ArticleScientific reports2026
Right vagus nerve stimulation promotes motor cortical plasticity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stimulation of the left cervical vagus nerve (l-VNS) paired with motor training is FDA-approved to improve upper limb function after stroke. However, recent preclinical studies have revealed a striking asymmetry in engagement of the midbrain dopaminergic reward system by right versus left VNS. Unlike l-VNS, right VNS (r-VNS) reinforces behavior and drives activation of midbrain dopaminergic neurons. These findings raise the possibility that r-VNS may provide therapeutic advantages by engaging plasticity- or motivation-enhancing dopaminergic signaling. In the current study, we tested whether r-VNS enhances VNS-driven motor cortical plasticity or behavioral performance compared to traditional l-VNS. Healthy rats were trained on a stimulation-paired lever-pressing task previously shown to predict the efficacy of l-VNS treatment post-stroke. Both l-VNS and r-VNS significantly expanded the representation of task-relevant musculature in the motor cortex, with no differences observed between stimulation groups. Like l-VNS, r-VNS was not accompanied by increases in task engagement or percent correct performance in healthy subjects. Combined, our findings do not support the hypothesis that r-VNS provides significant benefit over l-VNS through differential engagement of motor learning or motivational circuits. However, our results suggest that r-VNS, like l-VNS, is highly effective at inducing cortical neuroplasticity, which is associated with enhanced stroke recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.