Is Brainspotting Evidence Based? A Psychiatrist Reads the Data

This will be a long one and it gets into the weeds…

If you’ve ever wondered: "is brainspotting legit?" You've found three kinds of pages: therapist websites saying the research “shows” it works (but not much of a deep dive, or a throwaway list of references that contain… who knows?), a skeptic post saying it's closer to quackery, and a Wikipedia article that uses the word pseudoscience in the first paragraph. Sigh.

Here's the problem with all three. "Is Brainspotting legit" is actually three different questions (maybe  more), and they have three different answers:

1. Is the proposed mechanism real? (Does holding your gaze on a specific spot do what the theory says it does? Does it do something helpful, but maybe not in the same way they’re saying it does?)

2. Does it just plain help people?

3. Is it worth your money and hours compared to other psychotherapies that perhaps meet more criteria for being “established” (and what does that even mean)?

Short version, expanded below: probably not as stated; plausibly, in small conflicted studies; and not as a first choice for PTSD per the official guidelines. This is separate from my personal clinical love of the modality.

I believe it’s important that we’re honest about where the research evidence lies vs our preferences and clinical experiences.

I'm going to separate these, show you the actual studies, and teach you ways to think about them.

Because there will be a next time. Someone will offer you the next modality, and I'd rather you be able to understand how to think about this.

Though with some humility: There's a reason the evidence base was never meant to be interpreted by any of us alone. Guidelines and consensus panels have real flaws, and their job is still something no individual reader can do: read a whole field, weigh the methods, be trained in statistical analysis and picking apart research, and take it all in together. I'd rather you finish this able to ask better questions than convinced you don't need them.

First, everything you should know about my stake in this:

I'm a psychiatrist. I'm trained in Brainspotting and I practice it, which means I earn income doing Brainspotting right now. That matters more than the money I once spent on training, and you should weigh it accordingly. I attend Melanie Twite's weekly consultation group, Brainspotting: Beyond the Pointer, and part of how I understand the method comes from that. One study I discuss below (Horton et al. 2023) has a co-author who is my trainer in a different modality, although we don’t work together closely. And some of the research behind this piece used clinician-level AI tools, with every citation human-verified, which I'm telling you because a later section of this piece is about AI-fabricated citations on other therapists' websites, and it would be rich to hide my own methods while criticizing theirs.

Why do I do this work at all?

Because I've sat with people who circled an experience verbally for years, and then, in this kind of session, dropped underneath the words and something moved. I'll describe what I think is actually happening later (and I’ll try to be clear about what’s my clinical opinion vs what’s research evidence). It’s good to keep in mind because "I have seen it work" is the exact sentence every practitioner of every modality in history has said, including the discredited ones. It deserves the same weight from you when I say it too.

What "evidence-based" even means

"Evidence-based" gets used like a seal of approval, the way "organic" gets used on food. It's actually a set of specific machines with specific gears.

Machine one: the empirically supported treatment criteria

Clinical psychology still leans on a framework that was initially established in 1998, published by psychologists Dianne Chambless and Steven Hollon.

These are the tiers:

“Well Established”

A treatment is well-established when:

1.     At least two good experiments show it beats a placebo or another treatment, or matches an already-established treatment (there's also a path through a large series of rigorous single-case experiments)

2.     AND the treatment is clearly described or manualized

3.     AND the effects were demonstrated by at least two different research teams

“Probably Efficacious”

A treatment is probably efficacious when two experiments show it beats a waiting list, or when it meets everything aboveexcept the independent-teams requirement.

Notice what the gate is between the top two tiers (established vs probably efficacious): not study count or effect size, but independence. One team, however good, can produce all the data in the world and the framework still won't call the treatment “well-established”. That's because psychotherapy research has measured what happens when the people testing a therapy are the people invested in it, and because a one-off accidental positive result is always possible.

“Experimental”

A treatment is experimental when it hasn't yet been tested in trials meeting those standards.

(This is the tier that Brainspotting is in)

Machine two: clinical guidelines

They also base themselves on the research, in a different way:  

Leaning away from bias: The American Psychological Association's 2025 PTSD guideline and the VA/Department of Defense 2023 guideline use a system called GRADE, which has no independence rule at all. There, developer involvement enters sideways, through "risk of bias" judgments, and the number of studies enters through what GRADE calls imprecision. Different machinery, with a converging effect: two good trials from a developer's own shop buy less confidence, under either machine, than one good trial from a team with nothing to gain. That’s a great hedge against bias.

Guidelines rate evidence for a clinical question. They don't accredit therapies. When you read that Brainspotting "isn't recommended in any major guideline," the precise truth is that Brainspotting never entered the pool the panels could rate. The chair of the APA's guideline panel, Lori Zoellner, said this plainly about treatments the panel couldn't evaluate: the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against, the studies are small or at risk of bias, and better trials are awaited. Not rejected. Not vindicated. Unrated. Those are three different things, and most of the internet fight about Brainspotting’s legitimacy comes from people collapsing these three into one thing.

Here's why that distinction has teeth right now.

In 2025, the APA updated its PTSD guideline. Cognitive processing therapy (CPT), prolonged exposure (PE), and trauma-focused CBT sit first-line; EMDR sits second-line, a conditional "suggested" rating. For the APA that's continuity rather than a demotion - they rated EMDR conditionally back in 2017 too. What makes it news is the company: five other national and international guidelines from the past decade all put EMDR in their top tier, which leaves the APA as the lone dissent. Six panels, roughly the same pile of trials, one holdout.

And the grades do get re-derived, not just reprinted. Cognitive therapy was strongly recommended in the APA's 2017 guideline and sits in the second tier in 2025. A therapy can be re-graded downward when a panel re-reads the evidence.

Which is a distinction I have to keep making against my own interest. "The panels disagree and the grades move, so a grade doesn't mean much" is an argument I could reach for here, and it isn't available to me. EMDR's grade is contested because six panels weighed the same evidence and one landed lower than the rest. Cognitive therapy's grade moved because a panel re-weighed it. Brainspotting didn't get weighed at all.

EMDR's researchers published a formal critique of that 2025 guideline (Lee et al. 2026), arguing the APA used outdated reviews and an unusually conservative evidence standard, and noting the guideline is an outlier against five other national guidelines: the UK's NICE, the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Phoenix Australia, the Australian Psychological Society, and the VA/DoD guideline already mentioned. Every one of those five puts EMDR in the top tier. Only the APA doesn't.

And the reason why is the best illustration in this whole piece of why my three questions have to stay separate from each other. When guideline groups have been compared directly, the thing that sets the APA apart is that it factored in the weak evidence for the eye movements themselves when deciding how strongly to recommend the treatment. The other bodies rated EMDR on its outcome data alone and set the mechanism question aside. Same studies. Same effect sizes. Different answer, because one panel let "we don't believe the proposed mechanism" pull down "does the treatment improve outcomes." “Work” in that the mechanism is working or “work” in that the outcomes are moving? Question one bleeding into question two, at the level of a national guideline, by people who do this professionally. If they can collapse those questions, so can we, and so can a blog post.

Two things about how they made that argument in the 2026 critique of the 2025 guideline's EMDR rating, because they're the model for what a real challenge to an evidence review looks like. First, every claim they make can be checked by a reader who wants to: which reviews the panel used and when those reviews were published, which studies got included and which got left out, whether a stated effect size matches the one in the original paper. You can go look. Nothing rests on the reader trusting the authors' judgment. Second, they state in the paper that they earn income from EMDR books and workshops. They have an obvious stake, they say so, and then they make an argument that stands or falls on its own checkable claims. Hold that shape in mind for when we get to how Brainspotting's world has answered its own critics.

What no therapy study can fully solve and what’s missing with Brainspotting

Therapy research is hard.

• You can't double-blind a therapy trial. The clinician always knows what they're delivering.

• Waitlist comparisons inflate: a huge effect against people receiving nothing is not a huge effect against another real treatment, and the two get printed side by side constantly.

