EMDR Explained: From Start to Finish in 8 Phases

EMDR (Eye‑Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) is an evidence‑based psychotherapy originally developed for PTSD. It helps people process and reduce the emotional intensity of traumatic memories by guiding them through distressing scenes while using structured techniques to support healing and adaptive integration.

Traditional talk therapy relies on verbal exploration, insight, and dialogue. EMDR instead integrates bilateral sensory input alongside memory recall.

Rather than relying on extensive discussion or prolonged exposure to the memory, EMDR pairs brief, targeted trauma activation with rhythmic stimulation to support processing.

Bilateral stimulation (BLS) means side-to-side eye movements, alternating taps, or alternating auditory tones. It is said to engage both hemispheres and support reprocessing.

BLS is thought to reduce emotional vividness and aid memory integration. Its precise mechanism is not fully understood.

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Always seek the advice of your physician, therapist, or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical or mental health condition. Never disregard professional advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this site.

8 phases of EMDR

EMDR therapy follows an eight-phase protocol that guides the client from initial assessment to follow-up evaluation (phases may overlap across sessions).

1. History-taking & Treatment Planning – Therapists gather background, build rapport, and plan trauma targets.
2. Preparation – Clients learn coping strategies and are introduced to bilateral stimulation.
3. Assessment – The specific memory is identified, along with associated thoughts, emotions, and measures like SUD and VOC scales.
4. Desensitization – Clients engage with the memory while bilateral stimulation (e.g., eye movements, tapping, sounds) is used to reduce distress.
5. Installation – Positive beliefs are strengthened to replace negative ones.
6. Body Scan – The client checks for residual physical tension linked to the memory.
7. Closure – The session is wrapped up with grounding to ensure the client returns to emotional equilibrium.
8. Reevaluation – At the start of each subsequent session, progress is assessed and treatment adjusted if needed.

Two self-rating scales run through these phases. The SUD scale (subjective units of disturbance) rates how distressing the memory feels right now, from 0 to 10. It is tracked through Desensitization.

The VOC scale (validity of cognition) rates how true a chosen positive belief feels, from 1 to 7. It is tracked during Installation.

A full course of treatment goes beyond one memory. Francine Shapiro’s three-pronged protocol sorts targets into three groups:

• Past: Earlier events that laid the foundation for the problem.
• Present: Current situations or people that trigger it.
• Future: A template for responding well to anticipated situations.

History-taking identifies the past and present targets. Once the earlier memories are reprocessed, later sessions install the future template, such as rehearsing a calm response to a former panic trigger.

Reevaluation is complete only when all three groups have been addressed (Shapiro, 1995, 2017). Each extra target adds its own treatment cycle.

That is why a complex presentation can run well beyond the three to six sessions typical for a single-incident trauma.

EMDR-certified therapist Yunetta Spring Smith, LPC, MHSP, describes the value of EMDR’s openness to whatever a client’s reprocessing brings up:

“If it’s coming up, it needs to come out…[EMDR] is a beautiful approach to facilitating that process.”
She also emphasizes the importance of clients being open with their feelings throughout therapy, noting there’s “no wrong way or wrong answer.”

According to Megan Boardman, LCSW, author of The EMDR Workbook for Trauma and PTSD, EMDR’s guiding theory (the Adaptive Information Processing model) works like this:

“The brain’s information processing system naturally moves toward mental health. If the system is blocked or imbalanced by the impact of a disturbing event, the emotional wound festers and can cause intense suffering. Once the block is removed, healing resumes.”

What clients typically experience in a session

In a typical EMDR session, lasting 60–90 minutes, the therapist and client usually begin with a brief check-in.

The client is then guided to focus on a memory. The therapist administers repeated sets of bilateral stimulation, such as eye movements, auditory tones, or tapping.

After each set, the client is invited to observe any emerging thoughts, emotions, or sensations. They stay in control and can pause whenever they choose.

