Vagus Nerve Stimulation and Heart Rate Variability: The Autonomic Connection
Introduction: Why Heart Rate Variability Matters
A healthy heart does not beat with the mechanical precision of a metronome. Between each heartbeat, subtle fluctuations in timing occur — the interval between one beat and the next is never quite the same. These variations, measured in milliseconds, constitute heart rate variability (HRV), and they carry a remarkable amount of information about the state of the autonomic nervous system.
HRV has emerged as one of the most widely studied non-invasive biomarkers in cardiovascular and psychophysiological research. Higher HRV generally reflects a flexible, adaptive autonomic nervous system — one capable of responding efficiently to changing physiological demands. Lower HRV, conversely, is associated with reduced autonomic flexibility and has been linked to a broad range of adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, depression, chronic inflammation, and all-cause mortality (Thayer & Lane, 2000; Tsuji et al., 1996).
The connection between HRV and the vagus nerve is direct and fundamental. The vagus nerve is the primary conduit of parasympathetic influence on the heart, and vagal activity is the dominant driver of beat-to-beat heart rate fluctuations. This makes HRV not only a window into autonomic health, but also a natural metric for evaluating the effects of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS).
This article examines the relationship between VNS and HRV — how the vagus nerve regulates cardiac rhythm, what HRV metrics tell us about vagal function, what the clinical evidence shows about the effects of transcutaneous auricular VNS (taVNS) on HRV, and why this relationship matters for both research and clinical practice.
The Vagus Nerve and Cardiac Regulation
Parasympathetic Control of Heart Rate
The heart possesses its own intrinsic pacemaker — the sinoatrial (SA) node — which generates electrical impulses at a rate of approximately 100 beats per minute in the absence of external neural input. In a healthy resting individual, however, the heart rate is typically 60–80 bpm. This slowing is almost entirely attributable to the tonic inhibitory influence of the vagus nerve.
Vagal efferent fibres projecting from the nucleus ambiguus and the dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus in the brainstem release acetylcholine at the SA node. Acetylcholine acts on muscarinic M2 receptors to slow the rate of spontaneous depolarisation, thereby reducing heart rate. This vagal braking mechanism is continuous and dynamic — it can be rapidly engaged or withdrawn in response to physiological demands (Task Force, 1996).
The speed of vagal modulation is a defining characteristic. Unlike sympathetic nervous system effects, which operate over seconds to minutes, vagal effects on heart rate occur within a single cardiac cycle. This rapid timescale is what produces the beat-to-beat variability that we measure as HRV. When vagal influence is strong and responsive, HRV is high. When it is diminished, the heart beats with greater rigidity.
Vagal Tone: A Measure of Parasympathetic Health
The concept of vagal tone refers to the degree of tonic vagal influence on the heart. It reflects the baseline level of parasympathetic activity — essentially, how much the vagus nerve is "holding the brakes" on heart rate at rest.
The Neurovisceral Integration Model proposed by Thayer and Lane (2000) positions vagal tone as an index of the brain's capacity for flexible self-regulation. According to this framework, high vagal tone reflects a system that can efficiently allocate resources, adapt to changing conditions, and recover from stress. Low vagal tone, by contrast, reflects a system that is physiologically rigid — less capable of modulating arousal, more vulnerable to stress, and associated with poorer health outcomes across multiple domains.
This theoretical foundation has been supported by decades of empirical research, establishing vagal tone — and its measurement through HRV — as a transdiagnostic marker of physiological and psychological health.
HRV as a Measure of Vagal Tone
How HRV Is Measured
HRV analysis begins with the electrocardiogram (ECG), from which the intervals between successive R-peaks (R-R intervals or interbeat intervals) are extracted. These intervals are then analysed using time-domain, frequency-domain, and non-linear methods (Shaffer & Ginsberg, 2017).
The landmark 1996 Task Force guidelines, published jointly by the European Society of Cardiology and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology, established the standards for HRV measurement that remain the reference framework today (Task Force, 1996).