• Therapists differ from each other more than manuals admit.

• Outcomes lean on self-report.

• Follow-ups are short periods of time.

• Trial sample groups often don't look like real caseloads.

And even the winners look less special up close: a major JAMA review of PTSD psychotherapy trials in military populations found that the first-line trauma-focused therapies helped many people, and also that nonresponse rates were quite high and results were only marginally better than active control conditions (Steenkamp et al. 2015). The Leichsenring 2022 review’s overall conclusion is that across disorders, the majority of effect sizes were small, with an average SMD around 0.34-0.36 versus placebo or TAU, and it frames the field as having hit a ceiling, with response rates at or below 50%.

The best therapies we have are good, not magic.

So when someone says "Brainspotting isn't evidence-based," part of what they're describing is weather everyone stands in.

Despite the overall methodological challenges applied to all psychotherapies, this is the ground that Brainspotting specifically hasn't covered.

None of these are cases where somebody ran the study and Brainspotting failed. They're cases where nobody ran the study. Absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. Those are genuinely different situations, and the second one is much worse for a modality than the first. A failed trial is information. A missing trial is just silence, and silence can be hiding anything, including a treatment that works.

• Dr. David Grand, who developed the method (or distilled it), is an author on the main study comparing it to EMDR. It's understandable that proponents run the early research, but it is objectively a source of bias.

• No independent research team without a stake has replicated anything. This is not because independent teams tried and got nothing, but because independent teams haven't tried (or at least not tried and published the try)

• Twenty-plus years in, no one has run a dismantling trial (a study that removes the signature ingredient to see if it mattered) of the brainspot itself. This isn't a hypothetical study design: EMDR has been through it repeatedly. The logic is the same one you'd use anywhere. Hold everything constant, take out the one ingredient the method is named for, and see whether anything changes. (That assumes the modality reduces to one ingredient, which I also don't think it does).

·       No one has published inter-rater reliability data: if two trained clinicians worked with the same person on the same issue, would they land on the same spot? I want to be careful here, because I think this test is aimed at a version of Brainspotting I don't practice and don't defend. In the "rolling" setup you move across the visual field, staying with whatever comes up as you go; there isn't one spot to find. Treating the whole thing as a hunt for the single correct coordinate misunderstands what's happening, which in my view is closer to facilitated mindfulness and emotional presence with relational attunement. So my honest position is that a failed reliability study wouldn't trouble me much. But it would trouble the published claim, and that's the point of running it. The theory as written says a trained clinician locates a brainspot. I also think Dr. Grand might argue that that’s a helpful “boil it down” explanation, but not the heart of it. If two trained clinicians reliably don't locate similar eye positions within the same session, then the located spot isn't a stable feature of the person, and the branded claim is finished even if the practice survives. That's a real result either way, which is what makes it worth considering.

• Most of the literature publishes outside the major indexed journals, which is part of why even good AI research tools miss it. More on that later.

Point one says: be humble about what "evidence-based" delivers anywhere.

Point two says: Brainspotting still hasn't done the homework this imperfect system assigns.

Both are true.

Question one: is the proposed mechanism real?

The claim: Brainspotting's developer, David Grand PhD, proposes that where your eyes rest can connect to unprocessed traumatic (or emotionally upsetting) material, that a trained clinician can locate a "brainspot" (an eye position paired with your body's activation around an issue), and that holding your gaze there lets deep brain systems process what was frozen. The motto, from his 2013 book is: “where you look affects how you feel.”

The technical version: The model was laid out in two papers proposing a pathway from the retina down to deep brain structures involved in orienting and defense: the superior colliculus, the periaqueductal gray, the pulvinar (Corrigan & Grand 2013; Corrigan, Grand & Raju 2015). Here's the first thing a careful reader notices: both papers were published in Medical Hypotheses, a journal that exists, by design, to publish untested conjecture. That's not an insult. It's the authors' own label.

They chose a journal whose entire stated purpose is publishing ideas that haven't been tested yet, and they titled the work as hypotheses. That's a reasonable thing to do with a new idea, and it's more intellectually honest than dressing up conjecture as findings. The problem starts downstream, when those papers get listed on practice websites under headings like "the research," where a reader has no way to know that the authors themselves were saying here is something worth testing rather than here is something we tested!

And twenty years on, the hypotheses remain untested: no study has checked whether particular eye positions reliably connect a person to particular material, or whether holding a gaze recruits those brain circuits therapeutically.

That could still be overly simplistic for what brainspotting really is, in my opinion. Not one spot = one memory. But certain places, gazes, or symbols help connect people to a felt sense.

“Subcortical”

By the way, the word "subcortical" (below the cortex, meaning below the brain's outer thinking layer) is important. It traces to 1990s brain-imaging studies where people relived trauma while in the fMRI scanner (measuring where in the brain there is blood flow, and therefore activity) and speech areas went quiet, which became the "speechless terror" shorthand; to Stephen Porges's polyvagal framing of the nervous system; and to the Corrigan and Grand papers naming real subcortical structures.

The structures exist. They participate in orienting and defense. The superior colliculus runs reflexive orienting, the thing that snaps your head and eyes toward a sudden movement before you've consciously registered it. The periaqueductal gray organizes defensive responses, the freeze-flight-fight family, and does it fast and below conscious control. The pulvinar is involved in visual attention and appears to carry a quick, coarse route for threat-relevant visual information. So these are genuinely the structures a trauma theory would want to be talking about, which is part of why the model reads as plausible.

The leap is from "these structures exist" to "this therapy engages them," which is an inference dressed as a finding.

When I use "subcortical" myself, and I do, I mean it as a description of experience: a register under words, logic, and argument, where emotion, dream, trauma, and the psychedelic state all seem to live. I use it to describe what it feels like, not a claim about anatomy.

However, maybe I need a better word!

Perhaps preverbal (but not quite right since not all the emotional scars are formed in the preverbal period – as this word suggests).

Perhaps prereflective or preconscious?

Maybe just “deeper than” or “beyond words”.

The pseudoscience critique: In 2024, psychologists Dean McKay and Alexandra Coreil argued Brainspotting meets criteria for pseudoscience, publishing, in a small joke nobody planned, in the same journal as the founding papers (McKay & Coreil 2024). Their strongest point isn't "the mechanism is speculative." It's structural: if treatment failure gets attributed to the clinician's attunement missing the spot, rather than to the method, then no outcome can ever count against the method. The model becomes insulated from ever being wrong.

Read strictly, though, that's a charge against how Brainspotting gets practiced and talked about, not against the theory on paper. The distinction: the written theory makes a claim you could design a study to disprove, and I'll design one below. What can't be disproven is the conversation that happens after a session goes badly, in the therapy room or the consultation group, where "the attunement wasn't there" is always available and always sounds true. The theory is testable. The culture around it has an unfalsifiable escape hatch built in, and uses it. Those are different problems with different fixes, and McKay and Coreil are describing the second while writing as though they've found the first.

The model as written concretely is falsifiable: a fake brainspot is easy to specify, so the theory can be tested, theoretically. McKay and Coreil are right about the sociology and overreach slightly on the logic. Learning to tell those two apart, the claim versus the culture around the claim, is a skill worth taking from this piece to every future modality you evaluate.

Is there a published empirical rebuttal to them? No. Flatly: nothing published tests the mechanism, so nothing published can rebut them on the evidence. The most visible response from the Brainspotting world argues that the pseudoscience label is a tool of power emerging from a reductionistic worldview. Whatever you think of that argument, notice: It doesn't dispute the methodological claims. It disputes the legitimacy of making them. One of these is a rebuttal; the other is a change of subject.

Now put that beside the EMDR critique from a few pages back. Same situation, roughly: a group of practitioners thinks their modality has been judged unfairly. One group wrote down which reviews were outdated, which studies were left out, and what the numbers should have been, disclosed their income from the modality, and published it where their critics could check every line. The other argued that the standard being applied is itself illegitimate. Both responses are available to any field at any time. Which one a field reaches for tells you a lot about its health, and it costs nothing to notice which one you're being handed.

