Reply to “Reconsidering Sham in Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation studies”

We thank Rangon (2018) for her critical remarks sparked by the design of our recent study (Keute et al. 2018). Specifically, Rangon (2018) questions the widespread use of earlobe stimulation as a sham condition in transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) studies. She argues that the unexpected results in our study – an increased behavioral effect, even though we expected a decreased one – might be a consequence of the earlobe-sham stimulation, which implies that the earlobe stimulation would have had a stronger effect than tVNS on GABA transmission and, subsequently, on our parameters of interest.

from Physiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2p8cTel
via IFTTT