Gmi PDF

Graded Motor Imagery
Sam Steinfeld, physiotherapist

Centric Health Sports Therapy and Wellness
Centre
NOI Canadian Faculty
Steinfeld, 2015 1
• Introduction and Definitions:
– Graded motor imagery (GMI) evolved as a
treatment approach born from the growing
understanding of the underlying
neuroplasticity of complex pain states such as
phantom limb pain and CRPS (Moseley 2006)
– The term “graded motor imagery” broadly
means that in rehabilitation the focus is
placed on synaptic exercise and health.
Steinfeld, 2015 2
• Introduction and Definitions (cont’d):
– The exercising of synapses assumes that the brain is
changeable and easily adaptable and gives hope to
people with difficult pain states.
– It involves the use of:
• Computers
• Flashcards
• Imagined movements
• Education
• Mirror visual feedback
• A lot of time and hard work!
Steinfeld, 2015 3
Smudging
• What is it?
– Smudge:
• Usually area of brain representation
gets bigger
– Shrink:
• Severe CRPS and phantoms shrink
• Known to occur throughout the
brain.
• Especially in sensory and motor
cortices
• also M1, thalamus and spinal cord
representations alter
Steinfeld, 2015 4
•Precious information:
smudging/brain changes are normal
• Occurs as a normal
part of life
– Musicians
– blind persons
Steinfeld, 2015 •eg. Elbert T et al (1998) Neuroreport 9: 3571 5

Numerous injury states have been studied
Phantom limb
pain as the
great leveler
Steinfeld, 2015 6
Smudging/brain changes in pain states

• Phantom limb stories
• Some correlations with pain level and
chronicity
• Syndactyly stories
• Probably immune related
•Juottonen K et al 2002 Pain 98: 315

•Milligan ED et al 2003 The Journal of Neuroscience 23: 1036
•Flor H. 2000 Progress in Brain Research, 129
•Stavrinou et al 2006 Cerebral Cortex
Steinfeld, 2015 7
“Smudging”
Steinfeld, 2015 8
Re organisation caused by many factors
– Unmasking and sprouting. Chen et al (2002) Neuroscience 111(4):

761-773
– Change in recruitment patterns. Sacco et al (2006) NeuroImage 32:
1441-1449
– Change in membrane excitability. Sohn et al (2003) J Neurophysiol
90: 2303-2309
– Altered neuroimmune response
• Altered neuromatrix!
Steinfeld, 2015 9
• Cortical reorganisation in S1 and other areas -
Smudging
10
Steinfeld, 2015 •(Flor 2002)
•Acute CRPS – Sensitisation?
•1.8 cm •D1
•normal
•D5
•0.9 cm
•CRPS
Steinfeld, 2015 •(Maihofner et al. 2003 Neurology 61:1707-1715) 11

Low Back Pain – sensitisation & disinhibition?
Steinfeld, 2015 • (Flor et al 1997 Neurosci Lett 224: 5-8) 12

LBP – Altered neurotag?
Experiential/perceptual change?
•Moseley 2008 Pain

140:239-243
Steinfeld, 2015 13
– The strategies in the GMI program are:
• Laterality Reconstruction (Implicit Motor Imagery)
– Restoration of the accuracy and speed of identifying
whether a picture or actual body part is a right or left part
of the body, or identifying if the body part is turned to the
right or the left (as in the neck for example)
• Motor Imagery (Explicit Motor Imagery)
– Watching and imagining movements and postures which
are progressively more complex and contextually
variable
• Mirror Therapy
– The use of a mirror to present a reverse image of a limb
to the brain
Steinfeld, 2015 14
– ‘Graded’ broadly refers to a sequential process of
laterality reconstruction, motor imagery and mirror
therapy and the need to provide graded exposure to
the body representations in the brain, rather than
body tissue.
– The concept of GMI relies on basic sciences and
some clinical studies. It is still a very “young”
technique.
– There are no “recipes” and its use requires strong
clinical reasoning skills.
– There are some neuroscience basics which underpin
its use (neuromatrix paradigm, neuroplasticity, mirror
neurones).
Steinfeld, 2015 15
• Graded Exposure and Application to GMI:
– Graded exposure:
• Graded activity is generally based on predefined
quota of activity and will include specific exercises
depending on the person’s functional capacity.
• Positive reinforcement is given when someone

