MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003565574 · doi:10.1093/brain/awl299

Right ventromedial prefrontal lesions result in paradoxical cardiovascular activation with emotional stimuli

2006· article· en· W2003565574 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Max J. Hilz, Orrin Devinsky, Hanna Szczepanska, J. C. Borod, H. Marthol, Marcin Tutaj

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthCity University of New YorkNational Institute of Mental HealthKosciuszko FoundationSanofiNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersYork UniversityDysautonomia Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyVentromedial prefrontal cortexHeart rateStimulus (psychology)ArousalAutonomic nervous systemAudiologyNeutral stimulusStimulationBlood pressureInternal medicineNeurosciencePrefrontal cortexMedicineCognitionCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) lesions can alter emotional and autonomic responses. In animals, VMPFC activation results in cardiovascular sympathetic inhibition. In humans, VMPFC modulates emotional processing and autonomic response to arousal (e.g. accompanying decision-making). The specific role of the left or right VMPFC in mediating somatic responses to non-arousing, daily-life pleasant or unpleasant stimuli is unclear. To further evaluate VMPFC interaction with autonomic processing of non-stressful emotional stimuli and assess the effects of stimulus valence, we studied patients with unilateral VMPFC lesions and assessed autonomic modulation at rest and during physical challenge, and heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) responses to non-stressful neutral, pleasant and unpleasant visual stimulation (VES) via emotionally laden slides. In 6 patients (54.0 +/- 7.2 years) with left-sided VMPFC lesions (VMPFC-L), 7 patients (43.3 +/- 11.6 years) with right-sided VMPFC lesions (VMPFC-R) and 13 healthy volunteers (44.7 +/- 11.6 years), we monitored HR as R-R interval (RRI), BP, respiration, end-tidal carbon dioxide levels, and oxygen saturation at rest, during autonomic challenge by metronomic breathing, a Valsalva manoeuvre and active standing, and in response to non-stressful pleasant, unpleasant and neutral VES. Pleasantness versus unpleasantness of slides was rated on a 7-point Likert scale. At rest, during physical autonomic challenge, and during neutral VES, parameters did not differ between the patient groups and volunteers. During VES, Likert scores also were similar across the three groups. During pleasant and unpleasant VES, HR decreased (i.e. RRI increased) significantly whereas BP remained unchanged in volunteers. In VMPFC-L patients, HR decrease was insignificant with pleasant and unpleasant VES. BP slightly increased (P = 0.06) with pleasant VES but was stable with unpleasant VES. In contrast, VMPFC-R patients had significant increases in HR and BP during pleasant and not quite significant HR increases (P = 0.06) with only slight BP increase during unpleasant VES. Other biosignals remained unchanged during VES in all groups. Our results show that VMPFC has no major influence on autonomic modulation at rest and during non-emotional, physical stimulation. The paradoxical HR and BP responses in VMPFC-R patients suggest hemispheric specialization for VMPFC interaction with predominant parasympathetic activation by the left, but sympathetic inhibition by the right VMPFC. Valence of non-stressful stimuli has a limited effect with more prominent left VMPFC modulation of pleasant and more right VMPFC modulation of unpleasant stimuli. The paradoxical sympathetic disinhibition in VMPFC-R patients may increase their risk of sympathetic hyperexcitability with negative consequences such as anxiety, hypertension or cardiac arrhythmias.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207