And here's the sharpest skeptical point available, which as far as I can tell nobody in this debate has made, so I'll make it against my own modality: the best-supported account of why eye movements do anything in EMDR research is working-memory taxation, where tracking a moving target competes with the traumatic memory for mental resources and blunts its vividness. A held, static gaze taxes working memory much less than tracking does. So the leading mechanism next door predicts, if anything, that Brainspotting's signature ingredient should do less than EMDR's (and I don’t think that’s the case in terms of what I’ve seen – OR perhaps that’s why it’s actually better tolerated in some people). That's untested in any clinical sample, so hold it loosely.

What happened when EMDR's proposed mechanism was actually tested:

In 2001, a meta-analysis (a study that pools all the studies) found the eye movements added nothing: EMDR worked no better than the same procedure without them (Davidson & Parker 2001).

In 2013, a meta-analysis found the opposite, and was written explicitly as a rebuttal to the first one's statistical methods. Lee and Cuijpers pooled 15 clinical trials of EMDR with versus without eye movements, plus 11 laboratory studies, 849 participants total. The eye movements added a moderate benefit in treatment studies (d = 0.41, a statistical effect size where 0.2 is small and 0.8 is large), a large one in lab studies (d = 0.74), with the biggest effect on how vivid the memory felt (d = 0.91) (Lee & Cuijpers 2013).

In 2020, a large neutral meta-analysis found EMDR beats control conditions overall (g = 0.93), but with red flags everywhere: only four of 27 studies at low risk of bias, signs of publication bias, and EMDR's advantage over other therapies disappearing when only the trustworthy studies counted. Its dismantling studies in PTSD, full EMDR versus EMDR minus eye movements, pooled to no significant difference (Cuijpers et al. 2020).

These aren't anonymous camps. The 2013 pro-eye-movement analysis was led by Christopher W. Lee, a career EMDR researcher, the same Lee who lead-authored the 2026 critique of the APA guideline and declares workshop income. The 2020 null came from Pim Cuijpers, who runs one of the most productive neutral meta-analysis groups in the field. And here's the twist that stops it being a simple advocates-versus-skeptics story: Cuijpers is an author on both papers. The same careful scientist stands on both sides.

So how do two careful analyses, sharing an author, reach opposite answers? Because they weren't answering the same question.

Lee and Cuijpers included laboratory studies, where a volunteer brings up an unpleasant memory, moves their eyes for a few minutes, and rates how vivid and upsetting it feels afterward. That's a clean test of whether the eye movements do something to a memory, and the answer was a fairly emphatic yes, with the largest effect on vividness, which is exactly what the working-memory account predicts. The 2020 analysis asked something else: in a course of actual therapy with people who came in for help, does adding the eye movements to everything else EMDR does produce a better outcome? Answer: not measurably.

Both can be true at once, and the reason is worth having permanently. An ingredient can have a real, measurable effect in isolation and still not move the needle inside a full treatment, because the treatment contains other things doing the same job more powerfully. Recalling the memory in detail. Doing it repeatedly. Doing it with someone calm sitting across from you. Against those, a demonstrable but modest effect on vividness can simply disappear into the noise.

That's the general skill: when two studies disagree, look first at what each one actually measured and in whom, before deciding which team to believe. Most apparent contradictions in this literature aren't contradictions. They're different questions wearing the same headline.

Notice what the arc did to EMDR: its signature mechanism claim got dented, and its efficacy survived. That's the precedent a Brainspotting advocate should want. But take the uncomfortable half with the comfortable half: the surviving explanation for EMDR's benefit leans toward shared ingredients (exposure, cognitive change, the relationship), and the working-memory account that keeps the eye movements partially alive predicts less, not more, for a gaze that doesn't move.

The gaze research:

Try this: I might ask you the color of the front door of your childhood home. Maybe your eyes drift upwards as you try to remember. Or maybe I ask you to imagine your favorite food. Your eyes may drift up and away as you start to salivate. Or perhaps you can imagine “the shell-shocked military vet” who just saw a reminder of their time in war and now they have “the 1000 yard stare” straight ahead.

Eye positioning does relate to information we’re accessing. Just maybe not super cleanly.

For example, if I forced you to look down and left and recall your favorite food or childhood home door color: you could do it. It’s just not where your eyes naturally go for easily connecting to the information and feeling it.

That everyday observation has a replicated experimental literature:

Glenberg and colleagues ran five experiments showing that averting the gaze tracks how hard you're thinking, isn't explained by embarrassment (always), and measurably improves recall (Glenberg et al. 1998). Doherty-Sneddon and Phelps found question difficulty drives gaze aversion whether or not anyone is even watching (Doherty-Sneddon & Phelps 2005).

Eyewitness researchers found instructed eye closure improves both the amount and the accuracy of what witnesses recall (Perfect et al. 2008), likely by cutting cognitive load and sharpening visualization (Vredeveldt et al. 2011). (I do often do this work with "curtains down," as they call it - eyes closed!)

Recent eye-tracking work locates gaze aversion right at the handoff: it starts about a second in, at the moment attention switches from the room to the internal world, then holds for several seconds while the search runs. And it shows up most when remembering takes real effort - memories that arrive spontaneously barely trigger it (Servais et al. 2023). Preventing eye movements outright hinders autobiographical recall (Lenoble et al. 2019).

The eyes let go of the room hardest exactly when the inner work is hardest!

I think that’s the strongest point of all.

But does it go the other way around? If we deliberately encourage the gaze to settle, are we facilitating the inner work, or just making room for it? For memory, at least, there's a real answer: Glenberg instructed the gaze aversion and recall improved; the eyewitness studies instructed the eye closure and memory improved. Manipulating the gaze changed the remembering. Whether that extends from recalling to emotionally processing is the untested leap.

Gaze position and internal attention are connected. That part really does have evidence.

Servais and colleagues note that the question of whether specific gaze directions map to specific mental content has mostly been addressed by pseudoscience, and they name names: synergology, and NLP's "eye accessing cues" model (Servais et al. 2022).

Gaze position aiding internal attention: supported (and mainly where my brainspotting work rests and absolves therapists from the fretting that can happen over getting the “perfect” spot or setup – and clearly why there is none).

This-angle-equals-this-content: not supported, and not for lack of trying. That's the claim NLP built its "eye accessing cues" model on, the one where looking up-left supposedly means you're remembering and up-right means you're constructing, which practitioners used to teach as lie detection. It descends from a 1972 line of research on eye movements and brain hemispheres that didn't hold up when people tested it properly. It got tested. It failed. It's still being taught. That's the pattern to watch for, and it's the specific pattern Brainspotting's branded claim most resembles.

What I actually think is happening.

These are purely my clinical opinions and observations – not scientific evidence!

I don't think the specific spot is the point. What I see working in the room is some combination of eye angle, symbolic content, and sometimes just a fixed gaze.

I think the most important thing is that these are all just inroads to connecting to a felt sense of the issue (body-based, beyond words) with the attunement of another. This applies to all great psychotherapy and psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy (which is similar, but enhanced).

Symbolic content: For example, you'll likely feel more expansive gazing at a bright open blue sky than at a small gross festering trash can in the corner. The spots people settle on often carry meaning like that. It’s not uncommon for those working through attachment issues or relational work to land on their therapist’s face. It’s also not uncommon for those with a need for relational distance to prefer Z axis (looking “through” something, or having the pointer move away from them) and those working through anxious attachment to prefer the pointer closer to them.

Fixed gaze: in the hatha yoga tradition there's a practice called trāṭaka, steady gazing at a single point, where giving the mind enough to occupy it lets the pond go still, and things come forward from the depths. The route in varies. What the routes share is deliberate incorporation of the body, the felt sense, interoception (your perception of what's happening inside your own body), so the session stops being intellectualized circling and becomes something closer to digestion.