reaches a desired goal.
Steinfeld, 2015 16
– Graded exposure (cont’d):
• Exposure in vivo is considered more of a
cognitive process in which the person challenges
the expected fear or catastrophic thinking expected
with a certain task (eg. pain with bending over).
• This type of approach is commonly used with the
management of phobias.
• A fear hierarchy is established and the different
components of that stimulus considered and
challenged (Leeuw et al, 2008; Vlaeyen et al,
2002).
Steinfeld, 2015 17
– Graded exposure (cont’d):
• Graded exposure requires identification of both
physical and contextual fear-related challenges.
• It therefore combines the principles of both

graded activity and exposure in vivo.
Steinfeld, 2015 18
– Novel and traditional rehabilitation strategies:
• Graded exposure concepts are critical for
functional restoration.
• With careful questioning, a patient may be able to
come up with a hierarchy of threatening activities.
• These can be graded to allow us to breakdown the
fear of these movements and slip in under the
radar of the pain neurotag.
• This has been done experimentally with low back
pain (Leeuw et al, 2008) but the principle can be
applied to any clinical state.
Steinfeld, 2015 19
– Novel and traditional rehabilitation strategies (cont’d):
• Variation in these attributes of rehabilitation are not
interdependent.
• The patient may be performing motor imagery to a
very high level of threat using all the emotional
loading that can be applied, yet be performing
active movements in a very safe and secure
environment at the same time.
Steinfeld, 2015 20
“Traditional” Rehab. Strategies:
• Do part of movement but don’t involve painful part
• Do part of movement involving painful part
• Do larger movements
• Increase number
• Increase resistance
• Add equipment
• Cross midline
Steinfeld, 2015 21
“Novel” Rehab. Strategies:
• Utilize premotor association areas
• Watch static position
• Imagine static position
• Watch active movement
• Imagine active movement
• Mirror
Steinfeld, 2015 22
– Contextualization:
• Any task can be broken down into parts.
• A simple way of doing this is to consider a more
physical aspect and a contextual component.
• For each level of task, context can be varied.
• Therefore, an identical movement could be
represented by different neural populations
depending on the context.
Steinfeld, 2015 23
– Contextualization (cont’d):
• Contextual option examples:
– Threat and threatening equipment
– Vision
– Emotion
– ‘non-contaminated’ representations
– Meaning
– Expectation
– Place
– Distraction
– Gravity
– Balance
– Sliders
– Metaphors
– Knowledge
• Contextualization, where possible, can be used for all
components of the graded motor imagery process.
Steinfeld, 2015 24
•The sequence is important

•“graded” because of the sequence requirements and
the need of graded exposure (pacing) principles
•Laterality reconstruction
• Motor imagery
Steinfeld, 2015
•Mirror therapy 25
– Examples of grading the components of
exposure for GMI:
• Laterality (Implicit Motor Imagery) reconstruction:

– Number of images
– Speed of images
– Rotation of images
– Threat value of images
Steinfeld, 2015 26
exposure for GMI:
• Motor (Explicit) Imagery:

– Duration
– Complexity of mental imagery
Steinfeld, 2015 27
exposure for GMI:
• Mirror Feedback:
– Duration
– Complexity of mirror action
Steinfeld, 2015 28
exposure for GMI:
• Active Movement:
– R.O.M.
– Repetitions
– Resistance
Steinfeld, 2015 29
• Laterality (Implicit) Reconstruction:
– Body neurosignature:
• There are representations of the body within the
spinal cord, thalamic and cortical structures which
have a role in guidance of imagined and actual
movements.
• This is the body neurosignature.
• Melzacks’ Neuromatrix describes the self, distinct
from others and the world.
• There may be a genetic basis sculpted by life
experiences (nature and nurture).
Steinfeld, 2015 30
– Body neurosignature (cont’d):
• Modified by observation of others-mirror neuron
system (Rizzolati et al, 2009)
• Modified by tool use-increases influence of body.
• Modified by experience-skill acquisition such as
musical instruments and using Braille increase the
representation of the hand.
• Nociceptive barrage or deafferentation also alter
the representations of S1 and S2 (Acerra et al,
2007, Flor, 2003,2008).
Steinfeld, 2015 31
– Laterality recognition:
• It is the ability to select whether a presented image
of a limb is left or right sided.
• The reaction time (RT) for laterality recognition can
be measured and is proportional to the angular
position of the limb.
• A response requires:
– Initial selection of a left or right limb
– Then mental spatial transformation to confirm choice
• As such, the spatial transformations are
constrained by biomechanical principals and
require an intact body representation.
Steinfeld, 2015 32
Laterality (Implicit) Reconstruction
Steinfeld, 2015 Butler & Moseley, et al., 2012 33

