Beyond the Standard:

For individuals grappling with the lasting effects of trauma, finding effective treatment is a priority. These difficult experiences—whether from large-scale events, chronic abuse, or singular accidents—can result in memories becoming “stuck” or improperly stored in the brain. This concept is often referred to as a disruption of Adaptive Information Processing (AIP) (De Jongh & Ten Broeke, 2019; Shapiro, 2018). The consequence is that negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors continue long after the event is over, manifesting as anxiety, distress, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (De Jongh & Ten Broeke, 2019; Shapiro, 2018).

For decades, the leading scientifically validated intervention for these conditions has been Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy. EMDR is globally recognized as a gold-standard treatment for trauma and has expanded its application to address anxiety, depression, and even chronic pain (Carletto & Borghero, 2021; Wilson et al., 2018). Its status as a first-line treatment for PTSD is affirmed by international practice guidelines from organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO, 2013) and the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS, 2018) (WHO, 2013; ISTSS, 2018).

While standard EMDR remains highly effective, research, especially originating from European academic centers, has spurred an evolution. This enhanced protocol, known as EMDR 2.0, was primarily developed by researchers in the Netherlands, including Ad de Jongh and Suzy Matthijssen (Matthijssen et al., 2021). EMDR 2.0 is not a completely new therapy, but rather a set of specialized modifications integrated into the standard framework. These modifications are specifically designed to optimize the brain’s ability to process and heal, resulting in a therapy that is intended to be significantly more efficient, requiring fewer reprocessing steps to achieve the same therapeutic outcome (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020; Matthijssen et al., 2021).

The development of EMDR 2.0 is deeply rooted in a modern understanding of how memory works. For many years, the effectiveness of EMDR was conceptualized through the AIP model (De Jongh & Ten Broeke, 2019). However, more recent research has highlighted a powerful underlying mechanism: Working Memory (WM) taxation (Matthijssen et al., 2021).

The Brain’s Limit: Working Memory

Working Memory can be thought of as the brain’s temporary scratchpad or immediate processing capacity—similar to the RAM in a computer. It is highly limited in how much information it can hold and manipulate at one time (De Jongh & Ten Broeke, 2019). When a traumatic memory is recalled, it consumes significant resources in the working memory, leading to intense vividness and strong emotional disturbance.

The Dual-Task Principle and Overload

EMDR therapy employs what is called a dual-task protocol: the client is asked to actively focus on the distressing memory (Task 1) while simultaneously performing bilateral stimulation (BLS) (Task 2), such as tracking the therapist’s fingers with their eyes (Shapiro, 2018). The Working Memory Taxation theory posits that because the WM is limited, it cannot hold both the full, highly vivid, and emotional memory and dedicate sufficient attention to the demanding BLS task simultaneously (Matthijssen et al., 2021).

This deliberate cognitive overload forces a compromise: the traumatic memory is briefly degraded or “blurred.” When the memory is re-stored in the brain’s long-term network, it has been stripped of its intense emotional and sensory charge, thereby reducing the associated distress (De Jongh & Ten Broeke, 2019; Matthijssen et al., 2021). The recognition that the core efficacy of EMDR comes from this calculated interference led researchers to hypothesize that increasing the cognitive load—or maximizing the taxation—could yield a faster, more efficient processing effect with fewer required steps (Matthijssen et al., 2021). This pivotal understanding of WM taxation provides the entire theoretical foundation for the EMDR 2.0 enhancements (Matthijssen et al., 2021).

To appreciate the enhancements of EMDR 2.0, it is important to review the foundation laid by the standard protocol, which remains highly respected and effective worldwide (WHO, 2013; ISTSS, 2018; Matthijssen et al., 2021). Standard EMDR therapy is a highly structured intervention that follows an eight-phase approach over a series of sessions (Shapiro, 2018).

The Eight-Phase Protocol

The treatment begins with detailed Phase 1 (History-taking) and Phase 2 (Preparation), where the therapist gathers a comprehensive history, identifies target memories, and ensures the client has stable coping skills for managing distress (Shapiro, 2018).

Phase 3 (Assessment) is where the target memory is precisely identified, along with the corresponding negative belief, and the emotional disturbance level is measured using the Subjective Units of Disturbance (SUD) scale, which ranges from 0 (no disturbance) to 10 (highest imaginable disturbance) (Shapiro, 2018; Yaşar et al., 2025).

