Somatic Stuck Points vs. Protocol Stuck Points: Knowing Which One You're In
Somatic Stuck Points vs. Protocol Stuck Points: Knowing Which One You're In
Two clients, both stuck. One is technically still in the set, eyes tracking, but something about them has gone quiet in a way that doesn't match the content they're describing. The other is fully activated, crying, clearly in it, but keeps circling the same three sentences without anything new surfacing. Both look like "stuck processing" from the chart notes. They are not the same problem, and treating them the same way is usually what keeps them stuck.
Why these get confused
EMDR training gives most clinicians one mental model for a stall: something is blocking the reprocessing, and the fix is a better interweave. That model works often enough that it becomes the default lens for every stuck point, somatic and otherwise. But a recent EMDRIA framework, building on Chamberlin's Network Balance Model, offers a more precise way to think about what's actually happening: reprocessing depends on three large-scale brain networks staying in conversation with each other, and different stuck points reflect different networks dropping out.
The three networks, briefly:
The Default Mode Network (DMN) handles self-story, autobiographical memory, and meaning-making. It's asking, what does this mean about me?
The Central Executive Network (CEN) handles goal-directed attention and task engagement, the part of the client that's actually tracking the bilateral stimulation and staying present-focused. It's asking, what do I need to do right now?
The Salience Network (SN) handles body signals, emotion, and threat detection, the part deciding whether the material is safe enough to stay with. It's asking, is this dangerous?
A somatic stuck point and a protocol stuck point are, more often than not, different networks failing to hold up their end.
What a somatic stuck point actually looks like
This is usually the Salience Network dropping out, either by going offline (numbing, dissociation, flat affect that doesn't match the content) or by flooding so completely that nothing else can function. Signs to watch for:
The client can describe the memory but reports no body sensation at all, even when the content is clearly disturbing
SUD stays high with no felt movement, and the client seems to be reporting on the memory rather than experiencing it
Affect looks flat, far away, or dissociative rather than absent
The client can't seem to hold present-moment task engagement (following the BLS, staying oriented to the room) even briefly
If the SN has dropped into numbing or flooding, more sets of BLS usually won't produce new information. It just repeats a loop the system can't currently use. What's needed first is enough resourcing and titration to bring the salience network back into a workable range, sometimes before returning to standard protocol makes sense at all.
What a protocol stuck point actually looks like
This is a different picture: the client is affectively engaged, clearly with the material, sometimes visibly activated, but the content itself isn't generalizing or shifting. Signs to watch for:
The client is crying, activated, clearly present, but the same narrative loop repeats without new associations
SUD moves, then plateaus, even though the client still seems engaged with the process
The block tracks more with a specific target, cognitive interweave, or pacing choice than with the client's overall capacity to stay present
This is more often a DMN or CEN issue than an SN one. The self-story may be too rigid to admit disconfirming material (DMN), or the task engagement that keeps CEN online isn't strong enough to create the redistribution of resources reprocessing depends on. Here, the fix usually isn't more resourcing. It's closer attention to case conceptualization, target selection, or the specific interweave being used.
Why the mismatch matters
Treating a somatic stuck point like a protocol problem means pushing more sets at a client whose system has already gone offline, which can look like persistence but functions more like repetition without progress. Treating a protocol stuck point like a somatic one means over-resourcing a client who's actually just waiting for a better-targeted intervention, which can stall momentum that was otherwise available.
The fastest way to tell them apart in the room: check whether the client can hold present-moment task engagement at all. If they can track the BLS, stay oriented, and engage with simple attentional tasks, but the content still won't move, you're more likely looking at a DMN or protocol-level block. If they can't hold that engagement, if their attention keeps sliding away from the task entirely, the salience network is probably the piece that needs attention first.
Where this is worth a second opinion
This distinction is genuinely one of the harder calls to make from inside a session, partly because both presentations can look like "the client is stuck" from the outside, and partly because the accurate read usually depends on details (affect quality, task engagement, the specific texture of the looping) that are easier to see from a case presentation than from memory after the fact. If you're noticing a pattern of stuck points across clients and aren't sure which network is actually the recurring problem, that's exactly the kind of thing worth bringing to consultation.
If you want to walk through a case like this, let's talk about consultation.
Source: EMDR International Association (EMDRIA), "Keeping Up with EMDR, the Brain, and Neurobiology: From Brain Parts to Brain Networks" (Bridger Dale Falkenstien, PhD, LPC-S; Jen Savage, LPC-S; Caleb Boston, LPC-S), emdria.org.
