Dear Prof Henderson:
I am really delighted to be participating in an active conversation with a
scholar of your stature; I have read several of your publications and follow
your ongoing work as something to look up.
I must say I am most surprised by your comments and would invite you to
elaborate on what exactly you would consider as scholarly activity. I am
sincerely interested in how activities of several academic researchers
including myself, in relation to NLP, fit to that. As noted implicitly in my
previous post, it is our acknowledgement of lack of past academic research
from the creators of NLP that drives us and our work.
Dear Charles:
Thanks for the elaborate post. A couple of points:
- First of all, anyone interested in NLP would be interested to look at
http://www.nlpresearch.org - the links and materials there are very
informative with regards to the current state of academic research in NLP.
- Even though SoM references surface and deep structure from Chomsky, there
is little correlation between the two uses. i.e. what Chomsky means by
surface/deep structure is quite different to what Bandler/Grinder meant.
- As a word of caution, Heap's review only reports the results of the
relevant research and makes no critique on their methodology, which is
something I addressed with my presentation at the 1st International NLP
Research Conference at the University of Surrey. He also includes
unpublished work and non-peer-reviewed publications.
- The EAC model is idiosyncratic and that is all that has ever been claimed
from the original authors. They provided a diagram in Frogs Into Princes
about the model that they believe fits most (?%) right-handed people but
it's done more bad than good in my opinion because everybody believes the
diagram = the model.
- Parts of NLP are or are quickly becoming outdated, which is what the NLP
Research Conference is about. There are people out there, like myself, that
are trying to a) link NLP to academic research b) further NLP. See link
above.
- Most, if not all, claims that NLP's EAC model is a lie-detector tool
amongst other things come from unreliable sources. None of the popular NLP
authors have ever claimed that to my knowledge. These unreliable sources,
without going too much into detail, they assume that Visual Construction =
Lie, which is FALSE! It is possible to detect lying with NLP but it's much
more complicated than eye-movements alone - there was a link with an
elaborate explanation but I can't find it right now. It basically involves
careful calibration (body language, including EMs) of Yes and No answers.
It's unfortunate there are several websites that have since copied this
false claim.
Apologies to all - I promised to include my abstract in my last post but I
missed doing so:
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF PAST RESEARCH INTO THE NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING
EYE-ACCESSING CUES MODEL
The Neuro-Lingustic Programming (NLP) Eye-Accessing Cues (EAC) model
suggests that there is a correlation between eye-movements and the internal
processing mode that people employ whilst accessing their subjective
experience (Bandler and Grinder, 1975).
Since its introduction in 1975, the EAC model has been investigated by
several researchers with at least 6 out of 10 studies clearly reporting
unsupportive results.
It is customary to revisit these studies because as we will show, upon
careful examination, the respective experimental methodologies were based on
assumptions informed by an incomplete or erroneous understanding of the EAC
model that could have significantly influenced the experimental results. The
reliability of results can be further impacted by the absence of modern
eye-tracking equipment to support the inherently complex task of reliably
recording, selecting and rating eye-positions.
Given that eye-movement research from other fields does not directly prove
or disprove the EAC model, we will argue that there is substantial ground
for further research.
Thus, we will revisit the past research and critically review it in detail,
while highlighting the strengths and weaknesses that should inform future
research in the EAC model. Additionally, we will present recent non-NLP
eye-movement research, including Eye-Movement Desensi-tisation and
Reprocessing (EMDR), and discuss its relevancy to and implications for the
EAC model. We will also discuss recent neuroscience findings related to
sensory representations.
Future research on the EAC model has substantial challenges to face: a) the
difficulty in vali-dating the subject's internal experience b) the
challenges in recording the appropriate eye-movement (several internal
processes may be triggered by the elicitation) and thus, c) the in-tricacy
of defining a standardized methodology that can be successfully replicated
for every subject, without deviance. Moreover, the EAC model itself is not
fully documented in any one reference.
Both the challenges and requirements for further experimental research will
be discussed.
