Cited by 25Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Cardiac cycle phases affect auditory-evoked potentials, startle eye blink and pre-motor reaction times in response to acoustic startle stimuli

Schulz, André, Vögele, Claus, Bertsch, Katja, Bernard, Sam, Münch, Eva E., Hansen, Greta, Naumann, Ewald, Schächinger, Hartmut·2020·International Journal of Psychophysiology

Abstract

Startle stimuli evoke lower responses when presented during the early as compared to the late cardiac cycle phase, an effect that has been called 'cardiac modulation of startle' (CMS). The CMS effect may be associated with visceral-afferent neural traffic, as it is reduced in individuals with degeneration of afferent autonomic nerves. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the CMS effect is due a modulation of only early, automatic stages of stimulus processing by baro-afferent neural traffic, or if late stages are also affected. We, therefore, investigated early and late components of auditory-evoked potentials (AEPs) to acoustic startle stimuli (105, 100, 95 dB), which were presented during the early (R-wave +230 ms) or the late cardiac cycle phase (R +530 ms) in two studies. In Study 1, participants were requested to ignore (n = 25) or to respond to the stimuli with button-presses (n = 24). In Study 2 (n = 23), participants were asked to rate the intensity of the stimuli. We found lower EMG startle response magnitudes (both studies) and slower pre-motor reaction times in the early as compared to the late cardiac cycle phase (Study 1). We also observed lower N1 negativity (both studies), but higher P2 (Study 1) and P3 positivity (both studies) in response to stimuli presented in the early cardiac cycle phase. This AEP modulation pattern appears to be specific to the CMS effect, suggesting that early stages of startle stimulus processing are attenuated, whereas lat…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2020.08.005

Cites

8 of 8 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 [62]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schulz, A., Vögele, C., Bertsch, K., Bernard, S., Münch, E. E., Hansen, G., Naumann, E., & Schächinger, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Luxembourg (LU)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Universität Trier (DE)
Corresponding author
Schulz, André
Venue
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
157
Pages
70-81
ISSN
0167-8760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3088102372
Cited by
25
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
acoustic startle response, cardiac cycle phases, auditory evoked potentials, blinking
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Acoustics, Blinking, Electromyography, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Humans, Reaction Time, 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