And it's not new: Freud's patients on the couch, gazing at the ceiling, freed from the social obligation of eye contact, often settled on a spot from which the material flowed. His stated reasons for the couch were practical (stating that he just didn't want to be stared at all day) but analysts since have observed the gaze-freedom benefit. The cognitive research above arrived decades later and points the same way.

My own psychodynamic supervisor, of all people, coached me on the same principles as “Brainspotting” does: to track the body, ask what's happening inside, and let the person stay with wherever their gaze drifted as you attune with them in compassionate presence. They even went so far as to discourage asking questions (to make more statements and reflections), which is exactly the emphasis in Brainspotting too.

Note: I don’t like to say “that’s this modality, that’s that modality”. It’s more that these are helpful concepts that just exist – and different psychotherapies emphasize, proceduralize, operationalize, or codify them. No one thing or method truly “belongs” to any one psychotherapy – they are emphasized in different psychotherapies.

Brainspotting didn't invent this. What it did (in my view) is distill it and make it explicit, which also improves the sense of informed consent: the person knows what process we're entering and can agree to it, which matters in trauma work.

Protocolizing here (and in all therapy really) strips out the very attunement and responsiveness that heals.

There's a real risk in protocolizing any of this (and in all therapy, really). David Grand himself warns against over-relying on protocol and frames: the procedure can crowd out the very attunement and responsiveness doing the healing.

The trainings teach frames for useful setups (some helpful for when patients have a strong sense of where to gaze, some for when they don’t, some to connect more to the tough stuff, some more to calm and positive supportive emotions). However, the real core, once you actually get it, is connecting to the felt sense, following it, letting it evolve, with attunement, the therapist "staying in the tail of the comet." The phrase is Grand's own; it's a chapter title in his book, and he uses it exactly this way: the client's process is the head of the comet, and the therapist's job is to stay in the tail, following, noticing when attunement slips, working back in (Grand 2013). All of it comes back to this.

If the core is felt-sense following with attunement, and the setups are frames, then the eye position isn't load-bearing, by the method's own developer, once you listen closely.

This forces a sentence a Brainspotting advocate won’t always say: the modality's distinctiveness rests on the part I don't defend (the located, specific spot), and its active core rests on the part that isn't distinctive (attunement plus felt-sense following plus a settled gaze).

A therapist deciding whether to spend money on training gets to ask what exactly the money buys if the spot per se isn't the mechanism. My honest answer: it buys a distilled, explicit, teachable frame for something diffuse that good therapists half-do by instinct, plus a consent structure around it. Whether that's worth the price is a real question. However, it opened an opportunity for me to practice and center this core concept in therapy in a way that I wasn’t before. To learn it all just to sort of “unlearn it” and be left with something far more valuable -  and that’s really worth something to me.

My claim: the difference between real processing (metabolizing, digesting) and "just talking about it" is whether the emotional and bodily system is actually activated and engaged while new experience comes in, rather than the story being narrated from a safe distance. Brainspotting, on this view, is one delivery system for that state. So is good psychodynamic work. So is exposure therapy. So is psychedelic-assisted therapy.

What holds: there's a fifty-year research tradition, growing out of Eugene Gendlin's focusing work, that rates how deeply a client engages their moment-to-moment felt experience versus reporting from a distance, using a tool called the Experiencing Scale. A meta-analysis of 10 studies (406 clients) found that depth of experiencing predicts outcomes across different therapy types, with a small-to-medium effect (r = -.19) (Pascual-Leone & Yeryomenko 2017). A related meta-analysis found therapist and client emotional expression predicts outcome (Peluso & Freund 2018). The classic theory behind exposure therapy says the same thing from another direction: fear structures change when they're activated and met with corrective information, not discussed at arm's length (Foa & Kozak 1986). (This is why therapy is all about “the feels” and hence the cliché “how did that make you feel” – annoying as hell, but it’s for a reason. And we’ve found creative ways to get at you really feeling it, not just saying words from a distance). A major neuroscience target article proposed that change across therapy types works through reactivating emotional memories and updating them during a window called reconsolidation (Lane et al. 2015).

Slow down: Correlation does not equal causation!

The experiencing research is correlational;clients who are improving might simply experience more deeply already, rather than deep experiencing causing improvement. Foa and Kozak's theory is foundational and also scarred; its own testable predictions about fear activation and habituation fared poorly in later tests, and exposure science has largely moved on to a different account (Craske et al. 2014).

The newer account is called inhibitory learning and it changes what "processing" even means.

The old model said exposure works by wearing the fear down: stay in it long enough and the alarm quiets, session by session. The trouble was that how much the fear dropped within a session turned out to predict long-term outcome poorly.

The inhibitory learning model says something different: the original fear association doesn't get erased at all. It stays. What you build alongside it is a competing new learning: I did that and the catastrophe didn't happen. Sometimes, this is referred to in more relational ways as “corrective experiences”.

And therapy works to the degree that the new learning is strong, well-consolidated, and retrievable in the moments you need it. Which is why the practical emphasis moved from "stay until you calm down" to "set up situations that violate what you expected, and vary them enough that the new learning generalizes."

Notice what that does to my claim. Emotional activation still matters in this account, because you have to actually expect the catastrophe for its absence to teach you anything. But activation stopped being the point on its own. Something has to change during it. So the honest version of my hypothesis isn't just "feel it deeply and you'll heal." It's closer to: something has to be genuinely live, and something new has to land while it is.

The Lane paper about reconsolidation was published with 28 expert commentaries, several sharply skeptical, one titled, usefully, "Let's be skeptical about reconsolidation and emotional arousal in therapy," and Lane himself has said the reconsolidation account of psychotherapy is not yet established. That same reconsolidation story has already been adopted by advocates of tapping therapies to explain their modality, which is a warning label. A mechanism flexible enough to explain every therapy starts to sound suspicious – or is it pointing at mechanisms underlying change in all of them? And I notice that's the reading that suits me. Nobody has shown somatic-experiential focus beating verbal-cognitive processing in a fair fight. Even though I believe I’ve seen it happen.

The experiments that would settle this.

1.     Inter-rater reliability. Two trained clinicians, co-leading with the same clients, same emotional target, locating spots independently as the other leaves the room.

2.     The sham trial. Run the full attuned setup in both groups; then hold gaze at the located spot in one group and at a position secretly shifted by a fixed angle in the other; everything else identical; a full course of treatment, not one session. The natural weaknesses of therapy research always leak through: the treating clinician can't be unaware and expectancy leaks through exactly the attunement channel McKay and Coreil describe. Meaning: the therapist knows which group they're in, and belief travels. Not through anything they'd say, but through pace, warmth, how long they wait before speaking, how much they encourage staying with something difficult. In most trials that's a nuisance variable you try to minimize. Here it's even worse because in Brainspotting the therapist's attuned presence isn't a confound sitting next to the treatment: it's most of the treatment. So you can't separate the leak from the intervention. The most you can do is have a different clinician assign the positions, script what's said, and measure what both the therapist and the client expected going in. And there's a coherent in-model objection, that the attuned search is itself the intervention or a large part of it, which is why the design keeps the search in both arms and shifts only the endpoint. If the located spot matters, the groups separate. If attunement is the ingredient, they don't. Either result teaches something. For what it's worth, my own account predicts this trial comes back null: if the working ingredients are settled gaze plus felt-sense attention plus attunement, the sham arm contains all three, and both groups improve.

3.     The eyes-closed comparison. This is the study that would test my account rather than the branded one: Brainspotting versus structurally matched, attuned, body-focused processing with eyes closed (and no attention to angling, since you can still angle the eyes with lids shut). Same dose, same attunement, no visual field at all. My account predicts the two perform about equally. As far as I can find, nobody has done this.

4. The cheapest and most connective one: code the tapes. Take recorded Brainspotting sessions and recorded comparison-therapy sessions, rate them with the Experiencing Scale, and test whether Brainspotting sessions actually produce deeper experiencing, and whether that depth explains the outcomes. This would connect Brainspotting to fifty years of mainstream therapy-process research for the first time. And if Brainspotting sessions don't score deeper than ordinary good therapy, then my account of why I like it is wrong too, which is the point of listing it.

