Back

Transcutaneous auricular Vagus nerve stimulation for working memory enhancement: A comparative study of electrical and ultrasound stimulation

Falcon Caro, A.; Myers, N. E.; Kaiser, M.; Choi, H.; Song, J.-J.; Jung, J.

2026-03-10 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.03.06.710106 bioRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTranscutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that has shown potential to enhance cognitive function, including working memory. This study investigated the acute effects of both electrical (E-taVNS) and ultrasound (U-taVNS) modalities on working memory using a 3-back task in healthy young adults. We hypothesized that active taVNS would enhance working memory performance relative to sham, and that both stimulation modalities would engage similar neuromodulatory mechanisms. Materials and MethodsFifty-nine participants underwent a single-blind, sham-controlled, within-subject design study, with working memory performance assessed using a 3-back task before and after stimulation. Primary performance measures included correct rejection rate, error false alarm, and sensitivity (d'). Statistical analyses compared pre- and post-stimulation performance across modalities. ResultsE-taVNS significantly enhanced working memory performance through an increase in correct rejection rate and sensitivity (measured by d), alongside a reduction in error of false alarm. U-taVNS showed a similar directional trend across performance measures, although these effects did not reach statistical significance. Baseline anxiety levels significantly predicted individual responsiveness to taVNS. In terms of tolerability, a higher proportion of participants receiving E-taVNS reported skin irritation compared to those receiving U-taVNS. ConclusionsE-taVNS can acutely enhance working memory performance, while U-taVNS may offer a comparable, better tolerated alternative. Our findings highlight the potential of taVNS to support memory function, while showing the importance of further research to clarify modality-specific effects and optimize stimulation parameters.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Brain Stimulation
112 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
27.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 12%
15.0%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 15%
6.6%
4
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.0%
6
Pain
70 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.5%
7
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.5%
8
Behavioural Brain Research
70 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
9
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.0%
10
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
11
Brain Research
35 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.4%
12
Experimental Brain Research
46 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
13
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
14
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
15
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
16
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
17
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
18
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
19
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
20
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging
62 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Journal of Psychopharmacology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
23
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.5%
24
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 39%
0.5%
25
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
105 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
27
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%