Defining and testing autonomic states

Kram and MacDuffie propose that neuromodulatory conditions help distinguish defensive states and move the polyvagal controversy toward resolution. Evaluating that proposal requires an accurate account of the theory being extended and a distinction between plausible mechanisms and demonstrated state markers. Published polyvagal accounts already discuss concurrent autonomic influences, candidate circuits for neuroception, and opioid-related mechanisms. These precedents qualify claims of novelty without establishing the validity of either framework. Further distinctions concern observed presentation versus inferred mechanism, conditioned freezing versus tonic immobility, and regional nerve composition versus a localized anatomical boundary. I approach this discussion from a separate line of work on the bodily conditions that generate afferent input and the central processes that weight it. The Somato-Psychic Pathway, Persistent Afferent Bias, and Axial Organ frameworks offer hypotheses for this purpose. Their possible convergence with PVT should be examined through independently defined outcomes and prospective tests that distinguish competing explanations.

Gabriel Kram and Heather MacDuffie. Breaking the stasis in the polyvagal controversy: Two category errors, a missing variable, and a measured boundary.

Živný, B. (2026). Defining and testing autonomic states: A commentary on Kram and MacDuffie. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23979221

Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.