A recent neuroscience paper has ignited discussion within trauma psychology, challenging a widely held tenet: that the body literally “keeps the score” of traumatic experiences. Published in *Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience* by Steven Kotler, Michael Mannino, Glenn Fox, and Karl Friston, the paper, provocatively titled “The Body Does Not Keep the Score,” is less a refutation of somatic trauma approaches and more a nuanced exploration of the underlying mechanisms.
Revisiting “The Body Keeps the Score”
Bessel van der Kolk’s seminal 2014 book fundamentally shifted the discourse on trauma by articulating the profound physiological impact of traumatic events. It resonated deeply by validating the intuitive understanding that trauma isn’t merely a cognitive issue but manifests physically through symptoms like chest tightness, hypervigilance, and breath restriction. This countered a long-standing trend in psychology that had overemphasized the mind and cognitive processes, often relegating bodily experience to a secondary role.
Van der Kolk’s central argument was that traumatic experiences alter physiological states, autonomic responses, perception, and one’s sense of safety in ways that cognition alone cannot fully resolve. The authors of the new paper acknowledge this, noting Van der Kolk’s engagement with concepts such as “prefrontal-limbic interactions, interoception, embodied cognition,” and Antonio Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis, which inherently recognize the nervous system’s role in mediating bodily experience.
The critique in the new paper is not directed at Van der Kolk’s clinical observations but rather at a more literal, and perhaps oversimplified, popular interpretation of his work. The authors observe that in some circles, particularly within social media neuroscience and wellness culture, metaphors about trauma being “stored” in the body have been misconstrued as literal anatomical explanations, detached from the brain and nervous system’s active processing.
A Predictive Processing Framework for Trauma
The *Frontiers* paper proposes an alternative framework rooted in predictive processing. This model posits that the brain actively generates predictions about the world, rather than passively recording information. Following trauma, the brain may become hypersensitive to threat, leading to an overestimation of danger. Symptoms like flashbacks and panic attacks can be understood as self-perpetuating cycles where the nervous system, caught in a loop of predicting danger, interprets bodily sensations as confirmation of that danger, thereby reinforcing the initial prediction. In this view, the body acts as a conduit for signaling threat, not as a static repository.
- Understanding Traumatic Stress
- Assess for PTSD Symptoms
A key concept introduced is “metastability,” referring to the brain’s capacity for dynamic, flexible shifts between different neural network states in response to environmental cues. A healthy nervous system can fluidly navigate between states of alertness and rest, focus and openness. Trauma, conversely, can diminish this flexibility, leading to a system predominantly organized around threat detection. This rigidity—the inability to return to spontaneity, curiosity, or creative engagement—is a hallmark experienced by many trauma survivors.
The paper speculates, with appropriate scientific caution, that engagement in flow states—activities like music, athletics, surfing, or creative endeavors where action and awareness merge—may help restore this crucial neural flexibility. The hypothesis is that flow states could temporarily enhance the brain’s capacity for adaptive reorganization, thereby counteracting the rigidity induced by trauma. While this theory is still emerging and requires empirical validation in trauma populations, it offers a compelling new avenue for understanding therapeutic interventions.
This predictive processing model may elucidate why a diverse array of interventions, including EMDR, mindfulness, somatic therapies, and creative practices, can all contribute to healing. These approaches might collectively work by fostering greater neural flexibility and recalibrating threat prediction systems that have become overly rigid. Far from dismissing embodied trauma work, the paper seeks to refine the understanding of its underlying mechanisms.
Refining Theory, Not Invalidating It
It is crucial to distinguish between theoretical refinement and outright invalidation, a tendency sometimes observed in rapidly evolving fields like trauma research. As theories gain traction, they can be simplified or taken to extremes, leading to polarized discourse. Healthy scientific progress involves building upon, integrating, and refining existing frameworks rather than dismissing them wholesale.
The ultimate question in trauma research should be efficacy: “What helps individuals heal?” The *Frontiers* paper, despite its provocative title, contributes to an integrative perspective. It suggests that diverse therapeutic modalities may be effective by restoring flexibility and adjusting rigid predictive systems. This aligns with the core insight of “The Body Keeps the Score”—that trauma fundamentally alters how safety, danger, and one’s own body are experienced. While the body may not be a literal archive of trauma in a simplistic sense, traumatic experiences profoundly shape our perception and lived reality. Healing often involves reintroducing movement—neurological, relational, and personal—where trauma imposed rigidity.
Business Style Takeaway: Understanding the brain’s predictive processing and the concept of neural flexibility offers leaders new insights into managing team stress and fostering resilience. By recognizing that trauma can manifest as rigidity in cognitive and emotional responses, businesses can champion interventions and work environments that promote adaptability, creativity, and a balanced state of engagement, ultimately enhancing overall organizational performance.
Based on materials from : www.psychologytoday.com