Grossman · Clinical neuropsychiatry 2026 · expert consensus commentary · n=38

Why The Polyvagal Theory Is Untenable: An international expert evaluation of the polyvagal theory and commentary upon Porges, S.W. (2025). Polyvagal theory: current status, clinical applications, and future directions. Clin. Neuropsychiatry, 22(3), 169-184.

Cited 5 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Expert consensus commentary and critical appraisal without primary empirical data

PubMed 41768017 · doi:10.36131/cnfioritieditore20260110 · record verified 2026-08-28

What was done

Thirty-nine international experts in vagus nerve physiology, evolutionary biology, and vertebrate social behavior were invited to critically appraise the core tenets of Polyvagal Theory (PVT) and a recent overview by its author. Thirty-eight accepted and co-authored the evaluation. The panel evaluated five specific elements: (1) whether respiratory sinus arrhythmia serves as a direct measure of central cardiac vagal drive, (2) the neuroanatomy and functions of the nucleus ambiguus and dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus, (3) assertions regarding vagus nerve evolution, (4) claims regarding the specificity of mammalian social behavior compared to nonmammalian vertebrates, and (5) interpretations of seminal physiological literature.

What was found

The abstract reports no quantitative measurements. All 38 participating co-authors agreed that the foundational neurophysiological and evolutionary claims underlying Polyvagal Theory are unsupported by past or current knowledge and inconsistent with the broader evidence base, rendering the theory untenable.

Why it matters

Polyvagal Theory is widely cited across clinical psychology and psychotherapy; this unified critique by domain specialists indicates its proposed physiological and evolutionary foundations lack empirical support.

Limits

This publication is an expert commentary and critical evaluation rather than an empirical trial or systematic review. The author panel was assembled by invitation rather than systematic selection, and the paper explicitly does not evaluate alternative models relating vagal function to psychological processes.

Cited by