The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of increased lung volume on perception of breathlessness, effort, and tension
Abstract
By the addition of externally added elastic loads at both functional residual capacity (FRC) and increased lung volume, increased respiratory muscle effort, tension, and breathlessness were induced in normal subjects. The magnitude of each of these sensations was estimated using the psychophysical technique of category scaling (Med. Sci. Sports Exercise 14: 377–381, 1982). The tidal volume, inspiratory time, and breathing frequency were kept constant to avoid variability in sensation due to these factors. The perceived magnitude of effort and breathlessness increased significantly as the inspiratory pressure and lung volume increased (P less than 0.05). The magnitude of perceived tension increased as the inspiratory pressure increased (P less than 0.05) but not as lung volume increased. To validate these results, the subjects estimated the perceived magnitude of a series of static inspiratory occlusion pressures at both lung volumes using open-magnitude scaling and sensory matching. The perceived magnitude of effort increased significantly as the pressure increased and as the lung volume increased (P less than 0.05). To match the perceived effort required to produce the target pressures at FRC, the subjects reproduced pressures. These were not significantly different. However, to match the effort required to produce the target pressures at increased lung volume, the pressures reproduced at FRC were significantly greater (P less than 0.05). The results suggest that the sensations of breathlessness and effort are psychophysically the same, whereas tension is perceived by a different sensory mechanism.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Parshall, M. B., Schwartzstein, R. M., Adams, L., Banzett, R. B., Manning, H. L., Bourbeau, J., Calverley, P. M., Gift, A. G., Harver, A., Lareau, S. C., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201111-2042st · Cited by 1,844
Dyspnea: Mechanisms, Assessment, and Management: A Consensus Statement
(1999) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.159.1.ats898 · Cited by 1,052
Hamilton, A. L., Killian, K. J., Summers, E., & Jones, N. L. (1995) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.152.6.8520771 · Cited by 572
Self-citationManning, H. L., & Schwartzstein, R. M. (1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199512073332307 · Cited by 472
Distinguishable Types of Dyspnea in Patients with Shortness of Breath
Simon, P. M., Schwartzstein, R. M., Weiss, J. W., Fencl, V., Teghtsoonian, M., & Weinberger, S. E. (1990) · American Review of Respiratory Disease · doi:10.1164/ajrccm/142.5.1009 · Cited by 433
Metadata
- Authors
- Killian, K. J., Gandevia, S. C., Summers, E., & Campbell, E. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Physiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 1984-09-01
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 686-691
- ISSN
- 0161-7567 (ISSN-L)
- 8750-7587
- 1522-1601
- OpenAlex
- W1756024634
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of increased lung volume on perception of breathlessness, effort, and tension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/jappl.1984.57.3.686
- The paper
- Killian, K. J., Gandevia, S. C., Summers, E., & Campbell, E. J. (1984). Effect of increased lung volume on perception of breathlessness, effort, and tension. Journal of Applied Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1984.57.3.686
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.