4.5 Article

Differential activation among five human inspiratory motoneuron pools during tidal breathing

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 102, 期 2, 页码 772-780

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00683.2006

关键词

motor unit; respiratory control; inspiratory muscles; breathing; human

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differential activation among five human inspiratory motoneuron pools during tidal breathing. J Appl Physiol 102: 772-780, 2007. First published October 19, 2006; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00683.2006. Neural drive to inspiratory pump muscles is increased under many pathological conditions. This study determined for the first time how neural drive is distributed to five different human inspiratory pump muscles during tidal breathing. The discharge of single motor units (n = 280) from five healthy subjects in the diaphragm, scalene, second parasternal intercostal, third dorsal external intercostal, and fifth dorsal external intercostal was recorded with needle electrodes. All units increased their discharge during inspiration, but 41 (15%) discharged tonically throughout expiration. Motor unit populations from each muscle differed in the timing of their activation and in the discharge rates of their motor units. Relative to the onset of inspiratory flow, the earliest recruited muscles were the diaphragm and third dorsal external intercostal (mean onset for the population after 26 and 29% of inspiratory time). The fifth dorsal external intercostal muscle was recruited later (43% of inspiratory time; P < 0.05). Compared with the other inspiratory muscles, units in the diaphragm and third dorsal external intercostal had the highest onset (7.7 and 7.1 Hz, respectively) and peak firing frequencies (12.6 and 11.9 Hz, respectively; both P < 0.05). There was a unimodal distribution of recruitment times of motor units in all muscles. Neural drive to human inspiratory pump muscles differs in timing, strength, and distribution, presumably to achieve efficient ventilation.

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