Question two: does the procedure help people?

For each study, ask who was studied, compared to what, measured how, and by whom.

It’s fun to note that a lot of these were published after my residency training ended!

D'Antoni et al. 2022. The study skeptics and advocates both cite. Forty participants, single 40-minute session per condition, comparing Brainspotting, EMDR, body-scan meditation (an active control), and book reading (a passive control). You read that right, one single session each. Body-scan meditation is the active control, meaning a real alternative activity that plausibly could work - here, systematically moving attention through the body, noticing sensation without trying to change it, roughly what you'd get in a mindfulness class. Book reading is the passive control, meaning something that occupies you and shouldn't do anything therapeutic. Having both lets you separate "better than nothing" from "better than another reasonable thing”. Brainspotting and EMDR both reduced distress about an unpleasant memory and beat both controls, with the benefit holding at a short follow-up. Now the who: 37 psychologists and 3 physicians. No participant had PTSD. This study shows that one single session can move a distress rating in mental-health professionals processing ordinary bad memories. That's a real finding and also a low bar that many interventions can also clear.

Glantschnig 2025. The best-designed Brainspotting data in existence, and worth knowing where it came from. The trial ran in the author's own private psychotherapy practice in Austria from December 2018 to October 2019, formed the basis of her 2021 doctoral dissertation at the University of Nicosia, and reached a journal in May 2025. Six years from data to publication, in a German-language Springer journal, which is part of why it's missing from most articles on Brainspotting research and from both passes I ran through a well-regarded medical AI research tool.

Randomized, two arms, 100 participants, all of whom completed treatment and 99 of whom completed follow-up, after singular stressful or traumatizing experiences: Brainspotting immediately versus Brainspotting later, both added onto CBT.

Early response was significantly higher in the immediate group. By four to five sessions that arm had dropped from an IES-R of 34.4 to 11.0 (d = 1.68), while the delayed arm had barely moved (d = 0.35, not statistically reliable). But by the end of treatment the two arms had converged. Immediate finished at 3.1, delayed at 5.3, both large effects (d = 2.95 and d = 2.11), and the gap between groups was no longer significant. Both held at three months. So in this design, Brainspotting sped up the response more than it changed the endpoint.

The paper's English summary says the therapeutic relationship did not moderate outcomes, which I liked, because it cuts against the laziest version of "it's all just the relationship” (even though I still believe it’s important!). However, the measures section lists five instruments and none of them measures the therapeutic alliance, and I couldn't find the analysis in the body of the paper. I'm not going to lean on a finding I can't locate, and that goes double when it's a finding I wanted. Generalizability is markedly restricted, and she says so herself.

And the hard ceiling, stated by the author herself, more plainly than most authors state their own limits. Translating from the German, so this isn't her exact wording: she writes that as the treating psychotherapist, her own experience with the method left her "holding a fundamentally positive attitude toward it," and names the allegiance effect directly. The bigger limit, in my read, is structural rather than attitudinal: all 100 clients were treated by that same single psychotherapist, so nothing in the trial can separate what Brainspotting did from what this one clinician did. Her own summary line: "randomized studies at multiple centers with different therapists are lacking." An immediate-versus-delayed design inside a CBT package still can't isolate Brainspotting against a real control either way.

Hildebrand, Grand & Stemmler 2017. Brainspotting versus EMDR, roughly 76 people, no control group, and the modality's developer is an author, which is the conflict-of-interest flag at full mast. The study's own conclusion was that the two performed comparably. One widely read skeptic post claims this study showed EMDR superior; it didn't say that, and an underpowered uncontrolled comparison couldn't establish superiority in either direction anyway.

Errors in the skeptical direction are still errors, and I'd rather flag them with the same energy I bring to the advocacy ones. A reader who only catches the mistakes on the side they already distrust isn't reading carefully, they're shopping.

Horton et al. 2023. Sixty-three self-referred clients randomized to five weeks of treatment-as-usual or Brainspotting; treatment-as-usual did better immediately after treatment, while the Brainspotting group kept improving at follow-up. And the number that deserves its own sentence: 27 of 63 completed through follow-up. When more participants leave a study than finish it, the results describe the self-selected finishers, not the people who started.

Talbot et al. 2023. A short commentary in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, notable for two reasons. It contains a nine-person uncontrolled case series: after six Brainspotting sessions, a statistically significant drop in PTSD symptoms, with small improvements in functioning and depression. Nine people, no control group, and it keeps appearing in reference lists dressed as trial evidence. But it's also the only favorable Brainspotting data from a team with no apparent stake in the modality.

Glantschnig's paper carries a formal no-conflict declaration too - and she's a Brainspotting clinician who treated all 100 patients herself and, in her own limitations section, names the allegiance effect and says her experience with the method left her positively disposed toward it. That gap between the disclosure box and the limitations section is the lesson. A conflict-of-interest declaration is a legal formality with a narrow definition (usually receiving money from a company). If you want to know what might have tilted a study, glance at the disclosures box, then read the limitations section.

Others. A preliminary study in Filipino women with severe PTSD (Palsimon 2022). A single case report of one Bataclan attack survivor (Masson et al. 2017). A Brazilian doctoral project applying Brainspotting to adolescent obesity, with only the qualitative arm published so far (Azevedo et al. 2026). And grey literature that circulates as evidence, including a treatment center's internal program evaluation that was never peer-reviewed, which is a live example of the difference between evidence and marketing.

The caveat

You'll notice everything points the same way, toward benefit. Before that reassures you, notice that small, developer-adjacent, mostly uncontrolled studies point the same way almost by construction. Nobody in a young modality's ecosystem is funded, positioned, or motivated to publish a failure. In a literature like this, consistency of direction is what you'd see whether or not the treatment works. Direction becomes meaningful when studies get large, controlled, and independent, which is the machinery section arriving back around to meet us.

So: does it help people? The evidence is thin, small, allegiance-loaded, and not nothing. Distress reliably drops within sessions and across short courses. Whether that reflects anything specific to Brainspotting, versus attention, exposure, expectancy, and a settled nervous system in good company, no existing study can say. The study that could say, a randomized trial in people with diagnosed PTSD using the field's gold-standard clinician interview (the CAPS-5) as the main outcome, has never been run.

What I see in the room, and why it doesn't count yet

Everything in this section is clinical observation. It sits here, between the evidence and the money question, precisely so you can watch it stay in its lane.

What draws me isn't the fancy pointer stick or the fancy frame setups. It's that sessions stop being conversations about an experience and become, for stretches, the experience being digested with company. The person's eyes settle somewhere, out a window, at a corner of the ceiling, sometimes at a spot that plainly carries meaning for them, they’re free from the obligation to “look normal”, from the social convention to “look at the person you’re talking to”, and the narrating voice goes quiet, and what comes instead is slower: body sensation, an image, a wave of feeling, an urge to move, sometimes thoughts or memory arriving in a different key. My job in those stretches is mostly staying in the tail of the comet: their process leads, I follow, I notice when I've slipped out of attunement and work my way back.

The overlap with psychedelic work is why a psychiatrist who does ketamine-assisted psychotherapy trains in this at all.

The formula is close to identical: a state deeper than words and logic, very body-connected; mindful, compassionate, nonjudging attention to whatever arises, and I mean whatever (images, thoughts, memories, emotions, sensations, urges to move, relational meaning) while a gentle, highly attuned presence stays alongside, helping hold the thread, stepping in only if it gets unwieldy.

I joke that it's psychedelics sober for a reason.

And every time I say it I owe the qualifiers in the same breath: not the same intensity, no visual fireworks, a similar process on a similar formula, and "similar formula" is my clinical read, not a demonstrated shared mechanism.

The strongest thing I can say for it requires no mechanism claims at all: there's no substance overriding the system. With psychedelics, once you've swallowed it, you're on the ride; IV infusion is the partial exception, because an infusion can be stopped. In Brainspotting you consent your way in and out. You can titrate. You can stop. You're not locked in the basement with the deepest, darkest parts of yourself with no way out, which with substances can sometimes be the healing thing and can also be very, very intense. Some people specifically need the version with an exit. For a psychiatrist deciding who to refer where, that sentence is most of my answer. Plus, it doesn’t carry the medication interaction risks, medical risks, and taper demands that many of the psychedelic substances do.

In 2024 a political theorist named Michael Bacon published an essay in Aeon about the three years, beginning at age eleven, he spent in Kleinian analysis with a distinguished analyst, and about later discovering himself written up as a case study in her papers. His closing line is one I'd frame on my wall:

"Successful psychotherapy requires, above all else, that the therapist attune herself to the other person in the room. Any set of presuppositions is a potential obstacle to that task."

I want that sentence to simply endorse what I do.

Two paragraphs earlier, Bacon takes up whether psychoanalysis can ever be checked: his analyst defended its objectivity by citing supervision and discussion with colleagues, and Bacon observes that those colleagues already shared her doctrine, so the whole company “might as well be a circle of astrologers confirming each other's charts”. That is the McKay and Coreil critique arriving from the opposite direction, from a former child patient rather than from academic skeptics. And it describes the structure of any small group that’s self reinforcing, including the consultation group I sit in every week and the trainings I attend.

There's a real distinction that partly answers him. Kleinian analysis carries enormous interpretive content; his analyst arrived with a theory about what things meant and applied it to a child. Brainspotting carries almost none. It doesn't tell you what your material means; the entire instruction is attune and follow. Bacon's specific charge, that presuppositions obstruct attunement, lands weakly against a method whose central presupposition is don't presuppose. I hold that distinction at full strength.

The insularity problem was never about interpretive content though. It's about epistemic structure: who counts as a check on me, what would count as evidence I'm wrong, whether the room can tell me the method failed or only that I wasn't attuned enough. A Brainspotting consultation group shares the premise that Brainspotting works. Good sessions confirm the method. Difficult sessions have an in-room explanation always available: attunement missed. When this critique was put to me, my first answer was that Brainspotting is a modality where attunement and responsiveness are king, and that's the actual difference. I was half right, and the wrong half is: valuing attunement doesn't protect against the loop. It is the loop, because "not attuned enough" can absorb any failure and can never be falsified. Bacon's essay even supplies the closing detail. A memorial for his analyst described her observing the child closely, deeply understanding him, reaching him with simple words. She believed she was attuned. Her circle believed she was attuned. He was hiding in the bathroom doing homework to survive the sessions. Self-assessed attunement is not a safeguard, because nobody assesses themselves as unattuned.

This is an argument for checking in sincerely, or even using objective measures of this (TEAM-CBT tries to do this in its own way). TEAM-CBT has clients rate the therapist's empathy at the end of every session, on paper, and the therapist reads it. It's uncomfortable by design. The discomfort is the mechanism. The point is to ask (and really listen), not just assume.

I don't have a clean answer to this, and I'm suspicious of anyone who does.

But, I keep the evidence question and the clinical question in separate rooms. I stay in contact with clinicians and literatures outside the frame, including the skeptics, which is also this piece. And I hold my own modality to the falsifiable tests listed above, including the one my own theory could lose. Whether that's enough, I can't certify from inside.

If Bacon’s quote goes on one wall:

"Successful psychotherapy requires, above all else, that the therapist attune herself to the other person in the room. Any set of presuppositions is a potential obstacle to that task."

Jung, writing to clinicians about exactly this tension, is credited with one sentence I'd frame right next to it:

"Learn your theories as well as you can, but put them aside when you touch the miracle of the living soul. Not theories but your own creative individuality alone must decide."

(It's usually sourced to his Contributions to Analytical Psychology. I don't have the book, and I haven't verified the page myself).

Question three: is it worth your money and hours versus CPT, PE, or EMDR?

CPT cognitive processing therapy, PE prolonged exposure, and TF-CBT trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy all sit first-line in the APA's 2025 guideline.

The VA/DoD 2023 guideline recommends CPT, PE, and EMDR.

These treatments have dozens of trials, known effect sizes, and independent replication.

Head-to-head comparisons between flagship therapies are rarer than you'd guess: before a large multisite VA trial finally compared CPT and prolonged exposure directly (Schnurr et al. 2022), the only prior direct comparison was a 2002 study run by a developer. And "allegiance" isn't a slur invented to bully new modalities; it's a measured quantity. Across 30 meta-analyses, researcher allegiance correlates with reported outcomes at r = .262 (Munder et al. 2013). In the test that closes the escape hatch, researchers restricted the analysis to 29 direct comparisons of trauma therapies already known to be equivalent, where true differences should predict zero allegiance effect. Allegiance still explained 12% of the variance in outcomes (Munder et al. 2012). An umbrella review relays a stark example from schizophrenia research: the response rate for CBT dropped from 13% to 4.9% once researcher allegiance (authors evaluating a therapy they developed) was taken into account (Leichsenring et al. 2022). And, most tellingly, the VA/DoD guideline flagged its own: it noted that every study of two therapies it reviewed had been conducted by their developers, and named allegiance (bias) as a limitation. And this is about therapies it endorses!

So the independence standard isn't a weapon aimed at Brainspotting alone. It gets applied to the winners, and the winners take the hit in print. Which means the bar Brainspotting fails is real, is applied evenhandedly, and, fairness compels me to add, is a bar several branded trauma therapies cleared only recently.

Now the conclusion, stated the way my financial stake makes it hardest to state: for a person with diagnosed PTSD choosing a first treatment, the defensible recommendation is a first-line, guideline-supported therapy, and any framing from me that softens that sentence is my income talking. CPT, PE, trauma-focused CBT, and EMDR have the trials. Choosing an unvalidated therapy over validated ones carries a cost measured in your time, your money, and your months of symptoms. The story might be different for complex PTSD / developmental trauma. The evidence is thinner there for every modality, including the recommended ones.

Where Brainspotting reasonably enters: after first-line approaches have been tried and didn't fit or didn't finish the job. When someone can't tolerate or flatly declines the trauma-focused protocols; dropout from those is a real, documented problem, and a treatment a person will actually stay in has a value the trial tables don't capture. It’s good when the titratable, consent-forward structure I described matches what the person needs. Or it’s good alongside other work, as one tool rather than the whole thing.

For the therapist weighing the price of training: you now know exactly what the evidence does and doesn't cover, and that what you'd be buying, by my own account, is a distilled frame for attunement-plus-felt-sense work and a consent structure, not a validated mechanism. Decide with that sentence in view, not the marketing. I personally still believe it was very worthwhile and influential in how I practice.

A field's health is visible in how it answers its critics. And if Brainspotting wants the standing EMDR has, the path is the one EMDR walked: run the trials, absorb the dents, and let the efficacy question separate from the mechanism question in public.

The Brainspotting studies that don't seem to exist

While researching this piece, I checked the reference lists on Brainspotting explainer pages. On one practice's blog I found citations I could not locate anywhere.

One is given as "Geller, S. M. (2020). Examining the efficacy of Brainspotting in trauma treatment: A pilot study. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 30(2), 210-221," complete with a DOI. I searched the journal's archive, the APA's database, Crossref, and the author's own publication list. No such paper appears to exist. The only Geller in that journal is a real 2014 paper, with Stephen Porges, about therapeutic presence, an unrelated topic, and it does not mention Brainspotting at all. Another, "Hilber, L. (2021)," a supposed randomized controlled trial in a "Journal of Trauma & Treatment," is equally unfindable, and that journal title belongs to a publisher with a documented predatory reputation. The same page misstates the DOI of Brainspotting's own founding paper by one digit.

I'm framing this carefully on purpose: I could not find these, and I've told you where I looked.

