4.6 Article

Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation enhances learning of novel letter-sound relationships in adults

期刊

BRAIN STIMULATION
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 1813-1820

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2020.10.012

关键词

Plasticity; Reading; Automaticity; Decoding; Intervention; Fluency

资金

  1. TCU Science & Engineering Research Center (SERC) [170306, 180535, 180536]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Reading is a critical skill in modern society but is significantly more difficult to acquire during adulthood. Many adults are required to learn a new orthography after this window closes for personal or vocational reasons and while many programs and training methods exist for learning to read in adulthood, none result in native-like fluency. Implantable cervical vagus nerve stimulation is capable of driving neural plasticity but is invasive and not practical as a reading intervention. Objective: The goal of the current study was to evaluate whether non-invasive transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is effective at enhancing novel orthography acquisition in young adults. Methods: We enrolled 37 typically developing participants and randomly assigned them to a computer control, device sham control, earlobe stimulation control, or experimental transcutaneous auricular stimulation (taVNS) group. Participants then learned novel letter-sound correspondences in Hebrew over five training lessons. Performance was assessed using three measures to evaluate various aspects of reading: Letter ID, Automaticity, and Decoding. Results: The taVNS group significantly outperformed the three control groups on both the Automaticity and Decoding tasks. There was no difference on the Letter ID task. Conclusions: These results demonstrate, for the first time, that taVNS is capable of improving aspects of reading acquisition in adults. These findings have potential implications for a wide range of cognitive tasks. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据