Integral Eye Movement Technique

Integral Eye Movement Technique (IEMT), also referred to in this wiki as Integral Eye Movement Therapy, uses directed eye movements and structured enquiry to work with reported emotional responses and aspects of self-experience. Its practice model includes Emotional Imprints (EmIs), Identity Imprints (IdIs) and Patterns of Chronicity. These terms describe concepts used within IEMT; they should not be read as established neurological entities or diagnoses.

Practitioners use observation and the client's account to agree a focus for the work. Claims about benefit, explanations of how a procedure works and a framework for choosing that procedure require different kinds of evidence.

The wiki's proposed Roy-informed governing principles place this work within the person's wider life. The planning workflow and formulation and outcome-review sheet connect a chosen life outcome with assessment, an intervention rationale and follow-up.

The roots of this model can be traced to Steve Andreas and Connirae Andreas's eye-movement integration therapy and Francine Shapiro's eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, and it was also influenced by David Grove's ideas about exploring identity through the use of pronouns. The model was developed by therapist Andrew T. Austin, in the United Kingdom.

IEMT's development account links its procedures to observations of changes in imagery, feeling and self-experience during eye movements. Such observations can inform a practice model, but do not themselves identify the neural processes responsible. References to emotional “coding” or “imprints” should be understood as the model's explanatory language unless supported by specific evidence.

Within IEMT, an emotional imprint describes a familiar emotional response associated with remembered experience and subsequent situations. This is a way of organising the client's reported experience. It does not establish that a particular memory caused the present problem or that an imprint has been directly identified in the brain.

The K-Protocol, also known as the IEMT Kinaesthetic Pattern and formerly the Basic Pattern, begins with the client's present experience of an unwanted emotional state or bodily sensation. Its set-up enquiry concerns the intensity and familiarity of the feeling and an early memory the client can access in connection with it.

An accessible early memory is material recalled now, not proof of the earliest causal event. Enquiry should allow uncertainty and should not require the client to discover a hidden cause or endorse the practitioner's explanation.

IEMT descriptions also refer to “axis deviations”, subtle eye movements used to inform the direction of the procedure. Claims that this makes treatment more efficient, changes a particular neural pathway or clears an emotional imprint require direct investigation. A reported change in emotional intensity does not by itself establish those mechanisms.

The practical task is to record the agreed target and what changes, then review whether the result is useful in the client's life. See IEMT Treatment Plans for the proposed assessment and evaluation process.

IEMT uses “Identity Imprint” for self-perceptions and descriptions that appear to organise a person's experience across situations. The term belongs to the IEMT imprinting model. It does not identify a distinct neurological structure or provide a diagnosis.

The model distinguishes a description of a feeling, such as “I feel unhappy”, from a description of oneself, such as “I am an unhappy person”. Practitioners may explore pronouns and self-reference to understand how the client experiences these descriptions. The question “How did this person learn to be this way?” is a prompt within the model, not proof that a single learning event explains an identity.

Changes in circumstances can make a role or self-description difficult to sustain. For example, a promotion can alter a person's responsibilities and relationships with former peers. A Roy-informed formulation asks about these actual demands and available support as well as the person's understanding of themselves.

Identity work should follow the client's own priorities and values. It is not a licence to bypass consent, dismiss a diagnosis or impose a preferred identity. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not themselves treatment targets. Whether work on a chosen self-description produces useful and sustained change needs to be evaluated.

IEMT uses “Patterns of Chronicity” to describe recurring processes that may contribute to a difficulty continuing or complicate work towards an agreed change. They are interpretive concepts within the model, not diagnoses. The practitioner needs to establish what actually happens, in which circumstances and with what consequences, rather than infer a motive from a phrase or gesture.

A response may reflect uncertainty, a protective strategy, exhaustion, an unsuitable intervention, a problem in the therapeutic relationship or a real constraint in the person's environment. Its function should be explored with the client and the explanation revised when it does not fit.

