Ruth Klaming1,2,3, Alan N Simmons1,2, Andrea D Spadoni1,2, Imanuel Lerman1,2. 1. San Diego Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: While preliminary evidence suggests that noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) may enhance cognition, to our knowledge, no study has directly assessed the effects of nVNS on brain function and cognitive performance in healthy individuals. The aim of this study was therefore to assess whether nVNS enhances complex visuospatial problem solving in a normative sample. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to examine underlying neural substrates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants received transcutaneous cervical nVNS (N = 15) or sham (N = 15) stimulation during a 3 T fMRI scan. Stimulation lasted for 2 min at 24 V for nVNS and at 4.5 V for sham. Subjects completed a matrix reasoning (MR) task in the scanner and a forced-choice recognition task outside the scanner. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess group differences in cognitive performance. And linear mixed effects (LMEs) regression analysis was used to assess main and interaction effects of experimental groups, level of MR task difficulty, and recall accuracy on changes in blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal. RESULTS: Subjects who received nVNS showed higher accuracy for both easy (p = 0.017) and hard (p = 0.013) items of the MR task, slower reaction times for hard items (p = 0.014), and fewer false negative errors during the forced-choice recognition task (p = 0.047). MR task difficulty related to increased activation in frontoparietal regions (p < 0.001). No difference between nVNS and sham stimulation was found on BOLD response during performance of the MR task. CONCLUSIONS: We hypothesize that nVNS increased attention compared to sham, and that this effect led to enhanced executive functions, and consequently to better performance on visuospatial reasoning and recognition tasks. Results provide initial support that nVNS may be a low risk, low-cost treatment for cognitive disorders.
OBJECTIVES: While preliminary evidence suggests that noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS) may enhance cognition, to our knowledge, no study has directly assessed the effects of nVNS on brain function and cognitive performance in healthy individuals. The aim of this study was therefore to assess whether nVNS enhances complex visuospatial problem solving in a normative sample. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to examine underlying neural substrates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants received transcutaneous cervical nVNS (N = 15) or sham (N = 15) stimulation during a 3 T fMRI scan. Stimulation lasted for 2 min at 24 V for nVNS and at 4.5 V for sham. Subjects completed a matrix reasoning (MR) task in the scanner and a forced-choice recognition task outside the scanner. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess group differences in cognitive performance. And linear mixed effects (LMEs) regression analysis was used to assess main and interaction effects of experimental groups, level of MR task difficulty, and recall accuracy on changes in blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal. RESULTS: Subjects who received nVNS showed higher accuracy for both easy (p = 0.017) and hard (p = 0.013) items of the MR task, slower reaction times for hard items (p = 0.014), and fewer false negative errors during the forced-choice recognition task (p = 0.047). MR task difficulty related to increased activation in frontoparietal regions (p < 0.001). No difference between nVNS and sham stimulation was found on BOLD response during performance of the MR task. CONCLUSIONS: We hypothesize that nVNS increased attention compared to sham, and that this effect led to enhanced executive functions, and consequently to better performance on visuospatial reasoning and recognition tasks. Results provide initial support that nVNS may be a low risk, low-cost treatment for cognitive disorders.
Authors: Joseph J Ryan; Christine A Carruthers; Lori J Miller; Gary T Souheaver; Samuel T Gontkovsky; Martin D Zehr Journal: Int J Neurosci Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 2.292
Authors: Lihua Sun; Jari Peräkylä; Katri Holm; Joonas Haapasalo; Kai Lehtimäki; Keith H Ogawa; Jukka Peltola; Kaisa M Hartikainen Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2017-02-19 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: R C Gur; D Alsop; D Glahn; R Petty; C L Swanson; J A Maldjian; B I Turetsky; J A Detre; J Gee; R E Gur Journal: Brain Lang Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: E Ben-Menachem; A Hamberger; T Hedner; E J Hammond; B M Uthman; J Slater; T Treig; H Stefan; R E Ramsay; J F Wernicke Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Geoffrey A Kerchner; Caroline A Racine; Sandra Hale; Reva Wilheim; Victor Laluz; Bruce L Miller; Joel H Kramer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 3.240