The pattern, references that sound plausible, carry real-looking DOIs, and dissolve on contact, is the signature of a language model asked to write a research-backed blog post. Which produces a dark little loop: a person worried about whether this therapy is real is being shown invented evidence, on a therapist's website, generated by a tool that was asked to sound reassuring. And it isn't only small blogs, and it isn't only fabrication. On a different practice's page comparing Brainspotting to EMDR, the Lee and Cuijpers meta-analysis I cited above appears with the wrong journal and page numbers attached, and I know that error's reach personally, because the same wrong citation had crept into my own working notes for this piece before verification caught it. When I ran this topic through a well-regarded medical AI research tool, twice, it never surfaced the single best Brainspotting study in existence, the Glantschnig trial, because that study lives outside the tool's well-indexed shelf. In a separate pass it handed me an advocacy paper by the leading promoter of tapping therapy as though it were neutral commentary on evidence standards.

So here's the practical takeaway, and it applies to me first: check the references. Including mine. If you find one that doesn't resolve, write to me, because in a piece partly about fabricated citations, my own reference list is the exam I've set myself.

Where this lands

Three questions. Three answers, at the length each has earned.

Is the proposed mechanism real? Probably not as stated. The founding papers are self-labeled hypotheses, untested after twenty years. The adjacent cognitive science supports the general phenomenon (gaze and internal attention are connected) and specifically warns against the branded claim (a particular spot mapping to particular content is the version of this idea that has died before). The nearest tested mechanism next door predicts a static gaze should underperform eye movements that themselves barely survived their own dismantling trials. The experiments that would carry the burden are specifiable and cheap, and they have not been run.

Does the procedure help people? The evidence is thin, small, mostly conflicted, directionally positive in a way that partly reflects who publishes, and not nothing. The best study is honest about its own limits and cannot isolate the method. The decisive study doesn't exist.

Is it worth your money and hours? Not as a first choice for PTSD, on current evidence, and I say that as someone paid to provide it and who uses it as a main tool in practice still. As a later choice, for the person who can't use or won't finish the first-line options, or who needs the consent-and-titration structure, it's a reasonable tool in trained hands, chosen with open eyes.

And underneath all three: the science does not currently support this modality's distinctive claims. I practice it anyway, for stated reasons that survive without those claims, inside a conflict of interest I've told you about, and here is what would change my mind. If the inter-rater study fails, the specific brainspot is finished as a concept, and I'll say so on this page. If the sham trial separates the groups, I'll have been wrong about the mechanism in the other direction, and gladly. If the eyes-closed comparison shows Brainspotting beating matched somatic work, my whole deflationary account is wrong. If coded tapes show Brainspotting sessions running no deeper on the Experiencing Scale than ordinary good therapy, my account of why I practice it takes the hit instead. And if a proper CAPS-5 trial comes back null, the efficacy question closes, and the honest response is to stop selling the hours as long as the study was solid.

I'd rather have written "misunderstood modality gets a fair hearing." This is the version that's true.

If you're reading this at 11pm

Deciding whether to try it: if you have PTSD and you're choosing your first treatment, start with a first-line therapy: CPT, prolonged exposure, trauma-focused CBT, or EMDR with a trauma specialist (people get into hot water as sometimes these modalities aren’t given by trauma specialists and when things go awry – it shows. This happens with EMDR often). If you've tried those and they didn't fit, or you know you need something you can enter and exit on your own terms, Brainspotting with a well-trained clinician is a reasonable thing to try with open eyes, and you now know exactly how open.

A therapist weighing the training: you'd be buying a distilled, teachable frame for felt-sense work with a consent structure, not a validated mechanism, from a field that hasn't yet run its own cheapest experiments. If you buy it, buy that. I did, and I’m happy I did. And maybe be one of the people who pushes the field to run them.

A colleague wondering why a Stanford-trained psychiatrist does this: because the deflationary account of what's happening in these sessions, attuned felt-sense processing with a settled gaze, is old, modestly evidenced, and clinically real in my experience, and because the consent-and-titration structure fills a genuine gap for people who need trauma work with an exit. Not because I believe the branded mechanism claim.

Frequently asked questions

Is Brainspotting legit? It depends which question you're asking. The proposed mechanism (specific eye positions connecting to specific stored trauma) is an untested hypothesis that cognitive science gives reasons to doubt. The procedure itself shows early positive results in small, mostly conflicted studies. And compared with established trauma therapies, it lacks the trial record to be a first choice. All three answers are in the full piece above.

Is Brainspotting evidence-based? Under the standard criteria used in clinical psychology (Chambless & Hollon 1998), Brainspotting is at the "experimental" tier: it has not yet been tested in trials meeting the framework's methodology requirements, and no independent research team has replicated any finding. That's a description of the research record, not a verdict on whether it can help a given person.

Does Brainspotting actually work? Small studies consistently show reduced distress, including one randomized study of 100 people where Brainspotting added to CBT produced large, durable improvement. But the studies are small, mostly involve the developer or trainers as authors, and none has tested Brainspotting in diagnosed PTSD using the field's gold-standard clinician interview as the main outcome. Benefit is plausible and unproven; what's driving any benefit is unknown.

Is Brainspotting pseudoscience? A 2024 peer-reviewed paper argued it meets criteria for pseudoscience, mainly because failures get attributed to clinician attunement rather than the method, insulating it from disconfirmation. Read strictly, the printed model is testable (a sham brainspot is easy to specify), so the fair statement is: the theory is falsifiable, nobody has tested it, and parts of the practice culture do behave in the way the pseudoscience critique describes.

Brainspotting vs EMDR: which is better? EMDR has dozens of trials, guideline recommendations, and decades of research; Brainspotting has a handful of small studies, and the main head-to-head comparison (76 people, no control group, developer as co-author) found the two performed comparably. On evidence, EMDR wins clearly. Interestingly, EMDR's own dismantling research suggests its signature eye movements may add little, which raises real questions about what's driving both therapies.

Why isn't Brainspotting in the PTSD treatment guidelines? Because guidelines rate bodies of evidence, and Brainspotting's evidence base was too small to rate. It wasn't reviewed and rejected; it never entered the pool. The APA panel's chair described such treatments as having evidence insufficient to recommend for or against.

How is Brainspotting supposed to work? The official theory proposes that eye positions connect through deep-brain circuits (superior colliculus, periaqueductal gray, pulvinar) to unprocessed traumatic activation, and that holding the gaze there allows processing. It was published as an explicit hypothesis in Medical Hypotheses and has never been directly tested. Separately, mainstream research does show that gaze position and internal attention are linked: people look away to remember, and preventing eye movements hinders recall.

Is Brainspotting worth trying? Yes, in specific circumstances: when first-line treatments haven't fit or haven't finished the job, when you can't tolerate trauma-focused protocols, or when you specifically need a modality you can consent into and out of moment to moment. Not as a first treatment for diagnosed PTSD, where a guideline-supported therapy is the better-evidenced starting point.

Is Brainspotting training worth it for therapists? What the training verifiably teaches is a distilled, explicit frame for attunement-plus-felt-sense work with a built-in consent structure, not a validated mechanism. Whether that's worth it depends on whether you want that frame; the evidence record shouldn't be the selling point, because there isn't much of one yet.

Are there fake studies about Brainspotting? There are citations circulating on therapy websites that I could not locate in any journal, database, or the named authors' own publication lists, formatted convincingly with DOIs, a pattern consistent with AI-generated content. There are also real citations circulating with wrong journals attached. Check references before trusting them, including the ones in this article.

What would make a Brainspotting practitioner change their mind? Five studies would settle most of it, and none has been run: an inter-rater reliability study (do two trained clinicians find the same spot within the same session?), a sham trial holding gaze at a secretly shifted position, a comparison against matched body-focused work done with eyes closed, session tapes coded with the Experiencing Scale to test whether Brainspotting actually produces deeper processing, and a randomized trial in diagnosed PTSD using the CAPS-5 clinician interview as the primary outcome. A clinician who can't name what result would change their practice is telling you something.

