The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of fatigue on maximal inspiratory pressure-flow capacity
Abstract
The inspiratory muscles can be fatigued by repetitive contractions characterized by high force (inspiratory resistive loads) or high velocities of shortening (hyperpnea). The effects of fatigue induced by inspiratory resistive loaded breathing (pressure tasks) or by eucapnic hyperpnea (flow tasks) on maximal inspiratory pressure-flow capacity and rib cage and diaphragm strength were examined in five healthy adult subjects. Tasks consisted of sustaining an assigned breathing frequency, duty cycle, and either a “pressure-time product” of esophageal pressure (for the pressure tasks) or peak inspiratory flow rate (for the flow tasks). Esophageal pressure was measured during maximal inspiratory efforts against a closed glottis (Pesmax), maximal transdiaphragmatic pressure was measured during open-glottis expulsive maneuvers (Pdimax), and maximal inspiratory flow (VImax) was measured during maximal inspiratory efforts with no added external resistance before and after fatiguing pressure and flow tasks. The reduction in Pesmax) with pressure fatigue (-25 +/- 7%) was significantly greater than the change in Pesmax with flow fatigue (-8 +/- 8%, P less than 0.01). In contrast, the reductions in Pdimax (-11 +/- 8%) and VImax (-16 +/- 3%) with flow fatigue were greater than the changes in Pdimax (-0.6 +/- 4%, P less than 0.05) or VImax (-3 +/- 4%, P less than 0.05) with pressure fatigue. We conclude that respiratory muscle performance is dependent not only on the presence of fatigue but whether fatigue was induced by pressure tasks or flow tasks. The specific impairment of Pesmax and not of Pdimax or flow with pressure fatigue may reflect selective fatigue of the rib cage muscles.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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.
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 the citing paper
“Thus, it seems likely that RMST.IN provides a larger training stimulus to inspiratory muscles than RMET”
From Effect of Respiratory Muscle Training on Exercise Performance in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2012) · cites this paper as [105]
In the citing paper
“and that more effectively trained inspiratory muscles as with RMST.IN may be superior in preventing or delaying the development of inspiratory rib cage muscle fatigue compared to RMET.”
From Effect of Respiratory Muscle Training on Exercise Performance in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2012) · cites this paper as [105]
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
Illi, S. K., Held, U., Frank, I., & Spengler, C. M. (2012) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf03262290 · Cited by 411
Metadata
- Authors
- McCool, F. D., Hershenson, M. B., Tzelepis, G. E., Kikuchi, Y., & Leith, D. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Physiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 1992-07-01
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 36-43
- ISSN
- 8750-7587
- 1522-1601
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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 fatigue on maximal inspiratory pressure-flow capacity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/jappl.1992.73.1.36
- The paper
- McCool, F. D., Hershenson, M. B., Tzelepis, G. E., Kikuchi, Y., & Leith, D. E. (1992). Effect of fatigue on maximal inspiratory pressure-flow capacity. Journal of Applied Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1992.73.1.36
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.