Talk:Bilateral stimulation

Merge with EMDR

I don't see why this should be a page. All of the references have to do with EMDR.DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi,as per my comment on the EMDR talk page, I believe this topic is not necessarily only to do with EMDR, and very much justifies it's own page. Best, JCJC777 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Howso? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

After quickly reviewing the article, I've asked for help at WP:FTN. I thought it better than going directly to WP:MEDRS, as there are similar problems with this article: If it deserves it's own article, it's history is from EMDR, where bilateral stimulation was controversial for a long time, even fringe. There also appears to be WP:OR at work to establish that this is something other than EMDR. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hipal/Ronz

Can you check your link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR It leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research which doesnt make senseSpgough (talk) Spgough (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hipal/Ronz

surely no OR here; all comments are linked to a clear source. I agree (a) the number of source researchers referenced is low, and (b) there are no applications of BS out there apart from EMDR, and thus you can destroy this vehicle of potential human growth if you want to. I'd argue there is value in leaving it blowing in the wind, in case other value is added and something valuable grows. See comment below; we may find BS is the active ingredient - of very great value - in EMDR.

I'd encourage you not to kill this potential source of human growth.

JCJC777 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s. by comment below I mean in the 'recent edits' section below in this Talk page. Go well. JCJC777 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That's no response, other than an argument that WP:BATTLE applies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I accept the research base for bilateral stimulation alone is of low quality, and now some 10+ years old. I note the scientists involved seem to have moved on to other areas.JCJC777 (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

There has been a flurry of edits to this page in response to my proposal to merge it with EMDR. I don't see the new sources adding up to evidence that Bilateral Stimulation (BS) is anything more than a subheading of EMDR. The recent editors are engaging in Original Research and, ironically, making my case for me by trying to connect the dots between mood, hemisphere cooperation, and a wide range of stimuli alternating between the left and the right. In short, all their Original Research is an attempt to validate EMDR. If that's the case, then this is further evidence for a MERGE or deletion. In order to argue for an independent BS article, one would need to show significant discussion of BS, outside of an EMDR context. Discussion of eye saccade is not that. Those sources would belong on this page. Saccade. Discussion of how the hemispheres interact and affect mood would also not be that. That would be a sources for this page. Lateralization of brain function. The question is not does BS exists. Of course it does. When you walk, you have BS. When you have both eyes or both ears working you have BS. In fact, it's hard to find moments in which a human body has Mono-lateral stimulation. The question is not "is there some research of various types of stimulation that occur alternating left and right?" again this is a truism. The question is: are there WP:RS that discuss BS outside of the EMDR context. Do they discuss BS as a thing? I haven't had time to read all the new sources, so please LMK which sources make that case. Hit me with your best source. And then, the most critical test: Can you write a definition of BS that would match what appears on this page without mentioning EMDR? The current definition is itself an argument for deleting this page, as it fails on notability. "Bilateral stimulation is the use of visual, auditory, or tactile external stimuli occurring in a rhythmic side-to-side pattern." Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

thanks DolyaIskrina.

I would argue;

Saccade is general jumping around of eyes. BS is very specific bilateral movement.

Like comparing random Brownian motion with a straight line. Not the same.

BS is used in EMDR yes, but always attached to recalling traumatic memories. Not as a pure practice.

Like comparing a piece of instrumental music with a song with lyrics. Not the same.

Who knows, in time, we may find that BS is the active ingredient in EMDR and the rest will drop away.

Like comparing caffeine with coffee.

Not the same.

Your desire to simplify may choke off the potential here for exploration.

