4.6 Article

Identification of higher brain centres that may encode the cardiorespiratory response to exercise in humans

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 533, 期 3, 页码 823-836

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.00823.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. Positron emission tomography (PET) was used to identify the neuroanatomical correlates underlying 'central command' during imagination of exercise under hypnosis, in order to uncouple central command from peripheral feedback. 2. Three cognitive conditions were used: condition I, imagination of freewheeling downhill on a bicycle (no change in heart rate, HR, or ventilation, (V) over dot(I)): condition II, imagination of exercise, cycling uphill (increased HR by 12 % and (V) over dot(I) by 30 % of the actual exercise response): condition III, volitionally driven hyperventilation to match that achieved in condition II (no change in HR). 3. Subtraction methodology created contrast A (II minus I) highlighting cerebral areas involved in the imagination of exercise and contrast B (III minus I) highlighting areas activated in the direct volitional control of breathing (n = 4 for both; 8 scans per subject). End-tidal P-CO2 (P-ET,P-CO2) was held constant throughout PET scanning. 4. In contrast 8, significant activations were seen in the right dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex, supplementary motor areas (SMA), the right premotor area (PMA), superolateral sensorimotor areas, thalamus, and bilaterally in the cerebellum. In contrast B, significant activations were present in the SMA and in lateral sensorimotor cortical areas. The SMA/PMA, dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex and the cerebellum are concerned with volitional/motor control, including that of the respiratory muscles. 5. The neuroanatomical areas activated suggest that a significant component of the respiratory response to 'exercise', in the absence of both movement feedback and an increase in CO2 production, can be generated by what appears to be a behavioural response.

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

4.6
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