Cited by 49Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlMemory and Neural MechanismsHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics

Cardiac modulation of startle: Effects on eye blink and higher cognitive processing

Schulz, André, Reichert, Carolin F., Richter, Steffen, Lass-Hennemann, Johanna, Blumenthal, Terry D., Schächinger, Hartmut·2009·Brain and Cognition

Abstract

Cardiac cycle time has been shown to affect pre-attentive brainstem startle processes, such as the magnitude of acoustically evoked reflexive startle eye blinks. These effects were attributed to baro-afferent feedback mechanisms. However, it remains unclear whether cardiac cycle time plays a role in higher startle-related cognitive processes, as well. Twenty-five volunteers responded first by 'fast as possible' button pushes (reaction time, RT), and second, rated perceived intensity of 60 acoustic startle stimuli (85, 95, or 105 dB; 50 ms duration; binaural; instantaneous rise time), which were presented either 230 or 530 ms after the R-wave, and eye blink responses were measured by EMG. RT was divided into evaluation and motor response time according to previous research. Increasing stimulus intensity enhanced startle eye blink, intensity ratings, and RT components. Eye blinks and intensity judgments were lower when startle was elicited at a latency of R+230 ms, but RT components were differentially affected: the evaluative component was attenuated, and the motor component was accelerated when stimuli were presented 230 ms after the R-wave. We conclude that the cardiac cycle affects the attentive processing of acoustic startle stimuli.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.08.002

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In audition, findings are mixed, with both positive and null findings.

    “in audition, findings are mixed, with both positive 60-63 and null findings 64,65 ;”

    From Interoceptive rhythms in the brain (2023) · cites this paper as [61]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schulz, A., Reichert, C. F., Richter, S., Lass-Hennemann, J., Blumenthal, T. D., & Schächinger, H.
Affiliations
  • Universität Trier (DE)
  • Wake Forest University (US)
Corresponding author
Schulz, André
Venue
Brain and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-12
Volume
71
Issue
3
Pages
265-271
ISSN
0278-2626 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010746815
Cited by
49
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Keywords
cardiac cycle, startle response, blinking, acoustic startle response, baroreflex, reaction time, stimulus intensity, evaluative processing, motor response, R wave, attention, cognitive processes
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Auditory Perception, Blinking, Electrocardiography, Electromyography, Female, Heart, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Reflex, Startle

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review