Relative Timing Of Inspiration And Expiration Affects Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia
Abstract
1. The effect of a variation in inspiration and expiration times on heart rate variability was studied in 12 healthy subjects (mean age 30+/-6 years; five females). 2. Two 2 min trials of controlled breathing, with either short inspiration followed by long expiration or long inspiration followed by short expiration, were compared. Average expiration/inspiration time ratios were 1.0 and 3.4, respectively. The respiration rate in both trials was approximately 10 cycles/min. 3. In trials with short inspiration followed by long expiration, respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA; as measured by mean absolute differences and by the high frequency band) was significantly larger than in trials with long inspiration followed by short expiration. This effect could not be accounted for by differences in respiration rate or respiratory amplitude. The higher RSA during fast/slow respiration is primarily due to a more pronounced phasic heart rate increase during inspiration, indicating that inspiratory vagal blockade is sensitive to the steepness of inspiration. 4. Respiration rate and tidal volume are respiratory variables known to modulate RSA. The results of the present study indicate that RSA can also be modulated by a third respiratory variable, the expiratory/inspiratory time ratio.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
5 min of DSB efficiently increases parasympathetic activity, as assessed by HF power, and decreases perceived anxiety level among young adults.
“Accordingly, 5 min of DSB efficiently increases parasympathetic activity, as assessed by HF power (i.e., % of HF in the total HRV power) and decreased perceived anxiety level among young adults33–35.”
From Benefits from one session of deep and slow breathing on vagal tone and anxiety in young and older adults (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 149
- Authors
- Strauss‐Blasche, G., Moser, M., Voica, M., McLeod, D., Klammer, N., & Marktl, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Vienna (AT)
- ORCID
- Moser, M
- Venue
- Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-08-14
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 601-606
- ISSN
- 0305-1870 (ISSN-L)
- 1440-1681
- OpenAlex
- W2029568670
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 1.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGent
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroscience of respiration and sleep
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
- Keywords
- respiratory sinus arrhythmia, heart rate variability, breath control, vagal blockade, respiration rate, tidal volume
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Arrhythmia, Sinus, Electrocardiography, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Vagus Nerve, Respiratory Mechanics
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