↓ Skip to main content

Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (tVNS) does not increase prosocial behavior in Cyberball

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (tVNS) does not increase prosocial behavior in Cyberball
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00499
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberta Sellaro, Laura Steenbergen, Bart Verkuil, Marinus H. van IJzendoorn, Lorenza S. Colzato

Abstract

Emerging research suggests that individuals experience vicarious social pain (i.e., ostracism). It has been proposed that observing ostracism increases activity in the insula and in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), two key brain regions activated by directly experiencing ostracism. Here, we assessed the causal role of the insula and PFC in modulating neural activity in these areas by applying transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation (tVNS), a new non-invasive and safe method to stimulate the vagus nerve that has been shown to activate the insula and PFC. A single-blind, sham-controlled, within-subjects design was used to assess the effect of on-line (i.e., stimulation overlapping with the critical task) tVNS in healthy young volunteers (n = 24) on the prosocial Cyberball game, a virtual ball-tossing game designed to measure prosocial compensation of ostracism. Active tVNS did not increase prosocial helping behavior toward an ostracized person, as compared to sham (placebo) stimulation. Corroborated by Bayesian inference, we conclude that tVNS does not modulate reactions to vicarious ostracism, as indexed by performance in a Cyberball game.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 88 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 24%
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 27 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 37%
Neuroscience 8 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Engineering 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 32 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,808,845
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,078
of 29,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,088
of 264,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#347
of 500 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,516 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 500 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.