MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400818597 · doi:10.1113/jp286680

Brainstem neuronal responses to transcutaneous auricular and cervical vagus nerve stimulation in rats

2024· article· en· W4400818597 on OpenAlexaff
Misty M. Owens, Vincent Jacquemet, Vitaly Napadow, Nicole Lewis, Éric Beaumont

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Mental HealthScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research CollaborationEast Tennessee State University
KeywordsVagus nerve stimulationBrainstemStimulationVagus nerveElectrophysiologyPremovement neuronal activityNeuromodulationMedicineNeuroscienceOptogeneticsNeuronSolitary tractAnesthesiaInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) targets subcutaneous axons in the auricular branch of the vagus nerve at the outer ear. Its non-invasive nature makes it a potential treatment for various disorders. taVNS induces neuromodulatory effects within the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS), and due to its widespread connectivity, the NTS acts as a gateway to elicit neuromodulation in both higher-order brain regions and other brainstem nuclei (e.g. spinal trigeminal nucleus; Sp5). Our objective was to examine stimulation parameters on single-neuron electrophysiological responses in α-chloralose-anaesthetized Sprague-Dawley rats within NTS and Sp5. taVNS was also compared to traditional cervical VNS (cVNS) on single neuronal activation. Specifically, electrophysiological extracellular recordings were evaluated for a range of frequency and intensity parameters (20-250 Hz, 0.5-1.0 mA). Neurons were classified as positive, negative or non-responders based on increased activity, decreased activity or no response during stimulation, respectively. Frequency-dependent analysis showed that 20 and 100 Hz generated the highest proportion of positive responders in NTS and Sp5 with 1.0 mA intensities eliciting the greatest magnitude of response. Comparisons between taVNS and cVNS revealed similar parameter-specific activation for caudal NTS neuronal populations; however, individual neurons showed different activation profiles. The latter suggests that cVNS and taVNS send afferent input to NTS via different neuronal pathways. This study demonstrates differential parameter-specific taVNS responses and begins an investigation of the mechanisms responsible for taVNS modulation. Understanding the neuronal pathways responsible for eliciting neuromodulatory effects will enable more tailored taVNS treatments in various clinical disorders. KEY POINTS: Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) offers a non-invasive alternative to invasive cervical vagus nerve stimulation (cVNS) by activating vagal afferents in the ear to induce neuromodulation. Our study evaluated taVNS effects on neuronal firing patterns in the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS) and spinal trigeminal nucleus (Sp5) and found that 20 and 100 Hz notably increased neuronal activity during stimulation in both nuclei. Increasing taVNS intensity not only increased the number of neurons responding in Sp5 but also increased the magnitude of response, suggesting a heightened sensitivity to taVNS compared to NTS. Comparisons between cVNS and taVNS revealed similar overall activation but different responses on individual neurons, indicating distinct neural pathways. These results show parameter-specific and nuclei-specific responses to taVNS and confirm that taVNS can elicit responses comparable to cVNS at the neuronal level, but it does so through different neuronal pathways.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchFrench-language works237,207