2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.01.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation via tragus or cymba conchae: Are its psychophysiological effects dependent on the stimulation area?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
46
1
2

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
5
46
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, more research is warranted to determine optimal sham methods that mimic the sensations of active taVNS without actually stimulating the vagus nerve. Especially since the use of earlobe stimulation as a sham method has recently been under debate (Borges et al, 2021;Rangon, 2018). Fourth, an important limitation to the current study is the lack of direct evidence for an increased vagal activity following taVNS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hence, more research is warranted to determine optimal sham methods that mimic the sensations of active taVNS without actually stimulating the vagus nerve. Especially since the use of earlobe stimulation as a sham method has recently been under debate (Borges et al, 2021;Rangon, 2018). Fourth, an important limitation to the current study is the lack of direct evidence for an increased vagal activity following taVNS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Indeed, subject reports have demonstrated significant differences in the sensations associated with stimulation of the cymba conchae and the earlobe, with higher stimulation intensities being tolerated for earlobe (i.e., sham) stimulation (Keute, Ruhnau, Heinze, & Zaehle, 2018). Moreover, studies employing similar methods to define stimulation intensity, have also reported significant differences between stimulation intensities for sham (earlobe) and left cymba conchae stimulation (e.g., Borges et al, 2021;although see also, 2019;Fischer et al, 2018;Ventura-Bort et al, 2018). Such differences can potentially have confounded the study results given that, for instance, participants' expectations might have been biased by higher intensities resulting in larger sham (i.e., placebo) responses.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Certainly, smartphone applications can overcome many of the barriers that may have prevented in-person interventions from taking place, such as the current social and travel restrictionsas well associal distancing rules. Of the many methods to enhance CVA (Fatisson and Oswald, 2016;Laborde et al, 2018a), for instance transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (Borges et al, 2019(Borges et al, , 2020(Borges et al, , 2021, or meditation with mindfulness training (Garland et al, 2014), SPB offers a simple, easy-to-implement, and beneficial intervention technique with both psychological and physiological outcomes for athletes that can be delivered in lockdown or isolation scenarios.…”
Section: Considerations For Slow-paced Breathing Interventionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given SPB has been shown to improve both CVA and executive functioning in athletes [ 55 , 57 , 59 ], it appears to be a promising technique for the applied field. Despite the existence of other techniques which stimulate the vagus nerve without requiring the active attention of the individual, such as transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation [ 98 , 99 , 100 ], the advantage of SPB is that it does not require any device, representing a suitable low-cost, low-technology, and non-pharmacological way to stimulate the vagus nerve.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%