IEMT Research: An Exploratory Comparison with EMDR
Peer-reviewed IEMT research
An exploratory comparison of IEMT and EMDR-directed eye movements
A 2026 study compared IEMT-directed eye movements, EMDR-directed eye movements and a control condition in 33 adults recalling negative memories. The findings are encouraging, but the study was small, exploratory and did not test either complete therapy model.
Publication
van Heugten-van der Kloet, D., Boonstra, A., Trouk, N. and ten Brinke, A. (2026). “An exploratory comparison of IEMT- versus EMDR-directed eye movements on changes in emotionality and distress during recall of negative memories.” Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 26(1), 1-18. DOI: 10.24193/jebp.2026.1.1.
The study at a glance
Participants
33 adults
Recruited from the general population rather than a clinical treatment sample.
Conditions
Three comparisons
Each participant received IEMT-directed movements, EMDR-directed movements and a control condition in randomised order.
Follow-up
One week
Self-rated emotionality and distress were measured before, after and at one-week follow-up.
What the researchers found
Participants recalled a pre-selected negative memory and rated its emotionality and distress. The principal outcome was a self-reported Subjective Units of Distress score.
Both eye-movement conditions differed from control
Distress scores were significantly lower after both the IEMT and EMDR conditions than after the control condition, immediately and at follow-up.
No significant difference between IEMT and EMDR
The two directed eye-movement conditions did not significantly differ from one another at post-intervention or follow-up.
60.6% preferred the IEMT condition
While blinded to the condition labels, 60.6% of participants selected the IEMT condition as their preference.
What the study does not establish
- It does not show that complete IEMT and EMDR therapies are equivalent.
- It does not establish IEMT as a treatment for PTSD, depression or another diagnosed condition.
- It does not demonstrate long-term outcomes beyond the one-week follow-up.
- A stated preference for a condition is not the same as evidence of greater effectiveness or safety.
The research compared brief directed eye-movement conditions, not the full assessment, formulation, therapeutic relationship and protocol associated with either approach.
Important limitations
- Small sample: 33 participants limits precision and generalisability.
- Non-clinical context: the sample came from the general population rather than a diagnosed treatment group.
- Self-report outcomes: the main results relied on subjective ratings of emotionality and distress.
- Brief follow-up: outcomes were followed for one week.
- Component study: directed movements were tested, not complete therapeutic models.
- No active working-memory control: the study could not determine whether effects were specific to eye movements rather than working-memory taxation more generally.
Why this research still matters
This is the first published direct comparison of IEMT- and EMDR-directed eye movements. It provides a testable foundation for larger independent studies, clinical samples, longer follow-up and stronger control conditions. Its value lies in opening a research programme, not in closing the question.
Read, compare and contribute
Full publication
Read the journal record, full methods, results and authors’ discussion.
IEMT and EMDR
Understand why a component comparison does not make the two complete approaches identical.
Support further research
The Association welcomes independent scrutiny, replication and responsible research collaboration.