Common questions about session length and structure

• How long are sessions?
  Typically 60 to 90 minutes per session.
• How many sessions are needed?
  Processing a single disturbing event usually requires 3–6 sessions, while more complex or multiple traumas may require 8–12 or more.
• Does everyone move through phases uniformly?
  No—preparation may take longer for some, and phases may be revisited as needed. The therapy pace is adapted to the client’s emotional readiness.

When Reprocessing Stalls

Reprocessing does not always move smoothly from one association to the next. Sometimes a client’s distress stops shifting across two or three consecutive sets of stimulation. EMDR training describes this as the client “looping” through the same material.

The therapist first varies the stimulation itself. For example, they may switch from horizontal to diagonal eye movements, or from visual to tactile stimulation.

If that fails, the therapist may offer a cognitive interweave. This is a brief comment, question, or piece of adaptive information, paired with a further set of stimulation. It helps the client reach an association their own processing has not yet reached.

Here is an example. An adult who blames their childhood self for not escaping abuse might be asked what a child of that age could realistically have done.

An interweave is deliberate and targeted. It is a step for genuinely blocked processing, not a routine part of every session. It is also not a way of steering what the client reprocesses (Shapiro, 1995, 2017).

Coping Strategies

Stress-reduction techniques help clients manage emotions during and between EMDR sessions. These include resourcing, where individuals practice skills to handle difficult thoughts, feelings, or sensations. Clients can choose whichever resource feels most helpful:

• Butterfly Hug – Cross arms over the chest, lightly tapping hands in an alternating rhythm (like wings flapping) while breathing slowly and noticing thoughts or sensations without judgment.
• Safe/Calm Place – Imagine a safe, peaceful setting while focusing on pleasant sensations; therapists may use bilateral stimulation to strengthen this calming association.
• Container – Visualize a secure container to hold upsetting thoughts or images. Memories can be “stored” here temporarily, helping reduce distress until they’re ready to be processed.
• Coherent Breathing – Breathe with the diaphragm at a slow, steady rhythm (about six breaths per minute) to promote relaxation and balance.
• Mindfulness – Stay present by noticing thoughts, emotions, and body sensations with acceptance, rather than judgment.

These strategies provide grounding tools clients can return to during or outside of sessions to maintain emotional stability.

Benefits of EMDR

People consider EMDR therapy for several reasons. While it may not work for everyone, research and client experiences highlight some key benefits:

• Reducing negative thinking – EMDR helps reframe distressing memories and replace harmful beliefs (e.g., “It was all my fault”) with healthier, more balanced perspectives. Insights come less from therapist interpretation and more from the client’s own processing.
• Rapid results – Many report improvement within a few sessions. Because EMDR works directly with traumatic memories rather than only their emotional aftereffects, it may bring faster relief than traditional talk therapy.
• Minimal talking – Clients don’t need to describe every detail of their trauma. This makes EMDR especially helpful for those who struggle to verbalize painful experiences.
• Increased self-worth – By reshaping negative self-beliefs (e.g., feeling weak or powerless), EMDR can strengthen confidence and promote a more positive sense of self.

Qualitative research echoes these accounts. An interpretative phenomenological analysis followed ten adults who completed an intensive course of EMDR for post-traumatic stress.

Participants described a strong sense of psychological safety throughout treatment. They also described a marked shift in how they understood themselves (Butler & Ramsey-Wade, 2024).

“It has been an awakening of parts of myself and emotions I did not have before. These parts are the good emotions, no longer the bad ones.”

“I have been going to therapy for 20 years and never have I had a breakthrough like this.”

What can EMDR therapy help with?

PTSD and trauma-related conditions

EMDR is often used for treating PTSD and trauma-related symptoms.

A review found moderate-quality evidence that EMDR reduces PTSD symptoms and may lead to complete loss of PTSD diagnosis.

A meta-analysis of 112 randomized trials found EMDR, cognitive therapy, and exposure therapy all effective for adult PTSD. It could not identify a single best treatment. Later meta-analyses place EMDR alongside trauma-focused CBT (TF-CBT), as the evidence section below explains.

