Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30409712›Full record

ArticleBrain stimulation

Vagus nerve stimulation intensity influences motor cortex plasticity.

Robert A Morrison, Daniel R Hulsey, Katherine S Adcock, Robert L Rennaker, Michael P Kilgard, Seth A Hays

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06294509 (Feasibility and Effects of Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation Timings in a Sensorimotor Task), which is not on this map. Cited by 59 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06294509 naunknown statusnot on this map

Feasibility and Effects of Transcutaneous Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation Timings in a Sensorimotor Task

TypeinterventionalSponsorOlivier LambercyRan2024 to 2025Enrolled75ConditionsHealthyArmsin-house developed transcutaneous auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. [Research progress on the neuromodulation targets in stroke rehabilitation].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mechanism and Applications of Vagus Nerve Stimulation.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert A MorrisonThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, USA; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, USA. Electronic address: robert.morrison@utdallas.edu.
Daniel R HulseyThe University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, USA.
Katherine S AdcockThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, USA; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, USA.
Robert L RennakerThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, USA; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, USA; The University of Texas at Dallas, Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science, Richardson, TX, USA.
Michael P KilgardThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, USA; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, USA; The University of Texas at Dallas, Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science, Richardson, TX, USA.
Seth A HaysThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, USA; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, USA; The University of Texas at Dallas, Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science, Richardson, TX, USA.
Texas Biomedical Research Institute · US

Funding

Vagus Nerve Stimulation Paired with Rehabilitative Training to Enhance PlasticityR01NS085167 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS · PI KILGARD, MICHAEL P, RENNAKER, ROBERT L · 2014 to 2018
$1.9M
Evaluation of the Neuromodulatory Mechanisms of Vagus Nerve Stimulation to Improve Motor Rehabilitation after StrokeR01NS094384 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS · PI HAYS, SETH ALANSON · 2016 to 2020
$1.7M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS085167NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS094384
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with forelimb motor training enhances reorganization of movement representations in the motor cortex. Previous studies have shown an inverted-U relationship between VNS intensity and plasticity in other brain areas, such that moderate intensity VNS yields greater cortical plasticity than low or high intensity VNS. However, the relationship between VNS intensity and plasticity in the motor cortex is unknown.

objectiveIn this study we sought to test the hypothesis that VNS intensity exhibits an inverted-U relationship with the degree of motor cortex plasticity in rats.

methodsRats were taught to perform a lever pressing task emphasizing use of the proximal forelimb musculature. Once proficient, rats underwent five additional days of behavioral training in which low intensity VNS (0.4 mA), moderate intensity VNS (0.8 mA), high intensity VNS (1.6 mA), or sham stimulation was paired with forelimb movement. 24 h after the completion of behavioral training, intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) was used to document movement representations in the motor cortex.

resultsVNS delivered at 0.8 mA caused a significant increase in motor cortex proximal forelimb representation compared to training alone. VNS delivered at 0.4 mA and 1.6 mA failed to cause a significant expansion of proximal forelimb representation.

conclusionModerate intensity 0.8 mA VNS optimally enhances motor cortex plasticity while low intensity 0.4 mA and high intensity 1.6 mA VNS fail to enhance plasticity. Plasticity in the motor cortex exhibits an inverted-U function of VNS intensity similar to previous findings in auditory cortex.

Indexed as

Neuronal PlasticityAnimalsMotor CortexMovementRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyUpper ExtremityVagus NerveVagus Nerve StimulationCortical reorganizationICMSMotor cortexMotor trainingPlasticityVagus nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID30409712
PMCPMC6347516
OpenAlexW2899156038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.