Time-Domain Metrics
Time-domain measures are derived directly from the sequence of R-R intervals:
- RMSSD (Root Mean Square of Successive Differences) — The square root of the mean of the squared successive differences between adjacent R-R intervals. RMSSD is the most commonly recommended time-domain measure of vagal tone, as it captures the rapid, beat-to-beat fluctuations driven by parasympathetic activity (Laborde et al., 2017).
- SDNN (Standard Deviation of Normal-to-Normal intervals) — A measure of overall HRV that reflects both sympathetic and parasympathetic contributions. SDNN is more influenced by recording length and is less specific to vagal activity than RMSSD.
- pNN50 — The percentage of successive R-R intervals that differ by more than 50 milliseconds. Like RMSSD, this metric primarily reflects vagal modulation.
Frequency-Domain Metrics
Frequency-domain analysis decomposes the HRV signal into its constituent oscillatory components:
- High-Frequency power (HF: 0.15–0.40 Hz) — This band reflects respiratory sinus arrhythmia — the natural variation in heart rate that occurs with breathing. HF power is widely accepted as an index of vagal modulation of the heart, as it is mediated almost exclusively by parasympathetic activity (Task Force, 1996).
- Low-Frequency power (LF: 0.04–0.15 Hz) — Once interpreted as a marker of sympathetic activity, the LF band is now understood to reflect a mixture of sympathetic and parasympathetic influences, as well as baroreflex-mediated oscillations. The interpretation of LF power remains debated in the literature (Shaffer & Ginsberg, 2017).
- LF/HF Ratio — Previously used as an index of "sympathovagal balance," this ratio has been increasingly questioned. The assumption that it cleanly separates sympathetic and parasympathetic contributions is now considered an oversimplification, and its use as a standalone marker requires caution (Laborde et al., 2017).
What These Metrics Reflect
For the purposes of understanding VNS effects, the most relevant metrics are those that specifically index vagal modulation: RMSSD in the time domain and HF power in the frequency domain. These measures capture the rapid parasympathetic fluctuations that the vagus nerve imposes on the heart, and they are the primary outcomes of interest in studies examining whether VNS enhances vagal tone.
Evidence That taVNS Influences HRV
Foundational Studies
Several early studies provided compelling evidence that transcutaneous auricular VNS could modulate cardiac autonomic function:
Clancy et al. (2014) conducted one of the first rigorous investigations of taVNS effects on autonomic function in 48 healthy participants. Using both HRV analysis and direct microneurography (recording of muscle sympathetic nerve activity), they demonstrated that taVNS at the tragus significantly increased HRV, indicating a shift toward parasympathetic predominance. Critically, microneurography revealed a significant reduction in the frequency and incidence of sympathetic nerve bursts during stimulation. This study was notable for providing direct neural evidence — not just cardiac proxy measures — that taVNS modulates autonomic balance.
Bretherton et al. (2019) extended these findings in a clinically relevant population. In a series of studies involving adults aged 55 years and older, they demonstrated that both acute and chronic taVNS improved autonomic function. In the chronic arm, participants who received 15 minutes of daily taVNS at the tragus for two weeks showed improved cardiac baroreflex sensitivity and HRV, along with self-reported improvements in mood and quality of life. Importantly, individuals with the greatest baseline sympathetic predominance showed the most pronounced shifts toward parasympathetic dominance — suggesting that taVNS may be most beneficial for those with the most compromised autonomic function.
Badran et al. (2018) systematically investigated the parameter-specific cardiac effects of taVNS in healthy participants across two sequential trials. They found that stimulation parameters significantly influenced the magnitude of heart rate reduction, with 500 microsecond pulse width at 10 Hz producing the greatest effect. This study established that the cardiac response to taVNS is not uniform but depends critically on stimulation parameters — a finding with important implications for optimising protocols.
Additional Supporting Evidence
Antonino et al. (2017) conducted a randomised placebo-controlled trial in 13 healthy young men, demonstrating that taVNS acutely improved spontaneous cardiac baroreflex sensitivity — a measure of the heart's beat-to-beat regulatory capacity that is closely related to vagal function. The effect was specific to tragus stimulation and was not observed with earlobe (sham) stimulation.
De Couck et al. (2017) examined both short and prolonged taVNS in healthy subjects, reporting increases in vagally-mediated HRV metrics (RMSSD, SDNN, HF-HRV), particularly with right-sided stimulation. Their findings contributed to the growing body of evidence suggesting that stimulation laterality may influence the cardiac response to taVNS.
A More Complex Picture: The Meta-Analytic Evidence
While individual studies have reported promising HRV effects, the aggregate evidence is more nuanced. Wolf et al. (2021) conducted a Bayesian meta-analysis of 16 single-blind studies comparing taVNS to sham stimulation in healthy participants. Their analysis found strong evidence for the null hypothesis — that is, acute taVNS did not reliably alter vagally-mediated HRV (vmHRV) compared to sham (Hedges' g = 0.014, Bayes Factor in favour of null = 24.7).
This finding does not necessarily mean that taVNS has no cardiac effects, but rather that the evidence for a consistent, robust effect on vmHRV across acute laboratory studies in healthy participants is currently lacking. The authors noted that this null finding was robust across a wide range of analytical specifications.
Several factors may explain the discrepancy between individual positive studies and the overall meta-analytic null:
- Methodological heterogeneity — Substantial variability in stimulation parameters, electrode placement, stimulation duration, and HRV analysis methods across studies makes pooling results challenging
- Baseline autonomic state — Healthy young participants with already high vagal tone may show ceiling effects, whereas individuals with autonomic dysfunction (such as the older adults in Bretherton et al., 2019) may demonstrate more pronounced responses
- Acute versus chronic effects — Most studies in the meta-analysis examined single-session effects; cumulative benefits from repeated stimulation may follow a different pattern
- Stimulation site and laterality — Differences in tragus versus cymba conchae stimulation, and left versus right ear, may influence outcomes
Clinical Significance: Why HRV Matters Beyond the Heart
Cardiovascular Risk
The clinical significance of HRV was established by landmark epidemiological studies. Tsuji et al. (1996), analysing data from the Framingham Heart Study, demonstrated that reduced HRV in a community-based population of 2,501 individuals was an independent predictor of incident cardiac events — including angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, and congestive heart failure — over 3.5 years of follow-up. This prognostic value held even after adjustment for traditional cardiovascular risk factors.
These findings established low HRV as a clinically meaningful risk marker, not merely a physiological curiosity.
Depression and Mental Health
The relationship between HRV and depression is one of the most consistent findings in psychophysiology. Kemp et al. (2010), in a meta-analysis published in Biological Psychiatry, found that individuals with major depressive disorder without cardiovascular disease had significantly lower HRV than healthy controls. The finding was based on 18 studies comprising 673 depressed participants and 407 controls.
Reduced HRV in depression is consistent with the autonomic rigidity that characterises the condition — a nervous system less capable of flexible self-regulation. This observation has led researchers to hypothesise that interventions capable of increasing vagal tone may have antidepressant effects, providing part of the mechanistic rationale for VNS as a treatment for treatment-resistant depression (Thayer & Lane, 2000).
Inflammation
The connection between HRV and inflammation reflects the vagus nerve's dual role in autonomic regulation and immune modulation. Williams et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis of 51 human studies examining the relationship between HRV and inflammatory markers. They found a consistent inverse association — higher HRV was associated with lower levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and C-reactive protein (CRP).
This relationship is underpinned by the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, through which vagal efferent activity suppresses the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Low HRV may therefore reflect not only reduced cardiac parasympathetic modulation but also a diminished capacity for neural regulation of inflammation — a connection with implications for chronic inflammatory conditions, cardiovascular disease, and the growing understanding of inflammation in psychiatric disorders.