A client may disagree, report no benefit, decline a topic or stop a procedure. None of these actions alone establishes a Pattern of Chronicity. Respecting these choices is consistent with the proposed governing principles and with shared decision making. NICE NG197: shared decision making.

The five patterns discussed in IEMT are:

1. The Three-Stage Overreaction, formerly called the Three-Stage Abreaction.
2. The Maybe Man.
3. The Great Big “What If” Question.
4. Testing for the Existence of the Problem Rather Than Testing for Change.
5. “Being at Effect” rather than “Being at Cause”.

The names are retained here to connect with IEMT teaching. Descriptive, collaborative language is preferable when discussing an individual client's experience.

This model describes a proposed sequence in which an interpersonal signal escalates when the other person does not respond as expected. Its traditional labels are warning, threat and punishment. Those labels imply an interpretation of the interaction; they cannot be established simply from increasing distress or a request to change the session.

The person expresses discomfort, dissatisfaction or a preference. For example, “I do not want to talk about this.” First clarify what they mean and what they want to happen. A stated boundary or concern about the practitioner's conduct is information to act on, not evidence of a problem-maintaining strategy.

The message becomes more emphatic. If the client says they will stop if a topic continues, respect that limit and agree the next step. The practitioner should consider whether the earlier signal was missed, whether the work is appropriate and whether consent remains in place. The word “threat” is a model label, not a reason to continue against the person's wishes.

The traditional model interprets the final stage as an attempt to impose a consequence on the other person. Crying, silence, leaving or ending a session do not establish that intention. Attend to the person's needs and review the interaction. Only discuss a recurring interpersonal sequence as a working hypothesis when there is supporting information and the client has an opportunity to correct the account.

This label refers to recurrent qualifying language such as “kind of”, “sort of” or “maybe”. Such language can make a proposed target difficult to specify, but it can also accurately express uncertainty, a changing experience or the limits of a rating scale.

“About five or six out of ten” is a usable approximate report, not evidence of insufficient engagement. Ask for a concrete situation, allow time and offer a different way of describing the experience. If the meaning remains unclear, record that uncertainty rather than presuming unconscious resistance.

Within IEMT, this describes a proposed pattern in which a hypothetical exception is used to invalidate an entire course of action. It is more specific than ordinary worry about the future. A question about risk or whether an intervention will help may be entirely reasonable.

For example, “What if my partner does not appreciate it?” could express either a practical concern or an assumption that a disappointing response would make every effort worthless. Explore the implied conclusion without calling the question a trap. Agree what would be within the client's control and how a genuine difficulty could be handled.

This describes attention to what remains difficult while overlooking a relevant improvement. Review the original baseline and agreed goal so that both progress and continuing difficulty can be considered.

A remaining problem may still matter greatly to the client. Do not demand a positive account or imply that reporting it cancels earlier gains. Record improvement, no change and deterioration with the same care. If the outcome is insufficient, revise the plan.

This distinction is used in IEMT to explore perceived agency: what the person believes they can influence and where they feel powerless. The useful question is which options are actually available, with what resources and at what cost.

Responsibility for abuse, discrimination or another person's harmful conduct does not belong to the person affected. Illness, poverty and limited support can also impose real constraints. Adaptation may involve seeking protection, practical assistance or changes in the environment.

Where a person has overlooked a possible action, explore it collaboratively. Where there is little individual control, acknowledge that reality and consider support or collective action. Receiving help or needing the practitioner to take an active role is not, by itself, evidence of passivity or an inability to benefit.

The “lynchpin” is an IEMT concept proposing that a particular shame-related experience may be relevant to a person's intrusive imagery. It should not be presented as a universal cause, a diagnostic feature of PTSD or an established mechanism of recovery. Claims that addressing it resolves flashbacks require appropriate clinical evidence.

The exploratory eye-movement study described below does not establish IEMT as an effective PTSD treatment. PTSD assessment and treatment decisions should follow appropriate clinical guidance and competence. NICE recommendations include trauma-focused CBT and, under specified circumstances, EMDR; evidence for EMDR cannot simply be transferred to IEMT. NICE NG116: PTSD recommendations.

