Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33132877›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2020

Reduced Frontal Nogo-N2 With Uncompromised Response Inhibition During Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation-More Efficient Cognitive Control?

Mia Pihlaja, Laura Failla, Jari Peräkylä, Kaisa M Hartikainen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mia PihlajaBehavioral Neurology Research Unit, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Laura FaillaBehavioral Neurology Research Unit, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Jari PeräkyläBehavioral Neurology Research Unit, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Kaisa M HartikainenBehavioral Neurology Research Unit, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
Tampere University Hospital · FITampere University · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have previously shown invasive vagus nerve stimulation to improve attention and working memory and alter emotion-attention interaction in patients with refractory epilepsy, suggesting that VNS might be useful in the treatment of cognitive impairment. The current research focuses on whether non-invasive, transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) has similar effects to VNS. Furthermore, we aimed to assess whether tVNS has an impact on cognitive control in general or on underlying brain physiology in a task that mimics everyday life demands where multiple executive functions are engaged while encountering intervening emotional stimuli. Event-related potentials (ERP) evoked in such a task, specifically centro-parietal P3 and frontal N2 were used as biomarkers for attention allocation and cognitive control required to carry out the task. A single-blinded, sham-controlled, within-subject study on healthy subjects (

Indexed as

cognitioncognitive controlERPexecutive functionN2neuromodulationtranscutaneous vagus nerve stimulationtVNS

Identifiers

PMID33132877
PMCPMC7573492
OpenAlexW3092578284

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.