Best wishes

JCJC777 JCJC777 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s. I'm in no way trying to defend EMDR. Au contraire. I'm interested in people seeing what pure BS is and may give - separate from EMDR and :as a practice in it's own right. JCJC777 (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your personal opinions appear to be the sole drive for this. If that's not the case, provide references as requested. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

refs already provided, JCJC777 (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You've not identified anything on this talk page beyond your personal opinions. If you want us to think this is something other than your personal opinion, identify the references and quote them. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

each statement I added had a reference JCJC777 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

each statement I added in the actual article JCJC777 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess you don't care to demonstrate that it's anything but OR then. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

surely there are many research refs in the article which do not even mention EMDR. Here is one example: https://emdria.omeka.net/items/show/18478 JCJC777 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I'm wondering if you're just trolling us. That's a study presented at an EMDR conference. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

yes but the study itself has no connection with EMDR.

here's another one; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278262609000438?via%3Dihub JCJC777 (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

apologies that one is for saccadic but not necessarily bilateral movement. here's one; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278262612001388?via%3Dihub JCJC777 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

JCJC777 Several points: 1) Some of our disagreement seems to be coming from your desire to have the Encyclopedia provide services that it is not intended to. I really should post this part on your User Talk, but if you are a new user that can seem like an aggressive move at first, so I'll ask you again to please read WP:MEDRS. Specifically, please note the bolded text from WP:MEDRS below:

"Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine. [...} Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials."

All the sources you have proposed here in Talk are primary, and so probably should be cut. 2) What definition would you propose for this BS page? The current definition is a non-definition, which despite being vague, still doesn't cover the sources you have added to the page. Most of your sources don't involve external stimuli. And the most recent and powerful sources find the least effect. None of which should be used unless we can find SECONDARY reviews. (I know there have been some book pages added, but I haven't had time to track those down. They look like WP:SYNTH, because they do not refer to the words "BS" specifically. Instead they seem to be talking about cerebral hemispheric connectivity and interaction. Only through synth can BS be connected to hemispheric interaction.). Here is the definition that I think would fit the sources we have, but this definition amounts to an argument for deleting the page. So clearly we have a problem.

"Bilateral Stimulation is a technique of alternating left right repetitive behavior or auditory stimulation, first developed by EMDR practitioners, subsequently examined by a few researchers with increasingly null results for hypothesized mood, memory and cerebral hemispheric effects."

DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

DolyaIskrina thank you for your patient and good message, and I apologise for not having previously researched wiki rules and disciplines properly. I'm going to reflect on my purposes and methods ref. my wiki editing overall. Meanwhile ref this article please do entirely as you see fit (I am entirely relaxed if you delete the page etc.). JCJC777 (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s. looks like this article is being read 65/day. (I can't see how many are coming from the EMDR page?). seems vandalism to wilfully prevent those humans having access to possibly helpful information for them. JCJC777 (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org JCJC777 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

JCJC, I doubt I've read the sources as carefully as you, especially the books that haver been cited. What specifically is the helpful information that you hope visitors to this page will get? Does my proposed definition cover that? And why wouldn't it be possible to include that on the EMDR page? My reading of the sources is that it is eye movement specifically that has the strongest claims for therapeutic use. Bilateral Stimulation, as I've said above, is such a broad term that it loses meaning. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi

the helpful information is the concept that bilateral stimulation may have beneficial effects on its own (without needing to be in the EMDR environment).

I also feel your definition is harsh. I'd suggest

'subsequently examined by a few researchers with increasingly null results for hypothesized mood, memory and cerebral hemispheric effects'

change to

'subsequently examined by a few researchers for mood, memory and cerebral hemispheric effects."

best wishes JCJC777 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw a phrase about wiki's purpose to "document" areas of human activity. I feel this article is doing that. JCJC777 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Synthesis or not?

I can't tell if the literature connects the following dots the way the recent edits of this article have. 1) BS might affect hemispheric interaction 2) sub-optimum hemispheric interaction is associated with bad mood, hence 3) BS can improve mood. Can anyone find this in the sources? If not, we need to cut those studies that are purely about mood and hemispheric interaction without mention BS, and also we should cut the suggestion that BS affects mood independently of EMDR. To better understand what synthesis is, please read Wikipedia:SYNTH DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)