Laterality (Implicit)
Reconstruction
Steinfeld, 2015 Butler & Moseley, et al., 2012 34

•Focal hand dystonia shows changes in
implicit motor imagery
•(Fiorio 2006 Brain

129: 47-54)
Steinfeld, 2015 35
•Slower on affected side in CRPS
Steinfeld, 2015
•(Moseley 2004) 36
•What about back pain?
•(Bray & Moseley 2010

•Br J Sports Med Epub)
Steinfeld, 2015 37
Laterality Reconstruction (Implicit Motor Imagery):
•What is normal?
•Accuracy of 80% and above

•A speed of 1.6 sec quite normal for backs and necks
•Hands and feet a little slower at 2.0 sec
•Patient results should remain fairly stable so they don’t fade out
with stress and are consistent for at least a week
•Judgemnt needs to be made on the personal relevancy of the
responses eg. minor discrepencies in someone with severe pain
Steinfeld, 2015 38
• Laterality Reconstruction:
– Laterality reconstruction as treatment:
• Limb laterality recognition activates premotor
(association) cortices, not primary motor
cortex.
• Imagined movements activate both (Moseley
et al, 2008), allowing a basis to the GMI
progression.
• Techniques:
– Recognize Online
– Magazines
– Flash Cards
Steinfeld, 2015 – Contextualize 39
– Digital Cameras
Implicit Motor Imagery Explicit Motor Imagery

(left/right judgements): (Imagined Movements):
•You don’t know you are mentally •You know you are mentally
moving moving
•Premotor cells modify primary •Primary motor cells are activated
motor cells without activating them
•Less likely to activate the pain •More likely to activate the pain
neurotag neurotag
Steinfeld, 2015 40
– Response times and pain:
• RT’s are known to be slower in CRPS1 (Moseley, 2004).
• The delay in RT is proportional to both the duration of
symptoms and the predicted pain related to adopting the
hand position.
• Phantom limb pain has also shown changes in laterality
recognition (Nico et al, 2004), however, the picture is less
clear.
• There may be RT changes depending on different variables
such as limb dominance and use of prostheses.
Steinfeld, 2015 41
– Response times and pain (cont’d):
• In acute experimental pain (Moseley et al, 2005) and
expectation of pain (Hudson et al, 2006) there is delayed
recognition of the opposite limb with no change to the
affected limb.
• This shows that the slower RTs found in patients with chronic
pain are unlikely to be due to nociceptive input.
• In acute experimental pain there is unlikely to be a disruption
in the representation.
• It also does not evoke protective premotor processes likely to
be present with a problem which is perceived as threatening
(ie. the volunteers know that the pain will go away!)
• It is likely to show an attentional bias towards the painful
side, making it more difficult to access the representation of
the unaffected limb.
Steinfeld, 2015 42
– Laterality reconstruction as treatment (cont’d)
• Let’s demonstrate the use of the Recognize Online program:
– Go to www.noigroup.com
– Then go to Recognize Online
– Then either:
» Try demo
» Log in if you are registered clinician license holder
» You can give patients a trial or 2 month paid license
» You can monitor their progress
» Patient must practice many times per day (think of it like
you would stroke rehab)
Steinfeld, 2015 43
•Recognise online
•Left and right body parts are presented
randomly in predetermined;
• numbers
• time
• context
Steinfeld, 2015 44
Steinfeld, 2015 45
Steinfeld, 2015 46
Steinfeld, 2015 47
Steinfeld, 2015 48
Steinfeld, 2015 49
Steinfeld, 2015 50
Steinfeld, 2015 51
– Motor Imagery (MI):
• The result of conscious access to the neurosignatures
representing intention, preparation, carrying out and
evaluation of a movement.
• There is a high degree of overlap in brain regions involved in
actual movements or imagined movements (essentially
imagining movements and postures).
• This is a kinaesthetic activation not a visual activation
meaning the patient must imagine themselves doing the
movement, not as an observer watching themselves do the
movement.
• It is likely that this will recruit mainly the broadly congruent
mirror neurons.
Steinfeld, 2015 52
– Watching movement and
imagining movement:
• Motor imagery has been around for
years. It is known to improve
performance in athletes.
• It is widely used for neurological
patients and can improve recovery
of motor function following stroke
(de Vries and Mulder, 2007).
• Mirror neurons are a clear target.
Steinfeld, 2015 53
– Watching movement and imagining
movement (cont’d):
• Imagined movements have been found to
increase both pain and swelling in a patient
with CRPS1 (Moseley et al, 2008).
• This demonstrates that just activating the
representation of the affected body part may
be sufficient to ignite the individual pain
neurotag.
• It also shows that it is important to progress
each stage only when appropriate.
Steinfeld, 2015 54
– Watching movement and imagining movement
(cont’d):
• Imagery technique and progression:
– Consider what it might feel like to have a body part in a
certain position (or watch another person)
– Consider what it might feel like to have a body part doing
a certain movement (or watch another person)
– Consider what it might be like to manipulate an object (or
watch another person)
– Consider what it is like to move like a certain person
– Watching may be ‘easier’ on the brain than thinking
about movement
Steinfeld, 2015 55
– Watching movement and imagining
movement (cont’d):
– Techniques:
» Recognize Online
» Picture books
» Movies
» People
» Work
Steinfeld, 2015 56
– Watching movement and imagining movement
(cont’d):
– Progression:
» imagine smooth, gentle movement of the body part
» Increase ROM
» Increase speed
» Bring in functional movement
» Increasing muscle activity
» Use tools
» Environmental context
» Social context
Steinfeld, 2015 57
What else could you include?
• Should there be some cues e.g. Descriptions, sounds,
memories?
• Can I use relaxation and meditation in conjunction