Phases 4 through 7 are the core processing phases: Desensitization, Installation of a positive belief, the Body Scan, and Closure (Shapiro, 2018). During the crucial Desensitization phase (Phase 4), the client focuses on the memory while simultaneously receiving bilateral stimulation, which is typically standard, side-to-side eye movements (Shapiro, 2018). The entire process concludes with Phase 8 (Re-evaluation), where the therapist checks in on symptom resolution at the start of each new session (Shapiro, 2018).

Established Effectiveness

Standard EMDR has demonstrated substantial success in treating PTSD and related conditions, helping individuals reduce symptoms of anxiety, stress, and depression (Carletto & Borghero, 2021; Wilson et al., 2018). The therapy’s wide applicability, even showing promise for complex presentations and chronic pain (Carletto & Borghero, 2021), confirms its strong role in mental health care. However, traditional EMDR sometimes relies on a uniform application of BLS, which may not provide the necessary intensity or tailored engagement for all clients, especially those with particularly entrenched or complex trauma memories (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020; Kılıç, 2023). This established limitation created the opportunity for the sophisticated optimization seen in EMDR 2.0.

EMDR 2.0, developed by De Jongh and Matthijssen in the Netherlands (Matthijssen et al., 2021), is based on the idea that the power of EMDR lies in maximum Working Memory taxation (Matthijssen et al., 2021). If the WM is pushed harder, the memory should degrade faster, leading to quicker healing and fewer desensitization steps (Matthijssen et al., 2021). This concept results in several key adjustments to the standard Phase 4 protocol.

Strategy 1: Supercharged Memory Activation

Before any bilateral stimulation begins, EMDR 2.0 emphasizes increasing the vividness and emotional load of the target memory as much as possible (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020). The therapist guides the client to “zoom in” on the specific image that represents the worst part of the memory, including all associated details and negative emotional aspects (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020).

The goal of this intensive activation is to make the memory highly unstable in the working memory. A memory that is maximally vivid and emotionally charged requires the most cognitive resources to hold onto. By maximizing the load at the start, the subsequent bilateral stimulation has a more potent interference effect, making the memory more vulnerable to modification (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020).

Strategy 2: Enhanced Bilateral Stimulation (E-BLS)

The primary bilateral stimulation task is significantly enhanced in EMDR 2.0 compared to the standard side-to-side eye movements (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020). The E-BLS techniques are highly variable and customized:

1. Superfast Eye Movements: The speed of the eye movements is often dramatically increased. These movements can also vary in pattern, moving diagonally, vertically, or in circular shapes, rather than just horizontally (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020). This rapid, varied movement demands much greater attention and working memory capacity than slower, consistent movements, making the dual-task more difficult (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020).
2. Tailored Approach: The therapist adjusts the rhythm, direction, and speed of the BLS or other forms of stimulation (such as tapping or auditory cues) to match the client’s unique needs and processing style (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020). This fine-tuning aims to better engage the brain’s processing systems for individuals who might not have responded optimally to standard protocols (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020).

Strategy 3: Cognitive Overload via Dual and Triple Tasks

To ensure the Working Memory is overloaded, EMDR 2.0 frequently adds additional demanding cognitive tasks simultaneously with the E-BLS (Matthijssen et al., 2021). This creates a “triple-task” scenario: holding the traumatic memory, performing enhanced BLS, and executing the added cognitive task (De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020).

Examples of these taxing tasks include:

• Counting backward from a high number or performing complex calculations (Matthijssen et al., 2021; De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020).
• Spelling words or reciting the alphabet (Matthijssen et al., 2021).
• Performing complex rhythm tapping sequences while following eye movements (Matthijssen et al., 2021; De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020).
• Introducing a “surprise effect” through unexpected remarks or movements by the therapist to increase cognitive arousal and further destabilize the traumatic memory, leveraging recent findings in memory reconsolidation research (Matthijssen et al., 2021; De Jongh et al., 2019).

By combining stronger activation (Strategy 1) with heightened interference (Strategies 2 and 3), EMDR 2.0 seeks to reach the point of successful memory degradation much more quickly, potentially condensing the reprocessing phase.

The biggest question about EMDR 2.0 is whether it truly leads to faster healing. When scientists look at a therapy, they check two things: efficacy (does it work?) and efficiency (how fast does it work, or how few resources does it use?).

