4.5 Article

Respiratory-related evoked potential measures of respiratory sensory gating

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 105, Issue 4, Pages 1106-1113

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.90722.2008

Keywords

respiratory sensation; inspiratory occlusion; cerebral cortex; mechanosensation

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL048792] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate a neural respiratory gating system using a paired stimuli paradigm. The N1 peak of the respiratory-related evoked potential (RREP) represents early perceptual processing of respiratory sensory information. This is similar to the N100 peak shown with tactile sensation, where the second peak amplitude (S2) of the N100 peak from the somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) was smaller than the first peak amplitude (S1) when the stimuli were presented 500 ms apart. We hypothesized that paired inspiratory occlusions would result in a reduced amplitude of the S2 N1 RREP peak amplitude, indicating respiratory central neural gating. Twenty healthy subjects (10 men and 10 women; 25.8 +/- 6.5 yr old) completed the paired inspiratory occlusion (RREP) trial. Thirteen of the subjects also completed the paired mouth air puffs [mouth-evoked potential (MEP) trial], and the paired hand air puffs (SEP) trial. All paired presentations were separated by 500 ms. The N1 peak amplitudes of the RREP trial and the N100 peak amplitudes of the MEP and SEP trials for S1 and S2 and the S2/S1 ratios were determined. The S1 RREP N1 peak amplitude was significantly greater than S2, and the S2/S1 ratio was 0.43. The S1 MEP and SEP N100 peak amplitudes were significantly greater than S2, and the N100 ratio was 0.49 and 0.49, respectively. These results are consistent with central neural gating of respiratory afferent input. The RREP gating response is similar to somatosensory mechanoreceptor gating.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available