Francine Shapiro, who developed EMDR, states in her trade book EMDR: The Breakthrough Therapy for Overcoming Anxiety, Stress, and Trauma:

“Research has shown that about five hours of EMDR treatment eliminates PTSD in 84 to 100 percent of civilians with a single trauma experience, including rape, accident, or disaster.”

This is Shapiro’s own claim in a trade book. It is stronger than the meta-analyses support.

The “one-session cure” framing around EMDR’s introduction has not held up. Most people need several sessions. Progress varies with the trauma and the person’s circumstances.

Trials in combat veterans give a more measured picture. A randomized trial of 35 veterans with PTSD compared 12 sessions of EMDR with biofeedback-assisted relaxation and with routine care. Only 10 veterans received EMDR.

EMDR produced significantly greater improvement than either comparison on self-report, psychometric, and interview measures. Gains were largely maintained at three-month follow-up (Carlson et al., 1998). Physiological arousal fell in all three conditions, so it showed no EMDR-specific effect.

Anxiety, phobias, and depression

EMDR has demonstrated efficacy in treating various anxiety disorders.

Systematic reviews show significant reductions in anxiety, panic, phobia, and psychosomatic symptoms across multiple randomized controlled trials.

A randomized trial of 84 people with panic disorder compared 13 weekly 60-minute sessions of EMDR and of CBT. EMDR proved as effective (Horst et al., 2017).

Reports also mention its potential in helping with performance-related anxieties like public speaking and test anxiety.

Regarding depression, EMDR has shown early promise. Remission means symptoms no longer meet the criteria for depression. Two inpatient studies illustrate the evidence:

• Matched-pairs study: Of 16 inpatients given EMDR plus usual care, 68% reached full remission. They also reported fewer relapses than 16 matched usual-care patients over more than a year (Hase et al., 2015).
• 12-month follow-up: Of 49 inpatients with severe depression, 27 (55%) were in full remission at discharge. Of those 27, 20 (74%) stayed relapse-free for 12 months (Altmeyer et al., 2022).

The follow-up was observational and the treatment included more than EMDR. It cannot show that EMDR caused the result.

Childhood trauma and complex PTSD

Research on EMDR for complex PTSD (cPTSD) is still emerging. cPTSD adds persistent difficulties with emotion regulation, self-concept, and relationships to the core PTSD symptoms. It typically follows repeated or prolonged trauma, such as ongoing childhood abuse.

One case report illustrates the approach. De Jongh and Hafkemeijer (2024) described immediate trauma-focused EMDR for a client with cPTSD and borderline personality disorder.

Their result fits mounting evidence that EMDR is a safe and potentially effective option for cPTSD. But a single case proves little. It cannot show that improvement matches that seen in standard PTSD.

For children and adolescents, therapists adapt EMDR in three ways:

• Shortening sessions.
• Simplifying the language used to describe the target memory.
• Extending the preparation and resourcing phases.

Research in young people is encouraging. A meta-analysis of 30 studies found EMDR and trauma-focused CBT comparably effective at reducing PTSD symptoms (Lewey et al., 2018).

A randomized trial of children with self-esteem and behavioral problems, rather than full PTSD, found EMDR produced gains similar to CBT (Wanders et al., 2008).

Other potential uses (grief, stress, performance blocks)

EMDR has been explored for broader applications beyond trauma. Research points to benefits in treating grief, substance misuse, and even chronic pain, though evidence is still limited.

Popular media accounts, such as a recent profile of Miley Cyrus, describe EMDR’s effectiveness for performance anxiety and stage fright. They highlight its capacity to reduce emotional grip by reprocessing underlying memories. Such accounts are anecdotal, not trial evidence.

EMDR Effectiveness: Evidence and Debate

EMDR’s effectiveness for PTSD is well supported. The live controversy is about mechanism, not outcome: why EMDR works, and whether the eye movements do any work.

EMDR Compared With Other Trauma Therapies

EMDR is one of several trauma-focused treatments recommended for PTSD. The most informative comparisons are with the therapies it is measured against most often.

Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) shares EMDR’s target. That target is the traumatic memory and the beliefs attached to it. TF-CBT gets there through cognitive restructuring, exposure exercises, and between-session homework instead of bilateral stimulation.

