Back

Same Same but Different: Variations in the Therapists Application of the EMDR Standard Protocol and the Usage of Minimal Nonverbal Changes

Pape, V. R.; von Klitzing, C.; Wolkenhauer, O.; Schaeflein, E.; Stingl, M.

2026-01-06 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.01.06.26343513 medRxiv
Show abstract

Following the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) standard protocol, counting down a fixed number of bilateral stimuli (BLS) is the guideline-conforming strategy for determining the optimal length of each set within processing the pathogenic memories. A surprisingly high proportion of EMDR therapists, however, deviates from this recommendation, making the time-point for interruption dependent on the occurrence of Minimal Nonverbal Changes (MNCs) in gestures, facial mimics, muscle tension or breathing, which are supposed to indicate a change in emotional valence. This survey-based pilot study attempts to scientifically examine this important phenomenon within EMDR. Eighty-eight certified EMDR therapists reported on their individual application of the standard protocol. In addition, the frequency, indicator value, and emotional valence of a broad range of MNCs were assessed. Significant individual differences and a high degree of deviation from the standard guidelines were found, with age, gender, therapeutic orientation, and patient clientele as moderating factors. Whereas three-quarters of the therapists determined the optimal length of each set of BLS dependent on MNC, only about a quarter used counting down as the preferred interruption strategy. 98.2% of the therapists estimated that MNCs are highly important. Visible forehead relaxation, smiling, and deepened inhalation and exhalation were considered particularly valuable as indicators for a valence change. The results can serve as a basis for an further experimental design that enables the observation of nonverbal changes and their physiological correlates during an ongoing session.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.