Polyvagal Theory: What Has Changed, What Remains — and Why This Is Good News

Recently, social media has been full of headlines proclaiming the "death" of Polyvagal Theory — you may have come across posts along the lines of RIP Polyvagal Theory. As an Integrative Bodywork and Movement Therapy (IBMT) practitioner who has drawn on this model for years — both in educational workshops and in one-on-one client work — I feel a responsibility to speak about this clearly, accurately, and without unnecessary drama (which may generate clicks, but is neither helpful nor precise).

I have been following this debate among researchers for some time now. It is not new. However, since I am not a scientist, a thorough unpacking of the highly technical academic discourse is beyond my scope here — and in any case, what matters most to me is how this theory is applied and critiqued within the context of somatic therapy. This piece is not intended as an academic analysis. Rather, I want to speak to what I believe is important for those who use Polyvagal Theory (PVT) in their daily lives or therapeutic practice, and who may feel confused by the noise — both pro- and anti-PVT voices — circulating online.

So what is actually happening?

Science is doing what science is supposed to do

"The 'RIP PVT' headlines make for compelling social media content — but they likely overstate what is actually happening. Scientific models are rarely discarded wholesale after a single wave of critique. More often, they are pressure-tested, corrected, and refined. That appears to be where Polyvagal Theory is headed — evolving into a more precise model.

Between 2022 and 2023, several critical papers appeared in the journal Biological Psychology, authored by respected researchers raising substantive questions:

Grossman (2023) questions whether RSA - Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia (the breath-driven fluctuation in heart rate that Porges proposed as a marker of vagal tone) is an exclusively mammalian trait, and argues that the role of the dorsal vagal branch in freeze responses has not been scientifically established.

Neuhuber and Berthoud (2022) raise anatomical questions about the accuracy of the vagal branch model — though they do not dispute the existence of the distinct branches themselves.

Doody, Burghardt, and Dinets (2023) point out that social behaviour is also present in reptiles — though Porges himself has noted that PVT never claimed otherwise.

Taylor, Wang, and Leite (2022) provide cross-species evidence suggesting that the cardiorespiratory mechanisms underlying RSA evolved long before mammals — and that in mammals, RSA may be a biological inheritance from earlier vertebrates, where it originally served a clearer physiological function.

In 2026, a group of 39 researchers co-signed a publication stating that certain foundational assumptions of PVT are insufficiently supported by scientific evidence and the theory is thus untenable. Stephen Porges himself responded that some of this critique rests on misinterpretations of his theory (see Critical Discussion of Polyvagal Theory). The debate is serious, ongoing, and an entirely normal scientific process.

What we owe to Stephen Porges and PVT

Despite the scientific critique, Polyvagal Theory has catalysed a genuine shift — not only in therapy, but in the everyday self-awareness of countless people. Its widespread reach has significantly contributed to public discourse around nervous system health, inspiring many to explore the body-mind connection and find practices that have meaningfully improved their wellbeing.

PVT normalised our physiological responses to perceived threat. It gave language to why our bodies respond the way they do. For those who have experienced trauma, hearing "that was your nervous system's response — not your choice" has had an enormous therapeutic effect, even if the precise mechanism is still being questioned and studied.

Another lasting contribution is Porges' emphasis on relational connection as a primary source of regulation. His work aligns neatly with attachment theory and with the growing body of research in interpersonal neurobiology.

What remains well-supported — independent of the PVT debate

The following principles are not contested within the scientific community:

• Chronic stress and trauma dysregulate the nervous system at a physiological level.

• A felt sense of safety, delivered through the sensory systems, directly shifts our bodily state.

• Co-regulation — connection with another person is biologically necessary for humans and their nervous system regulation.

• Interoception — the capacity to sense one's internal body — is the foundation of self-regulation.

• The most effective therapeutic approaches integrate both bottom-up (body-to-mind) and top-down (mind-to-body) methods.

These principles are grounded in a solid scientific foundation (van der Kolk, 2014; Seth, 2021; Siegel, 2020; Barrett, 2017; and others), and they remain trusted in somatic therapy practice.

What the Predictive Processing framework offers us

One of the most robustly supported findings in contemporary neuroscience is that the brain is constantly generating predictions based on past experience. If someone has lived through trauma or chronic stress, their nervous system will anticipate danger even where none exists. In these cases threat signals tend to override signals of safety. The brain interprets incoming sensory information — from both the external environment and the body's interior — through a lens of danger.

In somatic work, we create the conditions for the nervous system to update these predictive patterns. We seek repeated experiences of safety that can gradually shift these predictions. This explains why body-based practices work, why relational connection heals, and why nervous system regulation requires consistency — returning to it again and again. When we feel safe in our own body again, we begin to see the world, other people, and ourselves through a different lens. We increase our ability to respond to what is actually present now, rather than to the echoes of the past.

A biological reality does not disappear when we change its name

Somatic therapy does not rely on a single theoretical model. It draws on decades of documented research and millennia of embodied human experience. Science often explains what we already know through lived experience.

That said, scientific progress matters deeply to us. We all benefit from rigorous debate, further research, and scholarly inquiry. New findings provide empirical grounding, more precise and accessible frameworks, and a shared vocabulary — one that supports both practitioners and clients in making sense of their experience and articulating it with greater clarity.

Somatic therapy evolves alongside science. As new evidence emerges, we keep what works and develop a more accurate understanding of why it works and how. The rise or fall of any single theory does not change your personal experience. If somatic practices help you move from a state of survival into one of safety, coherence, and genuine connection — that is real.

Science moves forward. And that is good news for all of us.

Bibliography:

• Barrett, L. F. (2017). How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Pan Books.

• Doody, J. S., Burghardt, G. M., & Dinets, V. (2023). The evolution of sociality and the polyvagal theory. Biological Psychology.

• Grossman, P., et al. (2026). The Polyvagal Theory is Untenable: An international expert evaluation. Clinical Neuropsychiatry.

• Grossman, P. (2023). Fundamental challenges and likely refutations of the five basic premises of the polyvagal theory. Biological Psychology.

• Khalsa, S. S., et al. (2018). Interoception and Mental Health: A Roadmap. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging.

• Neuhuber, W. ir Berthoud, H.R. (2022). Functional anatomy of the vagus system: How does the polyvagal theory comply? Biological Psychology.

• Polyvagal Institute. (2024–2026). Scientific Research and Responses to Critical Reviews. Critical Discussion of Polyvagal Theory

• Porges, S. W. (2026). When a critique becomes untenable: A scholarly response to Grossman et al.’s evaluation of Polyvagal Theory. Clinical Neuropsychiatry. Scientific Papers, Chapters & Interviews | Polyvagal Institute.

• Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.

• Seth, A. (2021). Being You: A New Science of Consciousness. Faber & Faber.

• Taylor, E. W., et al. (2022). An overview of the phylogeny of cardiorespiratory control in vertebrates with some reflections on the 'Polyvagal Theory' . Biological Psychology.

• Van der Kolk, B. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking Press.