Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32351421›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation Does Not Affect Verbal Memory Performance in Healthy Volunteers.

Ann Mertens, Lien Naert, Marijke Miatton, Tasha Poppa, Evelien Carrette, Stefanie Gadeyne, Robrecht Raedt, Paul Boon, Kristl Vonck

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ann Mertens4Brain, Department of Neurology, Institute for Neuroscience, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Lien NaertDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Marijke Miatton4Brain, Department of Neurology, Institute for Neuroscience, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Tasha PoppaGhent Experimental Psychiatry (GHEP) Lab, Department of Psychiatry, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Evelien Carrette4Brain, Department of Neurology, Institute for Neuroscience, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Stefanie Gadeyne4Brain, Department of Neurology, Institute for Neuroscience, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Robrecht Raedt4Brain, Department of Neurology, Institute for Neuroscience, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Paul Boon4Brain, Department of Neurology, Institute for Neuroscience, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Kristl Vonck4Brain, Department of Neurology, Institute for Neuroscience, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University Hospital · BEGhent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInvasive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) improves word recognition memory in patients with epilepsy. Recent studies with transcutaneous VNS (tVNS) have also shown positive effects on various subdomains of cognitive functioning in healthy volunteers. In this randomized, controlled, crossover study, we investigated the effect of tVNS on a word recognition memory paradigm in healthy volunteers to further investigate the potential of tVNS in the treatment of cognitive disorders.

methodsWe included 41 healthy participants aged between 18 and 30 years (young age group) and 24 healthy participants aged between 45 and 80 years (older age group). Each participant completed a word recognition memory paradigm during three different conditions: true tVNS, sham, and control. During true tVNS, stimulation was delivered at the cymba conchae. Sham stimulation was delivered by stimulating the earlobe. In the control condition, no stimulation was given. In each condition, participants were asked to remember highlighted words from three test paragraphs. Accuracy scores were calculated for immediate recall after each test paragraph and for delayed recognition at the end of the paradigm. We hypothesized that highlighted words from paragraphs in the true tVNS condition would be more accurately recalled and/or recognized compared to highlighted words from paragraphs in the sham or control condition.

resultsIn this randomized study, tVNS did not affect the accuracy scores for immediate recall or delayed recognition in both age groups. The younger group showed significantly higher accuracy scores than the older group. The accuracy scores improved over time, and the most recently learned words were better recognized. Participants rated true tVNS as significantly more painful; however, pain was not found to affect accuracy scores.

conclusionIn this study, tVNS did not affect verbal memory performance in healthy volunteers. Our results could not replicate the positive effects of invasive VNS on word recognition memory in epilepsy patients. Future research with the aim of improving cognitive function should focus on the rational identification of optimized and individualized stimulation settings primarily in patients with cognitive deficits.

Indexed as

cognitiondelayed recognitionimmediate recalltranscutaneous vagus nerve stimulationverbal memory performanceword recognition memory paradigm

Identifiers

PMID32351421
PMCPMC7174665
OpenAlexW3017272163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.