Implications for VNS Treatment
The convergence of these findings — that low HRV predicts cardiovascular risk, depression, and inflammation, and that VNS targets the vagal pathways underlying HRV — creates a coherent rationale for VNS as a therapeutic intervention. If VNS can reliably increase vagal tone (as indexed by HRV), this could theoretically translate into downstream benefits across multiple organ systems and disease processes.
HRV as a Biomarker for VNS Response
Guiding Stimulation Parameters
One of the most practical applications of HRV in VNS research is its potential role as a real-time biomarker for optimising stimulation protocols. Badran et al. (2018) demonstrated that different taVNS parameters (pulse width, frequency) produced different magnitudes of cardiac response, suggesting that HRV or heart rate changes could serve as physiological indicators of effective vagal engagement.
If a given set of stimulation parameters produces a measurable change in HRV, this could confirm that the stimulation is reaching vagal afferent pathways with sufficient intensity. Conversely, the absence of a cardiac response might indicate subtherapeutic stimulation — potentially guiding clinicians to adjust parameters.
Predicting Treatment Outcomes
Emerging research in implanted VNS for epilepsy suggests that baseline HRV may predict treatment response. Studies have found that patients with higher preoperative HRV — indicative of greater residual vagal function — tend to respond better to VNS therapy, while patients with severely reduced HRV may be less responsive (Liu et al., 2018). If validated, this approach could help identify which patients are most likely to benefit from VNS, enabling more personalised treatment decisions.
Similarly, Bretherton et al. (2019) observed that participants with the greatest baseline sympathetic predominance showed the most pronounced autonomic improvements with taVNS — suggesting that baseline autonomic profile may be a useful predictor of response to transcutaneous stimulation as well.
The Challenge of Validation
Despite its theoretical appeal, the use of HRV as a VNS biomarker faces significant challenges. The meta-analytic findings of Wolf et al. (2021) — showing no consistent acute effect of taVNS on vmHRV in healthy participants — raise questions about the reliability of HRV as a positive control measure for taVNS. If the HRV response is not robust or consistent enough to serve as a reliable biomarker, alternative markers (such as changes in pupil diameter, salivary alpha-amylase, or neuroimaging-based measures) may be needed to complement or replace it.
Limitations and Methodological Considerations
Measurement Variability
HRV is sensitive to a wide range of factors beyond autonomic tone, including respiration rate, body position, time of day, recent physical activity, caffeine and alcohol intake, age, sex, and psychological state. This sensitivity means that HRV measurements can vary substantially between and within individuals, even under controlled laboratory conditions (Laborde et al., 2017; Shaffer & Ginsberg, 2017).
For VNS research, this variability presents a methodological challenge: detecting a signal (VNS-induced change in HRV) against the background noise of natural HRV fluctuation requires careful experimental design, adequate sample sizes, and rigorous control conditions.
Acute Versus Chronic Effects
The majority of taVNS studies have examined acute, single-session effects on HRV — typically measuring HRV during or immediately after a brief stimulation period. However, the clinical relevance of acute HRV changes is uncertain. Bretherton et al. (2019) provided some evidence for cumulative benefits with daily stimulation over two weeks, but long-term studies examining whether sustained taVNS produces durable improvements in resting HRV are still needed.
It is plausible that acute HRV changes during stimulation reflect a transient modulation of cardiac autonomic activity, while meaningful, lasting shifts in baseline vagal tone require chronic stimulation over weeks or months — analogous to the time course of antidepressant effects observed with implanted VNS.
Individual Differences
The response to taVNS appears to vary considerably between individuals. Factors that may influence responsiveness include baseline vagal tone, age, autonomic health status, anatomical variation in the auricular branch of the vagus nerve, and psychological state. This variability may explain why some studies report significant HRV effects while others do not — the average effect across a heterogeneous group may be small, even if certain subgroups show robust responses.
