Cited by 355Respiratory and Cough-Related ResearchNeuroscience of respiration and sleepPain Mechanisms and Treatments

The multiple dimensions of dyspnea: Review and hypotheses

Open access
Lansing, Robert W., Gracely, Richard H., Banzett, Robert B.·2009·Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology

Abstract

Although dyspnea is a common and troubling symptom, our understanding of the neurophysiology of dyspnea is woefully incomplete. Most measurements of dyspnea treat it as a single entity. Although the multidimensional dyspnea concept has been mentioned for many decades, only recently has the concept been the subject of experimental tests. Emerging evidence has begun to favor the hypothesis that dyspnea comprises multiple dimensions or components that can be measured as different entities. Most recently, studies have begun to show that there is a separable 'affective dimension' (i.e. unpleasantness and emotional impact). Understanding of the multidimensional measurement of pain is far in advance of dyspnea, and has enabled progress in the neurophysiology of pain, including identification of separate neural structures subserving various elements of pain perception. We propose here a multidimensional model of dyspnea based on a state-of-the-art pain model, and review existing evidence in the light of this model.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resp.2008.07.012

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The model of Lansing et al for the perception of dyspnea proposes a sequence in which initially somatosensory areas assess intensity and sensory quality, with a subsequent stage managed by the insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, and medial thalamus assessing unpleasantness/threat, and where threatening unpleasantness leads to learned behavioral responses.

    “The model of Lansing et al 21 for the perception of dyspnea proposed a sequence in which initially somatosensory areas assess the intensity and sensory quality (descriptors) of the breathlessness (somatic awareness), with a subsequent stage managed by the insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, and medial thalamus assessing the degree of unpleasantness/threat (affective awareness).22”

    From Cognitive behavioral therapy for management of dyspnea: A pilot study (2015) · cites this paper as [21]

    Split into 3 atoms — 1 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The findings of this pilot study appear consistent with the model of Lansing et al if feedback reflects a change in affective awareness facilitating increased exercise capacity.

    “The findings of this pilot study appear to be consistent with this model if the feedback provided by BREVE program subjects (increased endurance, better breathlessness management, and reduced anxiety associated with exercise-related breathlessness) reflects a change in affective awareness facilitating an ability to increase their exercise capacity.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 114 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Comroe JH Dyspnea. Mod. Concepts Cardiovasc. Dis 1956 25 347 349 13358622
  2. Lansing R Banzett R Adams L Guz A Psychophysical methods in the study of respiratory sensation Respiratory Sensation 1996 vol. 90 New York Marcel Dekker 69 100

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lansing, R. W., Gracely, R. H., & Banzett, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Michigan Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Banzett, Robert B.
Venue
Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-05
Volume
167
Issue
1
Pages
53-60
ISSN
1569-9048 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015408803
Cited by
355
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 23
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL046690, HL-46690)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR010006, NR10006)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroscience of respiration and sleep
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
dyspnea, unpleasantness, emotional impact, pain models, respiratory sensation
MeSH terms
Animals, Dyspnea, Humans, Models, Biological, Pain

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