with MI? (Nunes et al (2007) J of Psychosomatic Research 63: 647-
655)
• What about the environment? (Sale et al (2009) Trends in

Neurosciences 32(4): 233-239)
• Writing and imagining “Best Possible Self” (Hanssen et al

– Pain 2013)
Contextual change & graded exposure

Steinfeld, 2015 58
• Mirror Therapy:
– Mirror therapy:
• The use of a mirror to present the reverse image of a limb to
the brain thus “tricking” the brain.
Steinfeld, 2015 59
• Mirror Therapy:
– Mirror practicalities:
• Below are some general suggestions for use:
– Mirror therapy can be done for hands and feet.easily
– Be guided by a clinician who understands brain function.
– Presuming no jewellery on the affected side, remove
wrist watches and rings. Try and make a total illusion.
– Depending on the pain and disability state, decide on an
appropriate activity(ies) to perform:
» Just looking at the mirror image to finger movements
» Taking weight through the hand
– The more severe the problem (eg. CRPS) a small
amount of movement performed often may be more
Steinfeld, 2015 60
appropriate.
• Mirror Therapy:
– Mirror practicalities (cont’d):
• Below are some general suggestions for use:
– Feel comfortable with selected movements ie. ‘conquer
the movement’ before progressing to more challenging
movement.
– Once you feel comfortable with a movement, try and
perform it in a different context (eg. With a song in your
head, emotions).
– Take care, if either hand hurts or sweats then you may
have gone too far.
– Take the painful limb into or just short of pain and then
take the good limb further.
Steinfeld, 2015 61
• Mirror Therapy:
– Mirror progressions:
• Look at hand
• Turn hand up and down via arm
• Flatten hand
• Flatten hand and take weight
• Move individual fingers
• Thumb to fingers
• Tapping fingers
• Increasing muscle activity
• Use tools
• Introduce clinicians hand
• Move the hand in the box
Steinfeld, 2015 62
• Mirror therapy:
– Dysynchiria:
• If assessing the sensory perception of someone
suffering CRPS using a mirror, it is frequent to find
this phenomenon during which the person feels the
perception of pain or pins and needles in their
hidden, affected limb whilst looking at their virtual
limb being tested in the mirror (Acerra and
Moseley, 2005).
• Interestingly this doesn’t seem to affect people with
other neuropathic pain states (Kraemer et al,
2008).
Steinfeld, 2015 63
• Does It Work?
– The clinical reality: Science to the clinic:
• In most recent randomized controlled trials, GMI
package has demonstrated good effect for
reducing pain and disability in CRPS1 (Moseley
2004, 2005) and CRPS1, phantom limb pain and
brachial plexus avulsion pain (Moseley, 2006)
• In a recent systematic review, it is the only
recommended physical therapy modality for
CRPS1 (Daly and Bialocerkowsi, 2008).
Steinfeld, 2015 64
• Does it Work?
– The clinical reality: Science to the clinic
(cont’d):
• Some aspects of GMI (mirror feedback) have also
been separately examined with CRPS:
– McCabe et al (2003, 2008) found benefit with acute

