Take our Generalized Anxiety Disorder Test

Find a therapist near me

Neurophysiologists claim core premises are incorrect in polyvagal theory.

Porges responds that critics misunderstand what the theory actually claims.

Further research and discussion is needed to settle the debate.

There is an interesting controversy resurfacing in the trauma psychology community around Stephen Porges’ polyvagal theory (PVT). The debate has been going on for years, but a recently published paper has brought it back into focus.

I'm writing this for clinicians, particularly those of us who have used PVT as a lens in our work and are now wondering what to make of the renewed push from neuroscientists to reject PVT. What does this debate mean for those of us who practice?

PVT was always ambitious. It was an attempt to weave together evolutionary biology, neurophysiology, observable behavior, and clinical wisdom into an arc about how our nervous system states drive our behavior in the world and with one another. PVT was a bold contribution in a scientific arena where entire careers can be devoted to testing a single mechanism to increasing degrees of confidence.

For many clinicians, PVT has been meaningful.

Neurophysiologist Paul Grossman, along with 38 researchers, recently published a critique outlining scientific objections to some of PVT’s proposed neuroanatomical mechanisms. They conclude that PVT’s core neurophysiology claims do not hold up under scrutiny; therefore, it’s not a viable psychological theory and should not be taught as such.

Porges has formally responded. He welcomes empirical challenges and criticism of his theory, but he argues that the published criticism is so full of straw man arguments and misrepresentations of PVT that the authors undermine their ability to legitimately critique the theory.

As far as I know, Grossman et al. have not responded to the rebuttal.

The debate has reached an impasse. Both sides believe rigorous........

© Psychology Today