Key result
Transcutaneous cervical nVNS improved accuracy for easy (p=0.017) and hard (p=0.013) matrix reasoning items compared to sham in healthy adults, with no difference in BOLD response.
Why the study?
Preliminary evidence suggested noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) may enhance cognition, but no study had directly assessed its effects on brain function and cognitive performance in healthy individuals.
Does noninvasive cervical vagal nerve stimulation improve cognitive performance and brain activation in healthy adults?
RCT (n=30)
Does noninvasive cervical vagal nerve stimulation improve cognitive performance and brain activation in healthy adults?
p-value: p=0.017 (easy items), 0.013 (hard items)
Noninvasive cervical vagal nerve stimulation may enhance visuospatial reasoning and recognition in healthy adults without detectable changes in fMRI BOLD signals.
nVNS may enhance reasoning accuracy in healthy adults; hypothesis-generating and should not change practice.
OBJECTIVES: While preliminary evidence suggests that noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) may enhance cognition, to our knowledge, no study has directly assessed the effects of nVNS on brain function and cognitive performance in healthy individuals. The aim of this study was therefore to assess whether nVNS enhances complex visuospatial problem solving in a normative sample. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to examine underlying neural substrates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants received transcutaneous cervical nVNS (N = 15) or sham (N = 15) stimulation during a 3 T fMRI scan. Stimulation lasted for 2 min at 24 V for nVNS and at 4.5 V for sham. Subjects completed a matrix reasoning (MR) task in the scanner and a forced-choice recognition task outside the scanner. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess group differences in cognitive performance. And linear mixed effects (LMEs) regression analysis was used to assess main and interaction effects of experimental groups, level of MR task difficulty, and recall accuracy on changes in blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal. RESULTS: Subjects who received nVNS showed higher accuracy for both easy (p = 0.017) and hard (p = 0.013) items of the MR task, slower reaction times for hard items (p = 0.014), and fewer false negative errors during the forced-choice recognition task (p = 0.047). MR task difficulty related to increased activation in frontoparietal regions (p < 0.001). No difference between nVNS and sham stimulation was found on BOLD response during performance of the MR task. CONCLUSIONS: We hypothesize that nVNS increased attention compared to sham, and that this effect led to enhanced executive functions, and consequently to better performance on visuospatial reasoning and recognition tasks. Results provide initial support that nVNS may be a low-risk, low-cost treatment for cognitive disorders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klaming et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Healthy adults (n=30). Transcutaneous cervical noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) vs. Sham stimulation (4.5 V) was evaluated on Accuracy on matrix reasoning (MR) task (p=0.017 (easy items), 0.013 (hard items)). Transcutaneous cervical nVNS improved accuracy for easy (p=0.017) and hard (p=0.013) matrix reasoning items compared to sham in healthy adults, with no difference in BOLD response.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: