Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33539792›Full record

ArticleBrain research2021

High intensity VNS disrupts VNS-mediated plasticity in motor cortex.

Robert A Morrison, Tanya T Danaphongse, Stephanie T Abe, Madison E Stevens, Vikram Ezhil, Armin Seyedahmadi, Katherine S Adcock, Robert L Rennaker, Michael P Kilgard, Seth A Hays

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A narrative review of vagus nerve stimulation in stroke.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert A MorrisonThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, United States; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, United States. Electronic address: robert.morrison@utdallas.edu.
Tanya T DanaphongseThe University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, United States.
Stephanie T AbeThe University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, United States.
Madison E StevensThe University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, United States.
Vikram EzhilThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, United States; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, United States.
Armin SeyedahmadiThe University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, United States.
Katherine S AdcockThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, United States; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, United States.
Robert L RennakerThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, United States; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, United States.
Michael P KilgardThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, United States; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, United States.
Seth A HaysThe University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral Brain Sciences, Richardson, TX, United States; The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas Biomedical Device Center, Richardson, TX, United States; The University of Texas at Dallas, Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science, Richardson, TX, United States.
Texas Biomedical Research Institute · US

Funding

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
Enhancing Recovery after Chronic Bilateral Cervical Spinal Cord Injury with Targeted Plasticity TherapyR01NS103803 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS · PI KILGARD, MICHAEL P, RENNAKER, ROBERT L · 2018 to 2022
$1.7M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS094384NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS103803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with motor rehabilitation enhances recovery of function after neurological injury in rats and humans. This effect is ascribed to VNS-dependent facilitation of plasticity in motor networks. Previous studies document an inverted-U relationship between VNS intensity and cortical plasticity, such that moderate intensities increase plasticity, while low or high intensity VNS does not. We tested the interaction of moderate and high intensity VNS trains to probe the mechanisms that may underlie VNS-dependent plasticity. Rats performed a behavioral task where VNS was paired with jaw movement during chewing. For five days, subjects received 100 pairings of moderate intensity VNS (Standard VNS), 100 pairings alternating between moderate and high intensity VNS (Interleaved VNS), or 50 pairings of moderate intensity VNS (Short VNS) approximately every 8 s. After the final behavioral session, intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) was used to evaluate movement representations in motor cortex. 100 pairings of moderate intensity VNS enhanced motor cortex plasticity. Replacing half of moderate intensity stimulation with high intensity VNS blocked this enhancement of plasticity. Removing high intensity stimulation, leaving only 50 pairings of moderate intensity VNS, reinstated plasticity. These results demonstrate that there is a period for at least 8 s after high intensity stimulation in which moderate intensity VNS is not able to engage mechanisms required for synaptic reorganization. More importantly, this study demonstrates that changes in stimulation parameters are a critical determinant of the magnitude of plasticity and likely the efficacy of VNS-enhanced recovery.

Indexed as

Vagus Nerve StimulationAnimalsFemaleMasticationMotor CortexMovementNeuronal PlasticityRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyRecovery of FunctionCortical reorganizationIntracortical microstimulationMotor cortexSynaptic plasticityVagus nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID33539792
PMCPMC7971691
OpenAlexW3126680336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.