presentations of the syndrome but no benefit or
worsening of pain in more chronic states.
Steinfeld, 2015 65
• Does it Work?
– The clinical reality: Science to the clinic (cont’d):
• Moseley (2006) examined the sequential order of GMI and
found laterality training to have a positive benefit on pain and
function, imagery had a positive benefit when following
laterality, mirror exercises had a positive benefit when
following imagery – but a negative effect if following laterality.
• CRPS and phantom limb pain are severe neuropathic pain
states. It would seem that the GMI process would be
beneficial for other pain states such as overuse syndromes:
– Focal dystonia
– Repetitive Strain Injury
– Cumulative Trauma Disorder
– Various arthritic syndromes
Steinfeld, 2015 66
• Does it Work?
– Some general anecdotal comments:
• About 20% of CRPS patients do not respond to GMI –
perhaps more if you consider that some trying the strategies
may have had CRPS for some years and have it in 2 or 3
limbs.
• There appear to be occasional ‘resettings’ with mirrors or
laterality.
• Stress may influence outcomes.
• Although no data, suggest good neurobiology education is
required. This could include neuromatrix discussions.
• May help with performance eg. In elite sports.
• It is not unusual to mix up treatment approaches as long as
the laterality is intact ie. when laterality is reasonably equal
and when the changes are being maintained.
Steinfeld, 2015 67
• Does it Work?
– Some general anecdotal comments (cont’d):
• Elements of all components of GMI could be used in the
initial assessment of the patient with a complex problem:
– Could Recognize be used to pick up inaccuracies and reduced
response times (currently being studied with neck laterality)?
– What about the use of mirrors in an initial assessment?
– Is 2 point discrimination a routine part of evaluation for complex
pain states?
• These assessments may help to support a hypothesis of
central processing changes and an altered virtual body.
– This will guide the clinician to the appropriate course
of treatment.
Steinfeld, 2015 68
References
• Acerra, N.E., Souvlis, T. & Moseley, G.L. (2007) Stroke, complex regional pain syndrome
and phantom limb pain: can commonalities direct future management? J Rehabil Med,
39(2), 109-114.
• Butler, D. S. and G. L. Moseley (2003). Explain Pain. NOI Publications. Adelaide
• Butler, D.S. and G.L. Moseley, et al. (2012) The Graded Motor Imagery Handbook. NOI
Publications. Adelaide
• de Vries, S. & Mulder, T. (2007) Motor imagery and stroke rehabilitation: a critical
discussion. J Rehabil Med, 39(1), 5-13.
• Flor, H. (2000). The functional organization of the brain in chronic pain. Progress in Brain
Research, Vol 129. J. Sandkühler, B. Bromm and G. F. Gebhart. Amsterdam, Elsevier.
• Flor, H. (2008) Maladaptive plasticity, memory for pain and phantom limb pain: review and
suggestions for new therapies. Expert Rev Neurother, 8(5), 809-818.
• Flor, H., Nikolajsen, L., Jensen, T.S. (2006) Phantom limb pain: a case of maladaptive CNS
plasticity? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7: 873-881
• Hudson, M.L. et al. (2006) Expectation of pain replicates the effect of pain in a hand
laterality recognition task: bias in information processing toward the painful side? Eur J
Pain, 10(3), 219-224.
• Krämer, H.H., Seddigh, S., Moseley, G.L. et al. (2008) Dysynchiria is not a common feature
of neuropathic pain. European Journal of Pain, 12, 128-131.
• Leeuw, M. et al. (2008) Exposure in vivo versus operant graded activity in chronic low back
pain patients: results of a randomized controlled trial. Pain, 138(1), 192-207.
• Melzack, R. (1999). "From the gate to the neuromatrix." Pain Suppl 6: S121-S126.
• Moseley, G. L. (2003a). "A pain neuromatrix approach to rehabilitation of chronic pain
patients." Man Ther 8: 130-140.
• Moseley, G. L. (2004). "Graded motor imagery is effective for long standing complex
regional pain syndrome." Pain 108: 192-198.
• Moseley, G.L. (2004b) Imagined movements cause pain and swelling in a patient with
complex regional pain syndrome. Neurology, 62, 1644-1647
Steinfeld, 2015 69
References
• Moseley, G. L., P. W. Hodges, et al. (2004). "Evidence for a direct relationship between
cognitive and physical change during an education intervention in people with chronic low
back pain." European Journal of Pain 8: 39-45.
• Moseley, G. L. (2005). "Is successful rehabilitation of complex regional pain syndrome due
to sustained attention to the affected limb." Pain 114: 54-61.
• Moseley, G. L. (2006). "Graded motor imagery for pathologic pain." Neurology 67: 1-6.
• Moseley, G.L. (2007) Reconceptualising pain according to modern pain science. Physical
Therapy Reviews, 12, 169-178.
• Moseley, G.L. (2008) I can't find it! Distorted body image and tactile dysfunction in patients
with chronic back pain. Pain, 140(1), 239-243.
• Moseley, G.L. et al. (2008) Thinking about movement hurts: The effect of motor imagery on
pain and swelling in people with chronic arm pain. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 59(5), 623-
631.
• Nico, D. et al. (2004) Left and right hand recognition in upper limb amputees. Brain, 127 (1),
120-132.
• Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., and Gallese, V., (2006) Mirrors of the mind. Sci Am 295: 54-61.
• Sumitani, M. et al. (2008) Mirror visual feedback alleviates deafferentation pain, depending
on qualitative aspects of the pain: a preliminary report. Rheumatology, 47, 1038-1043.
• Tecchio, F., L. Padua, et al. (2002). "Carpal tunnel syndrome modifies sensory hand cortical
somatotopy: a MEG study." Human Brain Mapping 17: 28-36.
• Tsakiris, M. & Haggard, P. (2005) The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration
and self-attribution. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 31(1), 80-91
• Woolf, C.J. Central sensitization: Implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain.
Pain (2010) Article in press.
Steinfeld, 2015 70
THANK YOU!!
QUESTIONS?
Steinfeld, 2015 71

