Influence of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on cardiac vagal activity: Not different from sham stimulation and no effect of stimulation intensity.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
06
02
2019
accepted:
30
09
2019
entrez:
12
10
2019
pubmed:
12
10
2019
medline:
13
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The present study investigated the effects of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on cardiac vagal activity, the activity of the vagus nerve regulating cardiac functioning. We applied stimulation on the left cymba conchae and tested the effects of different stimulation intensities on a vagally-mediated heart rate variability pagerameter (i.e., the root mean square of successive differences) as well as on subjective ratings of strength of perceived stimulation intensity and unpleasantness due to the stimulation. Three experiments (within-subject designs, M = 61 healthy participants each) were carried out: In Experiment 1, to choose one fixed stimulation intensity for the subsequent studies, we compared three preset stimulation intensities (i.e., 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 mA) with each other. In Experiment 2, we compared the set stimulation method with the free stimulation method, in which the participants were instructed to freely choose an intensity. In Experiment 3, to control for placebo effects, we compared both methods (i.e., set stimulation vs. free stimulation) with their respective sham stimulations. In the three experiments, an increase of cardiac vagal activity was found from resting to the stimulation phases. However, this increase in cardiac vagal activity was not dependent on stimulation intensity (Experiment 1), the method used to stimulate (i.e., set vs. free; Experiment 2), or whether stimulation was active or sham (Experiment 3). This pattern of results was solidly supported by Bayesian estimations. On the subjective level, higher stimulation intensities were perceived as significantly stronger and a stronger stimulation was generally also perceived as more unpleasant. The results suggest that cardiac vagal activity may be similarly influenced by afferent vagal stimuli triggered by active and sham stimulation with different stimulation intensities. Potential explanations for these findings and its implications for future research with tVNS are discussed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31603939
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223848
pii: PONE-D-19-03646
pmc: PMC6788680
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0223848Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Exp Physiol. 2012 Apr;97(4):556
pubmed: 22525665
Front Psychol. 2017 Feb 20;8:213
pubmed: 28265249
Front Psychol. 2015 Feb 10;6:102
pubmed: 25713547
Auton Neurosci. 2017 Mar;203:88-96
pubmed: 28017263
Brain Stimul. 2016 Nov - Dec;9(6):811-818
pubmed: 27522167
Nat Neurosci. 1999 Jan;2(1):94-8
pubmed: 10195186
Brain Stimul. 2018 Mar - Apr;11(2):271-277
pubmed: 29174302
Brain Stimul. 2013 Mar;6(2):202-9
pubmed: 22621941
Circulation. 1996 Mar 1;93(5):1043-65
pubmed: 8598068
Psychiatry Res. 2007 Aug 15;155(3):245-56
pubmed: 17587554
Clin Neurophysiol. 2014 Mar;125(3):602-7
pubmed: 24070673
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2018 Aug;18(4):680-693
pubmed: 29693214
Brain Stimul. 2014 Nov-Dec;7(6):871-7
pubmed: 25164906
Brain Stimul. 2013 Sep;6(5):798-804
pubmed: 23453934
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2016 Jul;132:49-56
pubmed: 27222436
Front Physiol. 2012 May 23;3:148
pubmed: 22654764
Brain Res. 2006 Nov 13;1119(1):124-32
pubmed: 16962076
Psychophysiology. 1993 Mar;30(2):183-96
pubmed: 8434081
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2019 May;161:192-201
pubmed: 30986531
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006 Jul;31(7):1345-55
pubmed: 16641939
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 May;6(3):291-8
pubmed: 26168519
Brain Stimul. 2015 May-Jun;8(3):624-36
pubmed: 25573069
Neuron. 2016 Jan 6;89(1):221-34
pubmed: 26711118
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009 Feb;33(2):81-8
pubmed: 18771686
Brain Stimul. 2017 Sep - Oct;10(5):875-881
pubmed: 28566194
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1986 May;33(5):495-504
pubmed: 3710505
Ann Behav Med. 2009 Apr;37(2):141-53
pubmed: 19424767
Behav Res Ther. 2017 Oct;97:64-74
pubmed: 28719827
Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 Jun 21;12:202
pubmed: 29977196
Physiol Rev. 1983 Jul;63(3):844-914
pubmed: 6308694
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008 Jun;103(3):361-6
pubmed: 18351379
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015 Jun;25(6):773-8
pubmed: 25869158
Neuromodulation. 2017 Apr;20(3):290-300
pubmed: 27898202
Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Nov;129(11):2501-2502
pubmed: 30268709
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2008 Jun;53(3):104-11
pubmed: 18601618
Neuropsychologia. 2018 Mar;111:72-76
pubmed: 29326067
Front Psychiatry. 2012 Aug 07;3:70
pubmed: 22891061
Sci Rep. 2019 Aug 7;9(1):11452
pubmed: 31391505
J Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Nov;27(11):2126-32
pubmed: 26226074
Auton Neurosci. 2016 Aug;199:48-53
pubmed: 27388046
Biol Psychol. 2019 Mar;142:80-89
pubmed: 30710565
Front Psychol. 2014 Jul 21;5:756
pubmed: 25101026
Brain Stimul. 2019 May - Jun;12(3):635-642
pubmed: 30591360
Brain Stimul. 2018 Nov - Dec;11(6):1225-1238
pubmed: 30217648
Brain Stimul. 2018 Jul - Aug;11(4):699-708
pubmed: 29716843
Brain Stimul. 2018 May - Jun;11(3):492-500
pubmed: 29361441
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jan;3(1):13
pubmed: 29254614
Front Psychol. 2014 Jul 22;5:805
pubmed: 25101047
Clin Anat. 2002 Jan;15(1):35-7
pubmed: 11835542
Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Oct;14(5):779-804
pubmed: 18087943
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008;2008:5684-7
pubmed: 19164007