Best wishes,
Georgios Diamantopoulos
Doctoral Researcher
University of Birmingham, UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Willock [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 August 2008 21:03
Subject: (long) Re: [EM_LIST] Benefit of eyetracking to speech, muscle
activity and brain waves.
I agree that some controversy has surrounded both EMDR and NLP
however, as with Georgios post it would be disappointing if the
scientifically interesting aspects of both were ignored just because
of popular over-extension (in the case opf NLP) or (perhaps more
in the case of EMDR) because the proposed theoretical underpinnings
don't seem to withstand close scrutiny.
NLP is popularly presented in a couple of ways. As a marketing /
selling tool "how to get people to buy (more) stuff". Another common
representation is as a crime-investigating, eye-movement-watching,
deception-detecting tool. While there is some element of truth in
those perspectives neither really do it justice.
A better way of understanding NLP can be gained from considering its
origins. My apologies in advance for the deviation into linguistics -
the justification for doing so (and its relevance to EM and HCI) will
become apparent.
Put simply: (i) take an expert in a field (in the case of NLP,
therapy), (ii) analyse and model in detail what they say and how they
interact and (iii) identify the canonical characteristics of their
technique(s). For NLP those essential characteristics are linguistic
and subsequently EM.
How successful/useful the results are then becomes, inter alia,
a matter of:
o. how well the interaction model matches reality (Ashby/requisite
variety if cybernetics is your thing).
o. how representative/relevant the expert (or, in the case of
NLP, the experts) as model(s) of the intended application.
o. how skilful are the expert(s)
o. the nature and quality of the analysis.
o. usability/ease of application
The first and second-last aspects in particular deserve further
examination.
NLP is based on linguistic analysis using Chomsky's Transformational (*)
Grammar (TG) and that, as list members may know, has been
shifting/improving with time (by Chomsky and others) to Government and
Binding theory and more recently competing with other models often
incorporating different levels of pragmatics and semantics.
(*) FWIW, here "transformational" refers to linguistic transformations
not psychological ones.
If the purpose is to provide an accurate synthesis/generative tool for
applications such as text translation (which might more properly be
termed CHI rather than HCI) then some kind of heavy duty generalised
phrase structure grammar might be desirable. On the other hand, if
behavioural modelling of human interaction in casual speech
translation is required then some kind og functional systemic
linguistics (eg Halliday's) or some similar functional approach
incorporating aspects of pragmatics, semantics and semiotics might
well be preferred.
Although relatively simple, Transformational Grammar as explained by
John Grinder (the linguist of NLP) in 'Structure of Magic-I' provides
a useful introduction into linguistic transformations in English (in
essence, how parts of sentences can be swapped around yet still convey
pretty much the same meaning). SoM-I also provides a valuable
explanation of the concepts of surface, deep structures (and its later
extension to S-Structure/D-Structure) and presuppositions
Understanding "structures" and presuppositions can be important in
semantics of computer-human interaction.
A second characteristic of NLP is the modelling of cognitive
processing along sensory (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) lines. Some
users also add a joint taste-and-smell channel and a self-talk
(audio-internal) channel. The suggestion is that one can categorise
people by listening to their preferred language usage (so if they use
language such as "do you see what I mean?" then that would distinguish
them as "V" (visual) rather than (A) auditory "do you hear what I'm
saying", and (K) "does that feel right for you".
There is some kind of reasonableness in relating sensory preference to
the words people use - if you are a painter you use visual/seeing type
words, if you are into sound you use hearing type words. The concept
seems to work well enough for example with learning styles (Howard Gardner
amongst others).
So what's with NLP and eye-movement?
In the standard interpretation, a person remembering things in a
visual mode (ie visualising an actual event) would look up and to
their left, while if they looked up (V mode) and to their right (Vc)
they would be visualising a "c"onstructed memory (ie visually
accessing or at least filling in, imagined content). More detail
can be found at one of the many websites such as:
http://www.nlp-now.co.uk/eye_accessing.htm
What seems to be uncertain is
o. why (even if those EM patterns do show for the primary
sensory modes) would a set of "constructed" ones show
differentiated patterns.
o. why all subjects would show the same EM patterns.