Gmi PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gmi PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gmi PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Graded Motor Imagery

Sam Steinfeld, physiotherapist

Steinfeld, 2015 •eg. Elbert T et al (1998) Neuroreport 9: 3571 5

Smudging/brain changes in pain states

•Juottonen K et al 2002 Pain 98: 315

– Unmasking and sprouting. Chen et al (2002) Neuroscience 111(4):

Steinfeld, 2015 •(Maihofner et al. 2003 Neurology 61:1707-1715) 11

Steinfeld, 2015 • (Flor et al 1997 Neurosci Lett 224: 5-8) 12

•Moseley 2008 Pain

• Positive reinforcement is given when someone

• It therefore combines the principles of both

•The sequence is important

• Laterality (Implicit Motor Imagery) reconstruction:

• Motor (Explicit) Imagery:

Steinfeld, 2015 Butler & Moseley, et al., 2012 33

Steinfeld, 2015 Butler & Moseley, et al., 2012 34

•(Fiorio 2006 Brain

•(Bray & Moseley 2010

•Accuracy of 80% and above

Implicit Motor Imagery Explicit Motor Imagery

• Can I use relaxation and meditation in conjunction

• What about the environment? (Sale et al (2009) Trends in

• Writing and imagining “Best Possible Self” (Hanssen et al

Contextual change & graded exposure

– McCabe et al (2003, 2008) found benefit with acute

You might also like