Future research employing individual-level analyses, rather than solely group-level comparisons, may be better suited to identifying who benefits most from taVNS and under what conditions.
Sham Control Challenges
Designing an appropriate sham condition for taVNS studies remains methodologically difficult. Most studies use earlobe stimulation as a control, on the assumption that the earlobe is not innervated by the auricular branch of the vagus nerve. However, some evidence suggests that earlobe stimulation may not be entirely physiologically inert, potentially producing mild autonomic or sensory effects that could dilute the observed difference between active and sham conditions (Badran et al., 2018).
Conclusion
Heart rate variability occupies a unique position in the science of vagus nerve stimulation: it is simultaneously the most intuitive measure of vagal function, the most accessible autonomic biomarker, and — as emerging evidence reveals — a more complex and context-dependent measure than initially appreciated.
The foundational evidence is clear. The vagus nerve is the primary driver of beat-to-beat heart rate variability, and HRV is a well-validated index of vagal tone with established associations with cardiovascular risk, depression, inflammation, and overall autonomic health. Individual studies have demonstrated that taVNS can acutely increase HRV and shift autonomic balance toward parasympathetic predominance, particularly in populations with reduced baseline vagal tone.
However, the meta-analytic evidence — particularly Wolf et al. (2021) — introduces important nuance. The effect of acute taVNS on vmHRV in healthy populations is not robust or consistent enough to serve as a reliable standalone biomarker. This does not invalidate the clinical potential of VNS for autonomic modulation, but it does indicate that the relationship between taVNS and HRV is more complex than a simple dose-response model would predict.
The path forward requires longer-duration studies examining chronic taVNS effects on resting HRV, better characterisation of individual differences in response, standardisation of stimulation protocols and HRV analysis methods, and investigation of HRV alongside complementary biomarkers. As these gaps are addressed, the autonomic connection between the vagus nerve and the heart will continue to inform both the science and the clinical application of vagus nerve stimulation.
---
References
Antonino, D. et al. (2017). Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation acutely improves spontaneous cardiac baroreflex sensitivity in healthy young men: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Brain Stimulation, 10(5), 875–881.
Badran, B.W. et al. (2018). Short trains of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) have parameter-specific effects on heart rate. Brain Stimulation, 11(4), 699–708.
Bretherton, B. et al. (2019). Effects of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation in individuals aged 55 years or above: potential benefits of daily stimulation. Aging, 11(14), 4836–4857.
Clancy, J.A. et al. (2014). Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation in healthy humans reduces sympathetic nerve activity. Brain Stimulation, 7(6), 871–877.
De Couck, M. et al. (2017). Effects of short and prolonged transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on heart rate variability in healthy subjects. Autonomic Neuroscience, 203, 88–96.
Kemp, A.H. et al. (2010). Impact of depression and antidepressant treatment on heart rate variability: a review and meta-analysis. Biological Psychiatry, 67(11), 1067–1074.
Laborde, S., Mosley, E. & Thayer, J.F. (2017). Heart rate variability and cardiac vagal tone in psychophysiological research — recommendations for experiment planning, data analysis, and data reporting. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 213.
Liu, H. et al. (2018). Preoperative heart rate variability as predictors of vagus nerve stimulation outcome in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Scientific Reports, 8, 3856.
Shaffer, F. & Ginsberg, J.P. (2017). An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms. Frontiers in Public Health, 5, 258.
Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (1996). Heart rate variability: standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. European Heart Journal, 17(3), 354–381.
Thayer, J.F. & Lane, R.D. (2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61(3), 201–216.
Tsuji, H. et al. (1996). Impact of reduced heart rate variability on risk for cardiac events: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation, 94(11), 2850–2855.
Williams, D.P. et al. (2019). Heart rate variability and inflammation: a meta-analysis of human studies. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 80, 219–226.
Wolf, V. et al. (2021). Does transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation affect vagally mediated heart rate variability? A living and interactive Bayesian meta-analysis. Psychophysiology, 58(11), e13933.