This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Objectives Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that has shown potential to enhance cognitive function, including working memory. This study investigated the acute effects of both electrical (E-taVNS) and ultrasound (U-taVNS) modalities on working memory using a 3-back task in healthy young adults. We hypothesized that active taVNS would enhance working memory performance relative to sham, and that both stimulation modalities would engage similar neuromodulatory mechanisms. Materials and Methods Fifty-nine participants underwent a single-blind, sham-controlled, within-subject design study, with working memory performance assessed using a 3-back task before and after stimulation. Primary performance measures included correct rejection rate, error false alarm, and sensitivity ( d ′). Statistical analyses compared pre- and post-stimulation performance across modalities. Results E-taVNS significantly enhanced working memory performance through an increase in correct rejection rate and sensitivity (measured by d’ ), alongside a reduction in error of false alarm. U-taVNS showed a similar directional trend across performance measures, although these effects did not reach statistical significance. Baseline anxiety levels significantly predicted individual responsiveness to taVNS. In terms of tolerability, a higher proportion of participants receiving E-taVNS reported skin irritation compared to those receiving U-taVNS. Conclusions E-taVNS can acutely enhance working memory performance, while U-taVNS may offer a comparable, better tolerated alternative. Our findings highlight the potential of taVNS to support memory function, while showing the importance of further research to clarify modality-specific effects and optimize stimulation parameters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Falcon-Caro et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: