When it comes to measuring nervous system states, we have some tools in our toolbelts, but each of them represents only a part of the picture or a small snapshot in time. To this end, chiropractic research is increasingly looking for ways to detect subluxation, and to verify the results this has on the nervous system. In addition to exciting brain research, a new study recently explored how we can better measure what’s happening inside our bodies—especially the nervous system—when we’re at rest, under stress, or following chiropractic care.
All of this is in the service of building reliable tools that researchers and chiropractors can use to see how chiropractic care affects the central nervous system (comprising the brain and spinal cord), and the peripheral nervous system (all the nerves that reach out from the spinal cord to individual organs and tissues).
While it was a feasibility study, it was still quite a consequential one. Researchers were specifically looking to establish a battery of (non-invasive) tests that could examine both the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system at once, rather than one at a time.
The chiropractic paradigm and the data that we have until this point, is that the vertebral subluxation is a response to physical, chemical, or emotional stress. In order for researchers to get adequate data about these stress states, good testing mechanisms for these nervous system states are vital. They won’t work until people can be comfortable while doing these tests. If the tests in and of themselves cause any stress, then the results are instantly rendered moot.
Before diving into big studies, researchers first had to establish a usable protocol wherein people could actually complete the tests comfortably, and that these tests could give usable data.
What Did the Study Involve?
The researchers began with 42 healthy adults who completed an online screening. After filtering out people who didn’t meet the study criteria (such as being under 18, having epilepsy, or recent head trauma), 11 people were enrolled in the trial. Ten ended up completing the full testing process.
Each participant went through a detailed series of tests designed to assess how their nervous systems performed in both resting and active conditions. This included: electroencephalography, respiration electrocardiography, impedance cardiography, electrodermal activity, and continuous blood pressure.
Participants had to follow strict rules—no caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, or large meals before the session, and limited water intake. These rules help prevent outside factors from skewing the results.
What happened?
Of the six metrics tested, four of them got positive responses, and two were beset by issues that could be fixed with only small tweaks.
 ✅ Time and Efficiency
The full test session took about 83 minutes on average, which was within the researchers’ ideal target of under 90 minutes. Even the longest session only went 15 minutes over. This shows that the time commitment wasn’t too much for most people.
 ✅ Lifestyle Compliance
Most participants followed the pre-appointment rules really well—no caffeine, no meds, no food before the session. However, about **36% drank more water than allowed**, suggesting that the water limit may have been a bit too strict. The researchers adjusted the rule later to be more flexible, allowing normal water consumption unless someone chugs a big bottle right before testing.
✅ Comfort and Tolerability
Most people handled the tests well. One person experienced a circulation issue from a finger cuff (used to measure blood pressure), which triggered symptoms of Raynaud’s—a condition affecting blood flow to the fingers. That person had to stop testing, and researchers have since added safety measures to screen for this condition in the future.
Apart from that, the procedures were well tolerated. Some people had a little electrode gel drip into their eyes during EEG setup, but it was well-tolerated and not flagged by any participants as being consequential.
 ✅ Data Quality
Most of the test results were usable, which is great news. The brain scans, heart rate data, and breathing measurements were mostly clean and reliable.
Two specific tools didn’t work as planned, but could be fixed with small tweaks. Skin Conductance (EDA), which measures the skin responds to stress. All 10 participants’ EDA datasets were unusable as the protocol didn’t allow for enough gel on the censors. The problem was traced to manufacturing and has now been fixed.
The second ineffective measure was the Finger-Cuff Blood Pressure (cBP). This data couldn’t be properly analysed because the system averaged the readings in a way that didn’t allow for detailed review. As a result, the researchers changed their approach and will use different heart and blood pressure measures going forward.
The study included a survey asking participants how easy and comfortable the experience was. Thirteen out of fourteen questions scored top marks. Two areas were flagged:
– Holding a steady grip for two minutes was mildly challenging for one person.
– Following the 24-hour rules for substances such as coffee and alcohol was slightly difficult for two participants, especially with the water restriction.
Key Takeaways
This study wasn’t about testing chiropractic care itself—it was about making sure that when future studies do, the tools and procedures used to measure nervous system states and responses to chiropractic care are robust and yield useable data.
The feasibility study found that testing procedures were efficient, tolerable, and reliable, and that very minor tweaks would resolve any issues. This now means that the nervous system testing protocol can be used in larger studies, leading to more meaningful chiropractic research.
This is only good news for subluxation-based research. We can’t wait to see what emerges next.
Reference:
Perez, T., Drake, E., and Sullivan, S., (2025). Assessing central nervous system and peripheral nervous system functioning in resting and non-resting conditions in a health adult population: a feasibility study. Chiropractic Journal of Australia. https://www.cjaonline.com.au/index.php/cja/article/view/341