EMDR asks for little narration of the trauma. It also sets minimal homework. That is why it suits clients who struggle to put the experience into words.

A 2020 network meta-analysis gives the strongest like-for-like comparison. This method combines trials of many treatments into one ranking, even where not every pair has been compared directly.

Scores are standardized mean differences against a waitlist, so larger negative values mean bigger symptom reductions. Because the analysis pools the whole trial base, it outranks any single trial in the hierarchy of evidence. Even so, the authors rated the overall evidence quality as moderate to low.

Exposure-based and cognitive approaches are the other well-established comparators. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that exposure therapy, cognitive processing therapy (CPT), and EMDR all helped people lose the PTSD diagnosis. It judged the head-to-head evidence too thin to say which is more effective overall (Cusack et al., 2016).

Guidance therefore tends to treat EMDR as equivalent to these alternatives, not superior. Client preference and presentation then guide the choice.

For some clients, EMDR is a distinct route to the same goal. It is not a second-best option. It demands less verbal disclosure and less prolonged exposure to the memory.

That suits clients who find sustained exposure to trauma narratives intolerable. The case for EMDR is a different demand profile, not superior efficacy.

Do the Eye Movements Matter?

Evidence For and Against

Studies disagree on whether the eye movements add anything beyond exposure. One review also analyzed EMDR as an exposure therapy (Rogers & Silver, 2002).

Study	Evidence	Finding on eye movements
Davidson & Parker (2001)	Meta-analysis of 34 studies	No extra benefit; EMDR no more effective than other exposure techniques
Lee & Cuijpers (2013)	Meta-analysis of 15 clinical trials and 11 laboratory studies (849 participants)	Moderate added effect in clinical trials; large effect in laboratory studies
Folch-Sanchez et al. (2025)	Experiment with 39 healthy volunteers	Conditioned blink on 18.2% of first-block trials with eye movements, against 40.9% without

Ratings have limits. Much of the laboratory evidence relies on participants’ own vividness ratings, which cannot rule out expectancy.

The 2025 experiment measured a conditioned eye-blink response instead. Eye movements sped extinction, the phase where a learned blink response fades. The experiment was small (Folch-Sanchez et al., 2025).

The Working Memory Account

The best-developed account of what the eye movements add is the working memory hypothesis. Working memory is the mind’s limited short-term workspace.

Holding a distressing image in mind while doing a demanding task, such as tracking a moving target, competes for that capacity. That competition is thought to make the image less vivid and less emotionally intense (Andrade et al., 1997).

Later experiments went further. Up-and-down eye movements work as well as side-to-side ones. So do tasks that need no eye movements, provided they tax working memory (van den Hout & Engelhard, 2012).

A 2018 review of 87 mechanism studies found reasonable empirical support for the working memory hypothesis. Even so, it called mechanism research “still in its infancy.”

It asked for larger studies with tighter methodological control (Landin-Romero et al., 2018). Brain-imaging studies offer only preliminary evidence of changes before, during, and after treatment. The brain-level story is not settled.

Why Guidelines Disagree

Most major guideline bodies place EMDR alongside trauma-focused CBT as a first-line PTSD treatment. Not every body agrees. The American Psychological Association’s 2017 guideline found strong evidence for cognitive-behavioral approaches but only weak evidence for EMDR.

A point-by-point critique traced part of that gap to how the guideline’s own evidence review scored the trials. It found several problems:

• An inappropriate outcome measure for one trial.
• Inconsistent evidence ratings for EMDR, cognitive therapy, and CPT.
• Two eligible trials left out of the analysis.

The authors argued that correcting these should have raised EMDR to at least the same evidence tier as CPT and cognitive therapy (Dominguez & Lee, 2017).

The critique has not resolved the disagreement. It is a reminder that an official evidence rating reflects the judgment calls built into one review as much as the underlying trials.

Contemporary Research

Two recent meta-analyses extend the trial evidence beyond the 2020 network meta-analysis.

Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness

Most of the included studies were small, and all but one carried a moderate or high risk of bias. EMDR treatment was generally shorter, with a lower burden on patient time.

Comorbidity and Treatment Timing

Read together, the two analyses suggest EMDR may also work well as an early, brief intervention, not only for long-established PTSD.

Remote and Group Delivery

Newer trials have tested EMDR outside the usual one-to-one, in-person format. In one randomized trial, frontline and emergency workers received group EMDR by videoconference. Treatment was brief: four two-hour sessions over one week.

The 85 completers improved significantly on measures of PTSD symptoms and anxiety. The treatment had no effect on moral injury.

Moral injury is the distress that follows acting against, or witnessing a violation of, one’s own moral code (Farrell et al., 2023).

A separate service evaluation of remote EMDR during the Covid-19 pandemic covered 93 clients treated by 33 therapists. All four outcome measures showed significant, clinically meaningful reductions. It was a real-world evaluation rather than a controlled trial (McGowan et al., 2021).

Together, these studies suggest group and remote formats can help with core PTSD symptoms. They also show that moral injury needs more than the standard protocol.

Are there any downsides to EMDR therapy?

Potential dangers and side effects

EMDR is generally safe but can produce short‑term side effects. Clients may experience emotional distress, vivid or unusual dreams, fatigue, headaches, or nausea. Strong emotions can last from hours to a few days. Side effects are more likely if the therapy progresses too quickly.

In rare cases, hallucinations or exacerbation of symptoms have been reported, though evidence remains limited.

Working directly with distressing memories carries further risks:

• Worse before better: Clients can feel worse before they feel better as painful experiences resurface.
• Unplanned memories: Additional or previously forgotten memories may surface, which can be unsettling.
• Overwhelming recall: If a trauma is accessed too quickly, a client can be pushed into flashbacks or distress they cannot regulate.

That is why preparation and pacing matter.

Who may not be a good fit for EMDR?

EMDR is not right for everyone, and in some circumstances it should be delayed rather than declined outright:

• Individuals in ongoing trauma or active abusive situations may lack the safety or emotional stability needed to process intense memories.
• Those with severe mental health conditions, such as active psychosis, schizophrenia, severe personality disorders, or uncontrolled dissociation, may not benefit and may be destabilized unless stabilization work comes first.
• Dissociative disorders: Starting memory reprocessing too early can sharply increase distress and sometimes trigger suicidal thoughts, so extra caution and a slower pace are essential.
• A skipped preparation phase: EMDR becomes unsafe when a therapist bypasses history-taking and stabilization and moves into trauma processing too quickly.

Limits and Considerations of EMDR

• Therapist training matters: EMDR should only be administered by properly trained and licensed clinicians. Poorly administered EMDR may deepen distress or derail progress.
• Mechanisms remain theoretical: While effective, the specific role of bilateral stimulation (like eye movements) is debated; some research suggests its benefits may stem mostly from exposure-based or cognitive-behavioral mechanisms.
• Not a cure-all: EMDR is generally effective for trauma-related conditions, but it’s less useful for issues stemming from physiological causes (e.g. brain injury or neurodevelopmental disorders).
• Client readiness is key: Ensuring that individuals have sufficient emotional coping resources and support systems in place is essential before beginning EMDR.

EMDR targets trauma, not autism itself. Autistic people have markedly higher rates of co-occurring PTSD than the general population, and interest in adapting EMDR for them is growing.

Evidence is still limited. An interview study of 23 UK-based EMDR therapists found they kept the standard eight phases and adapted delivery to the individual. Several noted that autistic clients valued the structure’s predictability (Fisher et al., 2022).

Reported adaptations included:

• Using history-taking to tell an autism-related presentation, such as repetitive play, from a trauma symptom.
• Checking whether a client can visualize before relying on imagery-based resourcing, such as the safe place exercise.
• Varying the type of bilateral stimulation to suit sensory sensitivities, for example avoiding tapping when its sound or touch is aversive.
• Working around difficulty putting reprocessing experiences into words, instead of treating it as a barrier.

