suggest that continuous memory recall might not, or only minimally needed for the beneficial effects of the dual-task procedure. We discuss the necessity of memory (re)activation, alternative explanations, and implications for practice.