A good idea - to my knowledge there is no published neurobiological study that links PTSD, EMDR and the Frontal Eye Fields in the distinct way you mention. As there are hints that especially eye movements are superior, e.g. to tones, in the EMDR treatment of PTSD [1-4], a fMRI study could help :-)

1 de Jongh A, Ernst R, Marques L, Hornsveld H: The impact of eye movements and tones on disturbing memories involving ptsd and other mental disorders. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry 2013;44:477-483.

2 Jeffries FW, Davis P: What is the role of eye movements in eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (emdr) for post-traumatic stress disorder (ptsd)? A review. Behavioural and cognitive psychotherapy 2013;41:290-300.

3 van den Hout MA, Engelhard IM, Rijkeboer MM, Koekebakker J, Hornsveld H, Leer A, Toffolo MB, Akse N: Emdr: Eye movements superior to beeps in taxing working memory and reducing vividness of recollections. Behaviour research and therapy 2011;49:92-98.

4 van den Hout MA, Rijkeboer MM, Engelhard IM, Klugkist I, Hornsveld H, Toffolo MJ, Cath DC: Tones inferior to eye movements in the emdr treatment of ptsd. Behaviour research and therapy 2012;50:275-279.

Thanks for these references suggesting that the oculomotor system, in particular the FEF, could indeed provide an interesting window into the nervous system for both clinicians and researchers. We already know that the FEF is part of a visual attention network. The question remains however if there is any evidence of a circuitry linking FEF to areas in inferior frontal cortex that might be more specifically involved in inhibition of stress related functions. In particular, feelings of anxiety and disturbing or unwanted memories. (e.g. Anderson, M.C. et al. (2004) Neural systems underlying the suppression of unwanted memories. Science 303, 232–235; Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA. (2004). Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 8:170–7).

Hi-- actually, dismantling research has generally suggested that the eye movements are not the active ingredient of treatment. That is, EMDR with and without back-and-forth eye movements seems to accomplish the same results. More likely, the active ingredient in EMDR is imaginal exposure (deliberately confronting traumatic memories), which has long been a recognized treatment for PTSD.

See:

Devilly, G. J. (2002). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: A chronology of Its development and scientific standing. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 1, 113-138.

The Devilly (2002) study is old, and flawed. Actually, a meta-analysis by Lee and Cujipers (2013) has found that eye movements do in fact have an effect on the processing of distressing memories.

===============

Lee, C. W., & Cuijpers, P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the contribution of eye movements in processing emotional memories. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experiential Psychiatry, 44(2), 231-239. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.11.001.

Abstract:

Background and Objectives: Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) is now considered evidence based practice in the treatment of trauma symptoms. Yet in a previous meta-analysis, no significant effect was found for the eye movement component. However methodological issues with this study may have resulted in a type II error. The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine current published studies to test whether eye movements significantly affect the processing of distressing memories. Method: A systematic review of the literature revealed two groups of studies. The first group comprised 15 clinical trials and compared the effects of EMDR therapy with eye movements to those of EMDR without the eye movements. The second group comprised 11 laboratory trials that investigated the effects of eye movements while thinking of a distressing memory versus the same procedure without the eye movements in a non-therapy context. The total number of participants was 849. Results: The effect size for the additive effect of eye movements in EMDR treatment studies was moderate and significant (Cohen's d = 0.41). For the second group of laboratory studies the effect size was large and significant (d = 0.74). The strongest effect size difference was for vividness measures in the non-therapy studies (d = 0.91). The data indicated that treatment fidelity acted as a moderator variable on the effect of eye movements in the therapy studies. Conclusions: Results were discussed in terms of current theories that suggest the processes involved in EMDR are different from other exposure based therapies.

________________________________________________________________

Regarding the suggestion that EMDR is a form of imaginal exposure:

If you fully understand complete treatment fidelity in EMDR, it becomes clear that EMDR is very different from imaginal exposure. In EMDR therapy the client is not asked to fully step into/relive the experience as is required of exposure treatment. In fact, the therapist is taught tools to actively manages the process to if it becomes apparent that the client is reliving the memory. In fact, the eye movements may contribute to the distance processes that are required for effective treatment in EMDR. EMDR allows spontaneous associations, while in exposure therapy the client is redirected back to the memory when spontaneous associations occur. Additionally, EMDR uses no homework to treat the trauma while exposure therapies use 1-2 hours of daily imaginal and/or in vivo homework.

====================

Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Drummond, P. D. (2006, March-April). The active ingredient in EMDR: Is it traditional exposure or dual focus of attention?. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13(2), 97-107. doi:10.1002/cpp.479.

Abstract:

Very little is known about the mechanisms that underlie the therapeutic effectiveness of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). This study tested whether the content of participants' responses during EMDR is similar to that thought to be effective for traditional exposure treatments (reliving), or is more consistent with distancing, which would be expected given Shapiro's proposal of dual process of attention. The responses made by 44 participants with PTSD were examined during their first EMDR treatment session. An independent rater coded these responses according to whether they were consistent with reliving, distancing, or focusing on material other than the primary trauma. The coding system was found to have satisfactory inter-rater reliability. Greatest improvement on a measure of PTSD symptoms occurred when the participant processed the trauma in a more detached manner. Cross-lagged panel correlations suggest that processing in a more detached manner was a consequence of the EMDR procedure rather than a measure that covaried with improvement. [Author Abstract]

=============

Lee, C. (2008). Crucial processes in EMDR - More than imaginal exposure. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 2(4), 262-268. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.2.4.262.

Abstract:

The processes that underlie the effectiveness of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) are examined by evaluating the procedural differences between it and exposure therapy. Major factors include the degree of emphasis placed on reliving versus distancing in the therapies and the degree to which clients are encouraged to focus on direct trauma experiences versus experiences associated with the trauma. Research results indicate that, unlike traditional imaginal exposure, reliving responses in EMDR did not correlate with symptom improvement. Instead, consistent with an information processing model, the degree of distancing in EMDR was significantly associated with improvement. A case study is described to highlight these methodological divergences in the respective therapies relating to reliving. Finally, the research regarding the possible sources of the distancing response within EMDR was examined. The results indicate that the distancing process was more likely to be an effect produced by eye movements than by any therapist instructions. Theoretical and research evaluations indicate that the mechanisms underlying EMDR and traditional exposure therapy are different.

===============

Rogers, S., & Silver, S. M. (2002, January). Is EMDR an exposure therapy? A review of trauma protocols. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(1), 43-59. doi:10.1002/jclp.1128.

Abstract:

This article presents the well established theoretical base and clinical practice of exposure therapy for trauma. Necessary requirements for positive treatment results and contraindicated procedures are reviewed. EMDR is contrasted with these requirements and procedures. By the definitions and clinical practice of exposure therapy, the classification of EMDR poses some problems. As seen from the exposure therapy paradigm, its lack of physiological habituation and use of spontaneous association should result in negligible or negative effects rather than the well researched positive outcomes. Possible reasons for the effectiveness of EMDR are discussed, ranging from the fundamental nature of trauma reactions to the nonexposure mechanisms utilized in information processing models.