Within IEMT, Physiological State Accessing Cues (PSACs) refers to observed changes in posture, movement or other bodily presentation that accompany access to a reported emotional state. The observation is a starting point for enquiry, not a reading of the person's nervous system or proof of a trauma history.

The practitioner can describe what they noticed and ask whether the client notices a relationship with their experience. Where appropriate and agreed, a comfortable change in posture or movement can be explored and the client asked what, if anything, changes. Pain, physical limitations and a wish to stop need to be respected.

A change in reported distress is an observation to record. It does not demonstrate a particular vagal pathway, lasting neurological change or a general ability to control unwanted states. Statements about these mechanisms require evidence beyond body-language observation.

The Roy-informed approach also asks whether rest, physical support, assessment or a change in demands is needed. Provocation or shock should not be used to override a boundary or treat a request to stop as something to overcome. Evaluate the client's experience and any unwanted effects, rather than assuming that an observable shift is beneficial.

The wiki discusses an exploratory application of IEMT in work with psoriasis. Moore and Manea's 2018 case report describes work conducted in 2016 with one person, followed by reported improvement in skin eruptions and no further reported seizures at follow-up. The authors acknowledge other possible influences, including changes in alcohol and marijuana use. Moore and Manea, 2018: full case report.

These observations do not establish that IEMT treats psoriasis or prevents epileptic seizures, and should not be used to justify changing medical care. The report is preliminary material, not proof of a treatment effect.

Following his accusations that IEMT was plagiarised work, Michael Carroll posted the following via the John Grinder Facebook page on 18 June 2020 (all spelling, grammar, and punctuation as per original posting):

A question posted to John Grinder asking which part of IEMT matches this description has never been answered and Michael Carroll has declined to justify further his accusations.

A trademark claim by Ron Klein that threatened IEMT trainers with legal action for breach of trademark in 2019 due to the similarity of the names “Eye Movement Integration” and “Integral Eye Movement Therapy” was disproven after it was demonstrated that Ron Klein had no legal claim to the “Eye Movement Integration” trademark in the USA. The trademark had long expired and the US trademark office has declared “Eye Movement Integration” to be a descriptive term in the public domain and not a trademark and therefore is not subject to trademark protection.

A 2026 exploratory study compared IEMT-directed eye movements, EMDR-directed eye movements and a control condition in 33 adults recruited from the general population, with conditions presented in randomised order. Both eye-movement conditions had lower reported distress than control after the intervention and at one week; the active conditions did not significantly differ. van Heugten-van der Kloet and colleagues, 2026.

This finding concerns the studied procedures and outcomes. It does not establish equivalence of the complete therapies, effectiveness for particular diagnoses, the proposed imprint or chronicity mechanisms, or the validity of the Roy-informed planning framework. Claims about durable benefit and mechanism need evidence matched to those claims.

• The IEMT Adaptive Model
• Roy-informed Governing Principles
• IEMT Treatment Plans
• Adaptive Formulation and Outcome Review Sheet
• Alternative Eye Movement Therapy Models
• Gate Theory of Pain

Austin, Andrew T. (2015). Integral Eye Movement Therapy. In Neukrug, Edward S. (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Theory in Counseling and Psychotherapy (pp. 539–541, 718). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1452274126

Moore, J. M., & Manea, A. I. (2018). The Use of Integral Eye Movement Therapy (IEMT) in the Treatment of Psoriasis-Induced Skin Eruption: A Case Study. Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy / Revista de PSIHOterapie Experientiala, 21(3), 71–81.

Sattar, N. (May 24, 2021). Eye-Moving Breakthrough in the Treatment of Psoriasis. MedIzzy Journal. https://journal.medizzy.com/eye-moving-breakthrough-in-treatment-of-psoriasis/

Richards, S. (2021). Integral Eye Movement Techniques: The Definitive Guide. Integraleyemovement.com. ISBN 1838496408