Also, purely from channel bandwidth and competition for eye access
considerations it seems unlikely that a set of just six eye-movement
patterns could account for (or reveal) all cognitive processing.
Incidently, the NLP Representational system Wiki indicates that NLP
people don't always require the standard pattern (see eye access
diag ... although I'm not sure why they make that claim)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_systems_(NLP)
Also worth looking at a provisional analysis (circa 1985)
http://www.mheap.com/nlp1.pdf
at what parts work (or not as the case may be).
What is potentially scientifically interesting is
o. using computer recognition and suitable classifiers
some kind of "individual sensory processing modes" might
be recognisable (regardless of whether they correspond
to the current models or not)
o. it may be possible to denurgle the "sensory processing mode"
patterns from the other eye accessing behaviour
That's nowhere as simple as a one model fits all solution, but it
might be more realistic.
On the other hand, such experimentation would be dealing with higher
level behaviour and involves more intangibles such as the meaning of
processing, mood and emotion or other suprasegmental parameters. The
equipment might be simpler (eg may only need to detect gross eye movements
but the interpretation might be more complex.
EMDR is interesting in a different way, and it is worth looking at
Francine Shapiro's original book (Eye Movement De-sensitisation and
Reprogramming) to understand its origins. As of 2004, US government
guidelines approve it as a preferred treatment for some kind of
management of post-traumatic stress.
http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=5187 (search for
EMDR)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_Movement_Desensitization_and_Reprocessing
http://www.skepdic.com/emdr.html
Shapiro's appears to have highlighted an important observation.
However, since that involves inconsistent patterns of eye-movement
(non-cohesive in the Halliday-Hasan linguistic sense or even disjunctive)
this suggests that EM experiments might well give "inconsistent" or
quite ideosynchratic results. Explaining those results and especially
explaining how they are resolved for individuals with traumatic memories
could be particularly valuable.
(Shapiro suggests re-integration via something akin to REM sleep as an
analog but the validity of that may be questionable especially as
it appears that the same results can be achieved by similar pattern
"re-integration" without involving the eyes).
Certainly read the popular expositions of NLP and EMDR on the web if
you are that way inclined, including the Bandler and Grinder wikis and
the skeptical assessment at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bandler
http://www.skepdic.com/neurolin.html
but maybe worth keeping one's mind open at least until reading Grinder
and Bandler's original work (Structure of Magic: A Book about Language
and Therapy ... and Structure of Magic II) ... while being aware of what
they were trying to achieve ... along with the constraints of the times.
Cheers,
Charlesw
Bandler and Grinder [1975], "The Structure of Magic". 225 pp
Grinder and Bandler [1976], "The Structure of Magic II". 198 pp
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 12:58:45PM +0100, Georgios Diamantopoulos wrote:
> Dear Michael and other readers,
>
> It is the job of a scientist and academic to cast his or her genuine
> curiosity on anything and everything.
> On that note, I'd like to point out that there is quite a lot of research
> especially on NLP as well as EMDR.
>
> Both models emerged without any academic-style research so, yes, they
> haven't followed "protocol".
>
> On the other hand, as academics tackle the same subjects, there is so far
> quite some overlap.
>
> EMDR - has been shown to be effective (as effective or more than other
> exposure therapies), at least for particular subject groups. There is
> controversy over the eye-movement component; the current research suggests
> that they make exposure to traumatic memories tolerable so that therapy
can
> continue. The reason is unknown though there are a few theories out there
> and we also know it's not a distraction effect.
>
> NLP - various research items support ideas that are presented in NLP. E.g.
> rapport (mirror neurons, phi brainwaves etc), embodiment of experience and
> so on.
>
> My research is with regards to the eye-movement model of NLP. One of the
> unsubstantiated parts of NLP.