Therapists also identified a shortage of autism-specific EMDR training and supervision.

How to Find an EMDR Therapist

• Check qualifications: Look for a licensed mental health professional (psychologist, counselor, social worker) who has completed accredited EMDR training, ideally through EMDRIA or EMDR Europe.
• Use official directories: The EMDR International Association (EMDRIA) and EMDR Europe both offer searchable databases of trained practitioners.
• Ask about experience: Inquire how much EMDR training they have, whether they’re certified, and what kinds of issues they’ve worked with.
• Consider practical factors: Session costs range widely and insurance coverage varies, so confirm fees and payment options. Many therapists also offer EMDR online via secure telehealth platforms.

How Was EMDR Developed?

• Origin: Psychologist Francine Shapiro discovered in 1987 that moving her eyes side to side while recalling distressing thoughts reduced their emotional intensity.
• Introduction: By 1989, she formally presented EMDR as a treatment for traumatic memories.
• Growth: Once considered experimental, EMDR is now widely used for PTSD, phobias, panic, and other anxiety-related conditions.
• Guiding Model: EMDR is based on the Adaptive Information Processing (AIP) model, which suggests symptoms arise when traumatic memories remain “unprocessed.”
• Core Idea: These unprocessed memories carry the emotions, beliefs, and sensations from the original event, leading to ongoing distress until they are effectively reprocessed.

Shapiro published her first account of the technique in 1989, under the name eye movement desensitization.

This first report rested on one case history and an earlier controlled study. Shapiro was both the technique’s originator and its evaluator, so expectancy effects are hard to rule out. The independent trials and meta-analyses in the evidence section carry more weight.

Further Information

• Valiente-Gómez, A., Moreno-Alcázar, A., Treen, D., Cedrón, C., Colom, F., Perez, V., & Amann, B. L. (2017). EMDR beyond PTSD: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1668.
• Shapiro, F. (2014). The role of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in medicine: addressing the psychological and physical symptoms stemming from adverse life experiences. The Permanente Journal, 18(1), 71.
• Shapiro, F. (1995). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing.

References

Altmeyer, S., Wollersheim, L., Kilian-Hütten, N., Behnke, A., Hofmann, A., & Tumani, V. (2022). Effectiveness of treating depression with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing among inpatients–A follow-up study over 12 months. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 937204. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.937204

Andrade, J., Kavanagh, D., & Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Eye-movements and visual imagery: A working memory approach to the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1997.tb01408.x

Butler, S.-J., & Ramsey-Wade, C. (2024). How do clients experience intensive EMDR for post-traumatic stress? An interpretative phenomenological analysis. European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 8(4), Article 100479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2024.100479

Carlson, J. G., Chemtob, C. M., Rusnak, K., Hedlund, N. L., & Muraoka, M. Y. (1998). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) treatment for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024448814268

Cusack, K., Jonas, D. E., Forneris, C. A., Wines, C., Sonis, J., Middleton, J. C., Feltner, C., Brownley, K. A., Olmsted, K. R., Greenblatt, A., Weil, A., & Gaynes, B. N. (2016). Psychological treatments for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 43, 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.10.003

Davidson, P. R., & Parker, K. C. H. (2001). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(2), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.305

de Jongh, A., & Hafkemeijer, L. C. S. (2024). Trauma-focused treatment of a client with Complex PTSD and comorbid pathology using EMDR therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 80(4), 824–835. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23521

Dominguez, S. K., & Lee, C. W. (2017). Errors in the 2017 APA clinical practice guideline for the treatment of PTSD: What the data actually says. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1425. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01425

Farrell, D., Moran, J., Zat, Z., Miller, P. W., Knibbs, L., Papanikolopoulos, P., Prattos, T., McGowan, I., McLaughlin, D., Barron, I., Mattheß, C., & Kiernan, M. D. (2023). Group early intervention eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy as a video-conference psychotherapy with frontline/emergency workers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and moral injury—An RCT study. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1129912. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1129912

