Key result
Median nerve stimulation beats auricular vagal stimulation, cutting stress-induced CV arousal by ~34%.
Why the study?
Non-invasive transcutaneous peripheral neuromodulation may mitigate acute stress-induced arousal with fewer side effects than pharmacological options, but the efficacy and mechanism of action of median nerve stimulation and auricular vagus nerve stimulation remain largely unknown.
Does median nerve stimulation compared to auricular vagus nerve stimulation improve the mitigation of acute mental stress-induced sympathetic arousal in healthy participants?
RCT (n=19)
Randomized crossover
No
Does median nerve stimulation compared to auricular vagus nerve stimulation improve the mitigation of acute mental stress-induced sympathetic arousal in healthy participants?
Absolute Event Rate: 34% vs 19%
p-value: p=<0.05
Both median nerve stimulation and auricular vagus nerve stimulation effectively mitigate acute stress-induced cardiovascular arousal, with MNS showing modest superiority in efficacy and consistency.
MNS may be preferred over AVNS for acute stress mitigation in healthy adults; extends transcutaneous neuromodulation evidence from this RCT.
Acute mental stress is a common experience in daily life, significantly affecting both physiological and psychological well-being. While traditional pharmacological interventions can be effective, they often accompany undesirable side effects. Non-pharmacological alternatives, such as non-invasive transcutaneous peripheral neuromodulation, have promise in mitigating acute stress-induced arousal, possibly with fewer side effects. Median nerve stimulation (MNS) and auricular vagus nerve stimulation (AVNS), in particular, have demonstrated notable potential. However, efficacy and mechanism of action pertaining to MNS and AVNS remain largely unknown. This paper comparatively investigated MNS and AVNS in terms of efficacy and mechanism of action in the context of mitigating acute stress-induced arousal. Using an experimental dataset collected from 19 healthy participants who experienced acute mental stressors as well as MNS and AVNS, we showed that (i) MNS and AVNS are both effective in mitigating acute stress-induced cardiovascular arousal with MNS modestly superior to AVNS in terms of a synthetic multi-modal variable derived from physio-markers representing heart rate, blood pressure, stroke volume, cardiac output, and peripheral vasoconstriction: 74% vs. 71% in explainability; 86% vs. 69% in stimulation consistency; 0.77 vs. 0.40 in stimulation sensitivity; and 34% vs. 19% in stimulation effectiveness, respectively; and that (ii) MNS and AVNS mitigate acute stress-induced cardiovascular arousal in a distinct mechanism of action: MNS primarily mitigates the arousal pertaining to the physio-markers representing heart rate and peripheral vasoconstriction, while AVNS mitigates the arousal pertaining to the physio-markers representing heart rate, blood pressure, stroke volume, cardiac output, and peripheral vasoconstriction. These findings may help to support future device development for addressing acute mental stress-induced arousal through MNS or AVNS, and they pave the way toward a better understanding of how to quantify the efficacy of such interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Acute mental stress (n=19). Median nerve stimulation vs. Auricular vagus nerve stimulation was evaluated on Stimulation effectiveness (mitigation of acute stress-induced cardiovascular arousal) (p=<0.05). Median nerve stimulation was modestly superior to auricular vagus nerve stimulation in mitigating acute mental stress-induced cardiovascular arousal, demonstrating 34% versus 19% stimulation effectiveness.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: