Key result
Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation acutely impaired decision-making by reducing the learning rate (∆α -0.092) in a go/no-go reinforcement learning task compared to sham stimulation.
Why the study?
Whether and how vagal feedback signals from the gut influence instrumental actions was unknown.
Does non-invasive transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) alter choice accuracy in healthy participants?
RCT (n=39)
Single-blind
Randomized cross-over design
No
Does non-invasive transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) alter choice accuracy in healthy participants?
Mean Difference: -0.092
p-value: p=0.002
Non-invasive transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation acutely impairs decision-making by reducing the learning rate, suggesting vagal afferent input modulates reinforcement learning according to homeostatic needs.
Acute transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation impairs decision-making; warrants caution in cognitive contexts and extends evidence for vagal modulation of reinforcement learning.
When facing decisions to approach rewards or to avoid punishments, we often figuratively go with our gut, and the impact of metabolic states such as hunger on motivation are well documented. However, whether and how vagal feedback signals from the gut influence instrumental actions is unknown. Here, we investigated the effect of non-invasive transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) vs. sham (randomized cross-over design) on approach and avoidance behavior using an established go/no-go reinforcement learning paradigm (Guitart-Masip et al., 2012) in 39 healthy, participants after an overnight fast. First, mixed-effects logistic regression analysis of choice accuracy showed that tVNS acutely impaired decision-making, p = .045. Computational reinforcement learning models identified the cause of this as a reduction in the learning rate through tVNS (Δα = −0.092, p boot = .002), particularly after punishment (Δα Pun = −0.081, p boot = .012 vs. Δα Rew = −0.031, p = .22). However, tVNS had no effect on go biases, Pavlovian response biases or response time. Hence, tVNS appeared to influence learning rather than action execution. These results highlight a novel role of vagal afferent input in modulating reinforcement learning by tuning the learning rate according to homeostatic needs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kühnel et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Healthy (n=39). Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) vs. Sham stimulation (left earlobe) was evaluated on Learning rate in a go/no-go reinforcement learning task (∆α -0.092, p=0.002). Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation acutely impaired decision-making by reducing the learning rate (∆α -0.092) in a go/no-go reinforcement learning task compared to sham stimulation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: