4.5 Article

Quantifying multidimensional control mechanisms of cardiovascular dynamics during multiple concurrent stressors

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11517-020-02311-9

关键词

Heart rate variability; Central autonomic network; Cold pressor test; Tilt test; Emotion elicitation; Stress

资金

  1. European Union [722022]
  2. Italian Ministry of Education and Research (MIUR) [APVV-0235-12, VEGA 1/0117/17, VEGA 1/0200/19, VEGA 1/0200/20]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposed a novel modeling framework for quantifying heartbeat regulatory mechanisms driven by different neural routes, with experimental results showing that more than 70% of heartbeat regulatory dynamics is driven by physical stressors in combination with cognitive/emotional stressors.
Heartbeat regulation is achieved through different routes originating from central autonomic network sources, as well as peripheral control mechanisms. While previous studies successfully characterized cardiovascular regulatory mechanisms during a single stressor, to the best of our knowledge, a combination of multiple concurrent elicitations leading to the activation of different autonomic regulatory routes has not been investigated yet. Therefore, in this study, we propose a novel modeling framework for the quantification of heartbeat regulatory mechanisms driven by different neural routes. The framework is evaluated using two heartbeat datasets gathered from healthy subjects undergoing physical and mental stressors, as well as their concurrent administration. Experimental results indicate that more than 70% of the heartbeat regulatory dynamics is driven by the physical stressor when combining physical and cognitive/emotional stressors. The proposed framework provides quantitative insights and novel perspectives for neural activity on cardiac control dynamics, likely highlighting new biomarkers in the psychophysiology and physiopathology fields. A Matlab implementation of the proposed tool is available online.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据