> It is quite clear from past research that eye-movements are correlated to
> mental processes, in some, unknown so far, way. If the mapping that NLP
> suggests has any "truth" in it, it is to be found.
>
> I can provide references for anyone interested on any of the above. Also,
I
> made a presentation at the First International NLP Research Conference at
> the University of Surrey, UK entitled " A CRITICAL REVIEW OF PAST RESEARCH
> INTO THE NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING EYE-ACCESSING CUES MODEL". Abstract
> attached below and slides with full references are available for
interested
> parties.
>
> Georgios Diamantopoulos
> Doctoral Researcher
> University of Birmingham, UK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael MacAskill [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 27 July 2008 22:19
> Subject: Re: Benefit of eyetracking to speech, muscle activity and brain
> waves.
>
> Dear All,
>
> I was under the impression that this was a list for discussions
> relevant to the science of eye movement control. I am therefore
> somewhat saddened when a genuine question is responded to with two
> pointers to what could (at best) be described as pseudo-science (eye
> movement desensitisation & reprogramming, and neurolinguistic
> programming). Will iridology be next?
>
> Peter, it would be useful to know more about what the specific goals
> of the system would be. Many of these measures (to which you could add
> galvanic skin response and heart rate if you are interested in
> emotion) are remarkably non-specific and their suitability can only
> really be assessed in relation to the specific purpose to which they
> are to be applied.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael MacAskill
>
>
>
> > In addition to coherence of information you may also wish to consider
> > understanding disjuction between EM and those other modes. Eg the
> > work
> > on EMDR and cognitive re-integration in cases of PTSD.
> >
> > http://www.emdr.com/
>
> > Hi Peter,
> > it might b of interest to check the kiterature on neurolinguistic
> > programming (NLP). THe NLP proponents maintain that they can interpret
> > some though content from eze gaze.
> >
> >> Hello dear eyetracking community,
> >>
> >> I am working in the ET area since two years now as a computer
> >> scientist in the field of HCI. I lately was asked what eyetracking
> >> could add for additonal information if a system collaborating with
> >> the human would measure his/her speech, muscle activity, and brain
> >> waves. Since I have only little knowledge especially concerning
> >> muscle
> >> activity and brain waves I had to admit that I am only guessing that
> >> the three measures mentioned "only" give hints concerning the
> >> emotional state of the human and that eyetracking of course could
> >> additionally give the clue where the human is looking, so where is
> >> his/her attention.
> >> I think that is the main point. But I am not sure to which extent the
> >> brain data already could provide this too. - Does anybody know the
> >> state of the art concerning this, how good this works and how great
> >> the effort is? Additionally of course eyetracking could contribute
> >> to the emotional state measurement using blink rate and pupillometric
> >> data and via the attention also on intention.
> >>
> >> That are my thoughts so far. I would be very pleased if someone could
> >> help me here to continue this interesting discussion, e.g. whether I
> >> missed some important points.
> >>
> >> Thank you in advance,
> >>
> >> kind regards,
> >>
> >> Peter.
>
>
> --
> Michael R. MacAskill, PhD [log in to unmask]
> Research Fellow
> Van der Veer Institute for Parkinson's & Brain Research
> University of Otago, Christchurch
> 66 Stewart St
> Christchurch Ph: +64 3 3786 072
> NEW ZEALAND Fax: +64 3 3786 080
>
> --
> EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
> N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
> To unsubscribe, etc. see
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
> Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
>
> --
> EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
> N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
> To unsubscribe, etc. see
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
> Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
"Creativity and innovation are measured not by what is done,
but by what could have been done ... but wasn't"
Disclaimer: http://www.eng.unsw.edu.au/emaildis.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Willock [log in to unmask]
c/- School of Computer Science and Engineering
University of New South Wales,
New South Wales Australia 2052 http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~charlesw
--
EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
To unsubscribe, etc. see
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
--
EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
To unsubscribe, etc. see http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
|