Fisher, N., Patel, H., van Diest, C., & Spain, D. (2022). Using eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) with autistic individuals: A qualitative interview study with EMDR therapists. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 95(4), 1071–1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12419

Folch-Sanchez, D., Blithikioti, C., Nuño, L., Barrio, P., Borràs, R., Blanco, L., Piazza, F., Balcells-Oliveró, M., & Miquel, L. (2025). Disentangling eye movement desensitization and reprocessing mechanisms of action: The impact of eye movements in the eye blink conditioning task. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 98(4), 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.70000

Forman-Hoffman, V., Middleton, J. C., Feltner, C., Gaynes, B. N., Weber, R. P., Bann, C., Viswanathan, M., Lohr, K. N., Baker, C., & Green, J. (2018). Psychological and pharmacological treatments for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder: A systematic review update. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Hase, M., Balmaceda, U. M., Hase, A., Lehnung, M., Tumani, V., Huchzermeier, C., & Hofmann, A. (2015). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy in the treatment of depression: A matched pairs study in an inpatient setting. Brain and Behavior, 5(6), Article e00342. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.342

Horst, F., Den Oudsten, B., Zijlstra, W., de Jongh, A., Lobbestael, J., & De Vries, J. (2017). Cognitive behavioral therapy vs. eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for treating panic disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1409. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01409

Landin-Romero, R., Moreno-Alcázar, A., Pagani, M., & Amann, B. L. (2018). How does eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy work? A systematic review on suggested mechanisms of action. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01395

Lee, C. W., & Cuijpers, P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the contribution of eye movements in processing emotional memories. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 44(2), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.11.001

Lewey, J. H., Smith, C. L., Burcham, B., Saunders, N. L., Elfallal, D., & O’Toole, S. K. (2018). Comparing the effectiveness of EMDR and TF-CBT for children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 11(4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-018-0212-1

Mavranezouli, I., Megnin-Viggars, O., Daly, C., Dias, S., Welton, N. J., Stockton, S., Bhutani, G., Grey, N., Leach, J., Greenberg, N., Katona, C., El-Leithy, S., & Pilling, S. (2020). Psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: A network meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 50(4), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720000070

McGowan, I. W., Fisher, N., Havens, J., & Proudlock, S. (2021). An evaluation of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy delivered remotely during the Covid-19 pandemic. BMC Psychiatry, 21, Article 560. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03571-x

Rogers, S., & Silver, S. M. (2002). Is EMDR an exposure therapy? A review of trauma protocols. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1128

Scelles, C., & Bulnes, L. C. (2021). EMDR as Treatment Option for Conditions Other Than PTSD: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 644369. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644369

Shapiro, F. (1989). Eye movement desensitization: A new treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 20(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(89)90025-6

Shapiro, F. (1995). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures. Guilford Press.

Shapiro, F. (2017). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures (3rd ed.). Guilford Publications.

Simpson, E., Carroll, C., Sutton, A., Forsyth, J., Rayner, A., Ren, S., Franklin, M., & Wood, E. (2025). Clinical and cost-effectiveness of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for treatment and prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 116(4), 1128–1149. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70005

Valiente-Gómez, A., Moreno-Alcázar, A., Treen, D., Cedrón, C., Colom, F., Perez, V., & Amann, B. L. (2017). EMDR beyond PTSD: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1668. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01668

van den Hout, M. A., & Engelhard, I. M. (2012). How does EMDR work? Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 3(5), 724–738. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.028212

Wanders, F., Serra, M., & de Jongh, A. (2008). EMDR versus CBT for children with self-esteem and behavioral problems: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 2(3), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.2.3.180

Watts, B. V., Schnurr, P. P., Mayo, L., Young-Xu, Y., Weeks, W. B., & Friedman, M. J. (2013). Meta-analysis of the efficacy of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74(6), e541–e550. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.12r08225

Yang, H., Xiong, Z., Chen, X., Wo, Y., Tang, H., Qiao, M., Chen, Y., & Wang, Z. (2026). The immediate and follow-up effects of EMDR therapy for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Psychology, 14, Article 1373. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05349-w