Cited by 247Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMemory Processes and InfluencesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

How does EMDR work?

van den Hout, Marcel A., Engelhard, Iris M.·2012·Journal of Experimental Psychopathology

Abstract

Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) is an effective treatment for alleviating trauma symptoms, and the positive effects of this treatment have been scientifically confirmed under well-controlled conditions. This has provided an opportunity to explore how EMDR works. The present paper reports on the findings of a long series of experiments that disproved the hypothesis that eye movements or other ‘dual tasks’ are unnecessary. These experiments also disproved the idea that ‘bilateral stimulation’ is needed; moving the eyes up and down produces the same effect as horizontal eye movement, and so do tasks that require no eye movement at all. However, it is important that the dual task taxes working memory. Several predictions can be derived from the working memory explanation for eye movements in EMDR. These seem to hold up extremely well in critical experimental tests, and create a solid explanation on how eye movements work. This paper discusses the implications that this theory and the empirical findings may have for the EMDR technique.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5127/jep.028212

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The efficacy of eye movements can be explained in the context of working memory theory, whereby eye-movements occupy limited cognitive resources during memory retrieval, resulting in the storage of less vivid/emotional memory representations.

    “These experiments have demonstrated that the efficacy of such techniques can be explained in the context of working memory theory, whereby eye-movements occupy limited cognitive resources during memory retrieval, resulting in the storage of less vivid/emotional memory representations (see Van den Hout & Engelhard, 2012 for an overview).”
  • These treatments target problematic aspects of the trauma memory.

    “What these have in common is that the treatment targets problematic aspects of the trauma memory, whether by techniques such as exposure (Foa & Kozak, 1986), restructuring (Ehlers & Clark, 2000), or dual-task interference (Van den Hout & Engelhard, 2012).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Hout, M. A., & Engelhard, I. M.
Affiliations
  • Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychopathology
Published
2012-12
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
724-738
ISSN
2043-8087 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142320849
Cited by
247
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 4
FWCI
8.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Experimental Psychopathology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
EMDR, working memory, dual-task interference, eye movements, bilateral stimulation, trauma symptoms, horizontal eye movements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review