EMDR
An explanatory hypothesis informed by phenomenological insights
An alternative explanation for the functioning of EMDR therapy informed by phenomenological insights.
EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) is a psychotherapeutic approach created by Francine Shapiro (1989), widely used in the treatment of trauma, especially PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), but also applied to anxiety, phobias, grief, and disturbing emotional experiences.
Basically, the patient is asked to evoke a disturbing memory (image, thought, emotion, and bodily sensation) while receiving alternating bilateral stimulation, mainly through guided eye movements (right–left), although alternating taps on the hands or alternating sounds in the ears can also be used.
**
Possible Explanations
EMDR is generally explained through a set of interacting mechanisms, although there is no definitive consensus.
According to the Adaptive Information Processing model, traumatic experiences may be stored in a poorly integrated way, retaining their emotional charge, vivid imagery, and bodily sensations.
EMDR would facilitate the reprocessing of these memories, allowing them to be reintegrated in a more adaptive and less distressing form.
—
A central element of the method is bilateral stimulation, such as eye movements. One influential hypothesis suggests that recalling a memory while performing this task taxes working memory, reducing the vividness and emotional intensity of the memory and promoting its reconsolidation in a milder form.
—
Other explanations point to similarities with REM sleep or to the activation of an orienting response that helps reduce physiological arousal.
—
From a neurobiological perspective, there is typically a decrease in the activity of the amygdala and greater involvement of the prefrontal cortex , contributing to more effective emotional regulation.
Still, there is ongoing debate about how essential bilateral stimulation is, and it is possible that EMDR’s effects result from a combination of memory reactivation, emotional modulation, and reconsolidation in a more regulated state.
**
My Hypothesis based on Phenomenological Insights
A possible alternative explanation, informed by phenomenological insights, for the effects observed in EMDR can be formulated based on the somatodynamic organization of emotional experience.
Here, I start from the hypothesis, supported by phenomenological observations, that emotions generally seem to have bodily pathways of tension organization, in which certain regions assume a dominant role (for example, the solar plexus region in experiences of fear (see here).
These pathways would not be mere peripheral effects of emotion, but active components of its bodily constitution.
In this context, regions such as the eyes and the throat would play a central role in orienting emotion-related bodily tension (see here) and attention (see here).
In habitual emotional situations, oculomotor adjustments and micro-activities in the throat region could contribute to directing tension toward the bodily regions where a given emotion manifests.
The bilateral stimulation characteristic of EMDR, by intensely engaging eye movements and possibly associated adjustments in the throat region (which, as observed, seems to assist attentional redirection), could temporarily disorganize these bodily pathways.
When this occurs simultaneously with the evocation of an emotionally charged memory, such somatic interference could prevent tension from following its habitual trajectory of organization, interrupting the automatic coupling between memory, bodily pattern, and emotional manifestation.
For example, if, as phenomenologically perceived, a given emotion involves a reconfiguration of these regions to assume a “subtle internal posture,” orienting tension toward a specific point in the body, then eye movements disconnected from this process end up interfering with it.
They disrupt precisely the spontaneous articulation between eyes, throat, and the central bodily zone toward which the emotion would tend to direct tension.
Similarly, when the therapist alternates taps between the patient’s hands, attention is shifted from one pole to another, preventing the eye–throat axis from freely organizing itself toward the bodily core of the emotion.
From this perspective, the reprocessing promoted by EMDR would involve a reconfiguration of the functional link between the evoked memory and the bodily mode of emotional activation.
Thus, the typical subjective experience - where the memory persists but is deprived of its original emotional charge - could be understood as the result of the dissolution or weakening of the somatic pathways that previously sustained the emotional response associated with that memory.
In addition, EMDR’s bilateral stimulation may introduce an additional difficulty in the imaginative construction of the memory itself, which, as phenomenologically observed, seems to involve ocular and throat activations that support the spatial and narrative organization of the remembered scene (see here).
When the eyes are induced to move rhythmically in ways unrelated to the internal logic of the memory, the continuity of the evoked image tends to fragment.
The scene becomes less vivid, less immersive, and attention has difficulty settling into a stable internal framing. In this way, the memory may be accessed without consolidating as a full perceptual simulation, which may contribute to the weakening of the bodily emotional engagement associated with its evocation.
This hypothesis suggests that part of EMDR’s efficacy may reside in its capacity to intervene at fine-grained bodily levels that participate in the constitution of emotion, opening space for future investigations that articulate phenomenological description, attentional dynamics, and the somatovisceromotor organization of emotional experience.
**
References
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
Stickgold R. (2002). EMDR: a putative neurobiological mechanism of action. Journal of clinical psychology, 58(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1129
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), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/13-098
Landin-Romero, R., Moreno-Alcazar, 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, 1395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01395
Chamberlin D. E. (2019). The Predictive Processing Model of EMDR. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 2267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02267
This is a compelling shift in how we think about trauma recovery. Most models treat the brain like a digital archive, but your focus on the 'somatodynamic organization' reminds us that we are biological beings first.
In my work with systems and education, I’ve seen how physical 'posturing' dictates what a person is capable of processing. Your hypothesis about the eye-throat axis suggests that EMDR isn't just a cognitive distraction, but a physical disruption of the 'tracks' that trauma runs on. It’s the difference between trying to overwrite a file and simply dismantling the machinery that plays it.
If the memory persists but the 'somatic pathway' is dissolved, we aren't just healing; we’re re-architecting the body’s relationship to its own history. That is a much more hopeful, humane way to look at the work of recovery. I would love to see how this could impact students from EBD and other various settings.
Compelling hypothesis, especially the idea that EMDR may work by interrupting the bodily organization through which a traumatic memory becomes emotionally alive again. The pathway you propose specifying the eye-throat-solar plexus may be ripe for empirical testing. Phenomenologicall, it's powerful. The mechanism may be broader.