Patricia Pop, MD is a board-certified psychiatrist based in Half Moon Bay, California, seeing patients by telehealth throughout the state. She did medical school at Columbia and psychiatry residency at Stanford. Her practice combines medication management with psychotherapy, focusing on adult ADHD, psychedelic-informed care, and integrative psychotherapy.

She completed Brainspotting Level II training in 2025 and attends a weekly Brainspotting consultation group. She is also trained in ketamine-assisted psychotherapy, teaches about psychedelic therapy, and works as a facilitator on psilocybin research studies in San Francisco.

Published August 19, 2026. Last verified August 19, 2026. If a citation here doesn't resolve, please email drpop@patriciapopmd.com and I'll correct it on the page.

References

American Psychological Association. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in Adults. 2025. https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/

American Psychological Association. PTSD and trauma: New APA guidelines highlight evidence-based treatments. Monitor on Psychology. July/August 2025. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2025/07-08/guidelines-treating-ptsd-trauma

Azevedo DC de, Bicudo MAV, Konstantyner T. A percepção e o cuidado do corpo após intervenção com Brainspotting: uma visão fenomenológica da obesidade na adolescência. Revista Pesquisa Qualitativa. 2026;14(38):93-122. doi:10.33361/RPQ.2026.v.14.n.38.1241

Bacon M. The therapist who hated me. Aeon. 8 April 2024. https://aeon.co/essays/my-dismal-years-in-psychoanalysis-with-melanie-kleins-disciple

Chambless DL, Hollon SD. Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1998;66(1):7-18. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.1.7

Corrigan F, Grand D. Brainspotting: recruiting the midbrain for accessing and healing sensorimotor memories of traumatic activation. Medical Hypotheses. 2013;80(6):759-766. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2013.03.005

Corrigan FM, Grand D, Raju R. Brainspotting: sustained attention, spinothalamic tracts, thalamocortical processing, and the healing of adaptive orientation truncated by traumatic experience. Medical Hypotheses. 2015;84(4):384-394. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2015.01.028

Craske MG, Treanor M, Conway CC, Zbozinek T, Vervliet B. Maximizing exposure therapy: an inhibitory learning approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2014;58:10-23. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2014.04.006

Cuijpers P, van Veen SC, Sijbrandij M, Yoder W, Cristea IA. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for mental health problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2020;49(3):165-180. doi:10.1080/16506073.2019.1703801

D'Antoni F, Matiz A, Fabbro F, Crescentini C. Psychotherapeutic techniques for distressing memories: a comparative study between EMDR, Brainspotting, and body scan meditation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(3):1142. doi:10.3390/ijerph19031142

Davidson PR, Parker KC. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): a meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001;69(2):305-316. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.305

Doherty-Sneddon G, Phelps FG. Gaze aversion: a response to cognitive or social difficulty? Memory & Cognition. 2005;33(4):727-733. doi:10.3758/bf03195338

Foa EB, Kozak MJ. Emotional processing of fear: exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin. 1986;99(1):20-35. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.20

Glantschnig S. Einbettung von Brainspotting in Kognitive Verhaltenstherapie nach singulären belastenden/traumatisierenden Erlebnissen. Psychotherapie Forum. 2025;29:59-66. doi:10.1007/s00729-025-00275-5

Glenberg AM, Schroeder JL, Robertson DA. Averting the gaze disengages the environment and facilitates remembering. Memory & Cognition. 1998;26(4):651-658. doi:10.3758/bf03211385

Grand D. Brainspotting: The Revolutionary New Therapy for Rapid and Effective Change. Sounds True; 2013.

Hildebrand A, Grand D, Stemmler M. Brainspotting: the efficacy of a new therapy approach for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in comparison to eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2017;5(1). doi:10.6092/2282-1619/2017.5.1376

Horton LM, Schwartzberg C, Goldberg CD, Grieve FG, Brdecka LE. Brainspotting: a treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. International Body Psychotherapy Journal. 2023;22(2):57-72.

Jung CG. Contributions to Analytical Psychology. Trans. HG Baynes, CF Baynes. 1928. Quotation widely attributed to this volume; original page not independently verified.

Lane RD, Ryan L, Nadel L, Greenberg L. Memory reconsolidation, emotional arousal, and the process of change in psychotherapy: new insights from brain science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2015;38:e1. doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000041

Lee C, de Jongh A, Farrell D, Meysner L, Dominguez S, El-Leithy S. A critique of the 2025 American Psychological Association clinical practice guideline for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in adults: underrating EMDR effectiveness. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research. 2026;20:1-11. doi:10.34133/jemdr.0034

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

Leichsenring F, Steinert C, Rabung S, Ioannidis JPA. The efficacy of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders in adults: an umbrella review and meta-analytic evaluation of recent meta-analyses. World Psychiatry. 2022;21(1):133-145. doi:10.1002/wps.20941

Lenoble Q, Janssen SMJ, El Haj M. Don't stare, unless you don't want to remember: maintaining fixation compromises autobiographical memory retrieval. Memory. 2019;27(2):231-238. doi:10.1080/09658211.2018.1501068

Masson J, Bernoussi A, Moukouta CS. Brainspotting therapy: about a Bataclan victim. Global Journal of Health Science. 2017;9(7):103.

McKay D, Coreil A. Hypothesis testing of the adoption of pseudoscientific methods. Medical Hypotheses. 2024;182:111229. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2023.111229

Munder T, Brütsch O, Leonhart R, Gerger H, Barth J. Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: an overview of reviews. Clinical Psychology Review. 2013;33(4):501-511. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.02.002

Munder T, Flückiger C, Gerger H, Wampold BE, Barth J. Is the allegiance effect an epiphenomenon of true efficacy differences between treatments? A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2012;59(4):631-637. doi:10.1037/a0029571

Palsimon TO Jr. The preliminary efficacy and clinical applicability of Brainspotting among Filipino women with severe posttraumatic stress disorder. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. 2022;24(1):54-64. doi:10.12740/APP/143015

Pascual-Leone A, Yeryomenko N. The client "experiencing" scale as a predictor of treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis on psychotherapy process. Psychotherapy Research. 2017;27(6):653-665. doi:10.1080/10503307.2016.1152409

Peluso PR, Freund RR. Therapist and client emotional expression and psychotherapy outcomes: a meta-analysis. Psychotherapy. 2018;55(4):461-472. doi:10.1037/pst0000165

Perfect TJ, Wagstaff GF, Moore D, Andrews B, Cleveland V, Newcombe S, et al. How can we help witnesses to remember more? It's an (eyes) open and shut case. Law and Human Behavior. 2008;32(4):314-324. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9109-5

Schnurr PP, Chard KM, Ruzek JI, et al. Comparison of prolonged exposure vs cognitive processing therapy for treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder among US veterans: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(1):e2136921. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36921

Schnurr PP, Hamblen JL, Wolf J, et al. The management of posttraumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder: synopsis of the 2023 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense clinical practice guideline. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2024;177(3):363-372. doi:10.7326/M23-2757

Servais A, Hurter C, Barbeau EJ. Gaze direction as a facial cue of memory retrieval state. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13:1063228. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1063228

Servais A, Préa N, Hurter C, Barbeau EJ. Why and when do you look away when trying to remember? Gaze aversion as a marker of the attentional switch to the internal world during memory retrieval. Acta Psychologica. 2023;240:104041. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104041

Steenkamp MM, Litz BT, Hoge CW, Marmar CR. Psychotherapy for military-related PTSD: a review of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 2015;314(5):489-500. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.8370

Talbot J, de la Salle S, Jaworska N. A paradigm shift in trauma treatment: converging evidence for a novel adaptation of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2023;68(4):283-285. doi:10.1177/07067437221142283

Vredeveldt A, Hitch GJ, Baddeley AD. Eye closure helps memory by reducing cognitive load and enhancing visualisation. Memory & Cognition. 2011;39(7):1253-1263. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0098-8