Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) given for poor feeding in at-risk infants also improves their motor abilities.
Turki Aljuhani, Hannah Haskin, Shelby Davis and 6 others
PMID 36093716WHAT IT FOUND
Infants who achieved full oral feeds after taVNS paired with bottle-feeding showed greater gains in head and neck control than those who did not.
Responders improved their motor scores by an average of 1.7 points, while non-responders showed no change.
Key findings
01Infants who responded to the treatment (achieved full oral feeds) had a significantly greater increase in total motor scores from pre- to post-treatment compared to non-responders.
02The improvement in motor function was driven by specific gains in head and neck control movements, such as head support in sitting and rolling.
03Changes in brain white matter integrity, measured by diffusion MRI, were associated with better performance on specific motor items like rolling, but not with overall motor scores.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was open-label, meaning neither the therapists nor the parents knew if the stimulation was active or sham (though sham details are not fully described in this text, the design is noted as open-label in sentence 87). The sample size was small (27 infants), and the subgroup of responders was smaller than in the parent study, which may bias results. There was no control group receiving feeding without taVNS; comparisons were made between those who responded to the treatment and those who did not, which is a post-hoc grouping based on outcome. The causal link between taVNS and motor improvement cannot be separated from the natural development of infants who are healthy enough to achieve full oral feeds.
Declared interests
The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health (N.I.H.).
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume taVNS causes motor improvement. This study compared infants who succeeded with the treatment (responders) to those who failed (non-responders). Responders may have had better baseline motor potential or less severe injury, allowing them to both achieve full feeds and show motor gains, rather than the stimulation driving the motor change directly.