## 3 Results
### Optimal Imaging Stimulant Results
Most participants exhibited a significant decrease in right frontal beta wave activity during EO blocks with EMDR video stimuli compared to EC blocks. For a detailed comparison of PES values, the average EO values between 30-60 s and 90-120 s were calculated and are displayed in Table 4.

A line graph based on these data is shown in Figure 5, where red represents the PES 50 stimulus and blue represents the PES 1 stimulus. Results indicate lower right frontal beta waves in response to the PES 1 stimulus across all participants. Each panel represents a single participant's predicted effectiveness scores (PES) under two conditions--PES No. 50 (red) and PES No. 1 (blue)--along with their respective maximum (red dashed) and minimum (blue dashed) ranges. For most participants, the difference between the two PES values is modest, suggesting relatively stable responses across the chosen parameter combinations. A few participants ( participants 1, 2, 9, and 15) exhibited larger gaps between their high and low effectiveness scores, potentially indicating a broader sensitivity to parameter variation. Despite individual differences, the figures collectively imply that \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Participant** \\ **No.** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**No. 50 No. 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Conditions (L/R)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Beta Wave (\%)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **A.0-30 s (EC)** & **B.30–60 s (EO)** & **C.60–90 s (EC)** & **D.90–120 s (EO)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} 11 \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{No. 50} & L & 10.63 & 4.08 & 9.4 & 5.35 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 5.63 & 4.41 & 6.14 & 5.51 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & L & 4.25 & 7.10 & 6.27 & 6.18 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 6.15 & 4.02 & 6.68 & 5.15 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & & 8.84 & & 6.53 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & L & 9.39 & 6.13 & 8.18 & 6.16 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 9.04 & 8.54 & 8.33 & 5.34 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & L & 12.69 & 11.78 & 12.21 & 10.27 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 11.80 & 8.12 & 11.52 & 5.02 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & & 4.92 & & 5.99 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} 13 \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{No. 50} & L & 4.78 & 5.89 & 6.77 & 3.67 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 7.32 & 6.24 & 7.02 & 5.11 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & L & 5.11 & 5.44 & 3.40 & 5.37 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 5.22 & 5.18 & 5.03 & 4.01 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{8 decrease rate} & & & 16.99 & & 21.53 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & L & 10.06 & 6.98 & 8.96 & 7.71 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 8.10 & 8.21 & 7.82 & 7.06 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & L & 9.85 & 5.77 & 8.29 & 5.34 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 9.91 & 7.14 & 7.69 & 6.35 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{8 decrease rate} & & & 13.03 & & 10.06 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} 15 \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{No. 50} & L & 6.65 & 7.15 & 8.75 & 6.88 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 8.95 & 7.65 & 8.57 & 7.36 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & L & 8.47 & 9.09 & 6.56 & 7.17 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 7.29 & 6.50 & 7.39 & 6.22 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{8 decrease rate} & & & 15.03 & & 15.49 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & L & 5.96 & 5.14 & 5.52 & 5.05 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 5.45 & 5.03 & 6.39 & 5.71 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & L & 9.38 & 4.88 & _7.77_ & 5.01 \\ \cline{3-6}  & & R & 8.92 & 4.52 & 7.63 & 5.12 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{8 decrease rate} & & & 10.14 & & 10.33 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._



Figure 6 provides a single-line comparison for all 16 participants, with the \(x\)-axis showing participant numbers. Red indicates beta wave reduction for PES 50, while blue shows the reduction for PES 1. The mean beta wave reduction for PES 50 was 5.54 (median 5.52), while for PES 1, it was 4.86 (median 4.71). On average, the EMDR stimulus video produced with PES 1 was 12.31% more effective than PES 50, closely matching the ANN prediction of a 14.20% difference, with a variance within approximately 2%. Figure 5: Line series plot of 0–60 s. EO and 90–120 s. EO for each participant.