Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation May Enhance Only Specific Aspects of the Core Executive Functions. A Randomized Crossover Trial.
HRV
cardiac vagal activity
executive functions
heart rate variability
neurovisceral integration model
tVNS
vagus nerve stimulation
Journal
Frontiers in neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-4548
Titre abrégé: Front Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101478481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
03
01
2020
accepted:
27
04
2020
entrez:
12
6
2020
pubmed:
12
6
2020
medline:
12
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Individuals are able to perform goal-directed behaviors thanks to executive functions. According to the neurovisceral integration model, executive functions are upregulated by brain areas such as the prefrontal and cingulate cortices, which are also crucially involved in controlling cardiac vagal activity. An array of neuroimaging studies already showed that these same brain areas are activated by transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS). Despite evidence toward effects of tVNS on specific executive functions such as inhibitory control, there have been no studies investigating what type of inhibition is improved by tVNS by systematically addressing them within the same experiment. Furthermore, the effect of tVNS on another core executive function, cognitive flexibility, has not yet been investigated. We investigated the effects of tVNS on core executive functions such as inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility. Thirty-two participants (nine women, Despite clear conflict effects in the four tasks, only performance on the task used to measure set-shifting paradigm was improved by tVNS, with switch costs being lower during tVNS than during sham stimulation. Furthermore, HF increased during each of the cognitive flexibility tasks, although HF during tVNS did not differ from HF during sham stimulation. The results indicate for the first time (a) that tVNS can increase cognitive flexibility in a set-shifting paradigm, and (b) that tVNS may exert a stronger effect on cognitive flexibility than inhibition. The present study provides only partial evidence for the neurovisceral integration model. Future studies should address further paradigms that demand cognitive flexibility, thus investigating this new hypothesis on the specificity of the tVNS effects on cognitive flexibility.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Individuals are able to perform goal-directed behaviors thanks to executive functions. According to the neurovisceral integration model, executive functions are upregulated by brain areas such as the prefrontal and cingulate cortices, which are also crucially involved in controlling cardiac vagal activity. An array of neuroimaging studies already showed that these same brain areas are activated by transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS). Despite evidence toward effects of tVNS on specific executive functions such as inhibitory control, there have been no studies investigating what type of inhibition is improved by tVNS by systematically addressing them within the same experiment. Furthermore, the effect of tVNS on another core executive function, cognitive flexibility, has not yet been investigated.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We investigated the effects of tVNS on core executive functions such as inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility.
METHODS
METHODS
Thirty-two participants (nine women,
RESULTS
RESULTS
Despite clear conflict effects in the four tasks, only performance on the task used to measure set-shifting paradigm was improved by tVNS, with switch costs being lower during tVNS than during sham stimulation. Furthermore, HF increased during each of the cognitive flexibility tasks, although HF during tVNS did not differ from HF during sham stimulation.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate for the first time (a) that tVNS can increase cognitive flexibility in a set-shifting paradigm, and (b) that tVNS may exert a stronger effect on cognitive flexibility than inhibition. The present study provides only partial evidence for the neurovisceral integration model. Future studies should address further paradigms that demand cognitive flexibility, thus investigating this new hypothesis on the specificity of the tVNS effects on cognitive flexibility.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32523510
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00523
pmc: PMC7262369
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
523Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Borges, Knops, Laborde, Klatt and Raab.
Références
Neuroscience. 2019 Aug 1;412:144-159
pubmed: 31176701
Brain Stimul. 2016 Nov - Dec;9(6):811-818
pubmed: 27522167
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2018 Aug;18(4):730-738
pubmed: 29713957
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016 May;64:288-310
pubmed: 26964804
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2014 Jul;20(6):620-9
pubmed: 24960301
Cogn Psychol. 2000 Aug;41(1):49-100
pubmed: 10945922
J Anxiety Disord. 2003;17(1):75-87
pubmed: 12464290
Trends Neurosci. 2015 Sep;38(9):571-8
pubmed: 26343956
Transl Psychiatry. 2016 May 10;6:e803
pubmed: 27163204
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015 Jun;25(6):773-8
pubmed: 25869158
Neuropsychologia. 2018 Mar;111:72-76
pubmed: 29326067
Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun 1;57(11):1377-84
pubmed: 15950011
Brain Stimul. 2019 May - Jun;12(3):635-642
pubmed: 30591360
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 Res. 2016 Jun 15;1641(Pt B):189-96
pubmed: 26592951
Behav Res Methods. 2019 Feb;51(1):195-203
pubmed: 30734206
Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:135-68
pubmed: 23020641
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012 Feb;36(2):747-56
pubmed: 22178086
Circulation. 1996 Mar 1;93(5):1043-65
pubmed: 8598068
Cortex. 2018 Feb;99:213-223
pubmed: 29275193
Psychiatry Res. 2007 Aug 15;155(3):245-56
pubmed: 17587554
Front Neurosci. 2019 Mar 08;13:227
pubmed: 30906250
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2018 Aug;18(4):680-693
pubmed: 29693214
Biol Psychol. 2020 Apr;152:107863
pubmed: 32050095
Brain Stimul. 2013 Sep;6(5):798-804
pubmed: 23453934
Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2016 Jul;132:49-56
pubmed: 27222436
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Mar;129(1):4-26
pubmed: 10756484
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015 Dec;35:87-94
pubmed: 26241632
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 May;6(3):291-8
pubmed: 26168519
Neuropsychologia. 2019 Oct;133:107190
pubmed: 31513806
Brain Stimul. 2015 May-Jun;8(3):624-36
pubmed: 25573069
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Apr;75:274-296
pubmed: 28188890
Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Sep;129(9):1789-1795
pubmed: 29981954
Ann Behav Med. 2009 Apr;37(2):141-53
pubmed: 19424767
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Dec;26(6):1896-1904
pubmed: 31347035
Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Nov;129(11):2503-2504
pubmed: 30249501
Biol Psychol. 2014 May;99:26-33
pubmed: 24560874
Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 Jun 21;12:202
pubmed: 29977196
Physiol Rev. 1983 Jul;63(3):844-914
pubmed: 6308694
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
Sci Rep. 2019 Aug 7;9(1):11452
pubmed: 31391505
PLoS One. 2019 Oct 11;14(10):e0223848
pubmed: 31603939
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Dec;25(6):2254-2259
pubmed: 29546665
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012 Feb;21(1):8-14
pubmed: 22773897
Auton Neurosci. 2016 Aug;199:48-53
pubmed: 27388046
Biol Psychol. 2019 Mar;142:80-89
pubmed: 30710565
BMJ. 2019 Jul 31;366:l4378
pubmed: 31366597
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2014;113(1):210-20
pubmed: 24054542
Brain Stimul. 2018 May - Jun;11(3):492-500
pubmed: 29361441
J Anat. 2020 Apr;236(4):588-611
pubmed: 31742681
Clin Anat. 2002 Jan;15(1):35-7
pubmed: 11835542
Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Oct;14(5):779-804
pubmed: 18087943
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2007;114(11):1485-93
pubmed: 17564758
Psychophysiology. 2015 Feb;52(2):214-224
pubmed: 25160649