The Landmark Study on Efficiency

A major study in the Netherlands compared standard EMDR against EMDR 2.0. The researchers worked with people who had disturbing personal memories, though they weren’t necessarily suffering from full-blown PTSD (Matthijssen et al., 2021). The goal was to see if EMDR 2.0 could reduce the strong emotions and vividness of those memories more quickly (Matthijssen et al., 2021).

The findings were encouraging:

• Effectiveness (Efficacy): The study showed that EMDR 2.0 was just as effective as standard EMDR. Both treatments resulted in a similar, large decrease in how disturbing and vivid the memories were, a change that lasted for weeks after the session (Matthijssen et al., 2021).
• Speed (Efficiency): This is where EMDR 2.0 showed its advantage. While the total time spent in the session was about the same for both groups, the people using EMDR 2.0 needed significantly fewer “sets” (short bursts of eye movements and tasks) to fully process their disturbing memory (Matthijssen et al., 2021). Standard EMDR required more of these bursts to reach the same level of relief (Matthijssen et al., 2021).

This research suggests that EMDR 2.0’s intense focus on overloading the brain’s “scratchpad” (Working Memory) makes each short burst of treatment more powerful (Matthijssen et al., 2021). Fewer sets needed means less time spent wrestling with the worst parts of the memory, potentially leading to less fatigue for the client and quicker progress in treatment (Matthijssen et al., 2021).

The transition from EMDR 1.0 to EMDR 2.0 represents a scientific refinement of a highly successful therapy, driven by advanced knowledge of neurobiology and Working Memory theory. The major benefit of EMDR 2.0 is its increased efficiency—the ability to achieve the same healing outcomes in fewer steps (Matthijssen et al., 2021).

EMDR 2.0 is the next evolution of a highly effective trauma therapy. It moves beyond the original standard EMDR by using advanced knowledge about how the brain handles stress—the Working Memory Taxation model (Matthijssen et al., 2021). By intentionally overloading the brain’s immediate attention span with super-charged memory activation and enhanced tasks, EMDR 2.0 achieves the same powerful healing effects as standard EMDR, but requires significantly fewer intervention steps (sets) (Matthijssen et al., 2021; De Jongh & Matthijssen, 2020). Ultimately, EMDR 2.0 solidifies EMDR’s standing as a scientifically validated, front-line tool for reducing the distress associated with trauma, anxiety, and stress, proving that refining therapeutic methods can accelerate the path to healing (De Jongh et al., 2019).

Carletto, S., & Borghero, S. (2021). EMDR for anxiety disorders, phobias, and panic disorder: a systematic review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 644369. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644369

De Jongh, A., Amann, B. L., Hofmann, A., Farrell, D., & Lee, C. W. (2019). The status of EMDR therapy in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder 30 years after its introduction. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 13(4), 261–269. doi: 10.1891/1933-3196.13.4.261

De Jongh, A., & Ten Broeke, E. (2019). The theoretical foundation and practical application of the working mechanism of EMDR: a critical appraisal. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 10(1), 1604511. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2019.1604511

International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. (2018). Guideline for the Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Adults. ISTSS.

Kılıç, Z. (2023). Intensive online treatment with prolonged exposure and EMDR 2.0 for severe and chronic PTSD: A case study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1370358. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1370358

Matthijssen, S., & De Jongh, A. (2020). EMDR 2.0: Optimising the EMDR treatment process. EMDR Center for Complex Trauma.

Matthijssen, S. J. M. A., Brouwers, T., van Roozendaal, C., Vuister, T., & de Jongh, A. (2021). The effect of EMDR versus EMDR 2.0 on emotionality and vividness of aversive memories in a non-clinical sample. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 12(1), 1956793. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2021.1956793

Shapiro, F. (2018). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2018). Post-traumatic stress disorder. NICE Guideline [NG116].

Van den Hout, M. A., & Engelhard, I. M. (2015). The impact of concurrent tasks on the vividness and emotionality of negative memories: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 6, 45. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00045

Wilson, L. H., Farrell, D., & Roberts, H. (2018). EMDR for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 9(1), 1461911. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2018.1461911

World Health Organization. (2013). Guidelines for the Management of Conditions Specifically Related to Stress. WHO Press.

Yaşar, A. B., Gundogmus, I., Kubilay, D., Tunca, G. A., Uygun, E., Çiftçi, Z. Z., & Kavakcı, Ö. (2025). The effectiveness of online Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing 2.0 Group Protocol on post-traumatic stress disorders symptoms, depression, anxiety, and stress in individuals who have experienced a traffic accident: a randomized-controlled study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 16, 1452206. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1452206