Postural disturbances resulting from unilateral and bilateral diaphragm contractions: a phrenic nerve stimulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thoracoabdominal breathing movements are a complex source of postural disturbance, but there are contradictory reports in the literature with inspiration described as having either a backward or a forward disturbing effect. To elucidate the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, the present study studied the postural disturbance caused by isolated contractions of the diaphragm. Eight male and four female healthy subjects followed an original paradigm of phrenic nerve stimulation (bilateral and unilateral) and "diaphragmatic" voluntary sniff maneuvers in the seated and standing postures. Center of gravity (CG) acceleration was calculated from force plate recordings, and respiratory kinematics were assessed with thoracic and abdominal sensor belts. CG and respiratory signals revealed that, while seated, bilateral phrenic stimulation and sniff maneuvers consistently produced expansion of the abdomen associated with a forward peak of CG acceleration. In the standing posture, the direction of the CG peak was reversed and always directed backward. Unilateral phrenic stimulation induced an additional medial-lateral acceleration of the CG, directed toward the nonactive side while seated, but in the opposite direction while standing. These results suggest that isolated diaphragmatic contractions produce a constant disturbing pattern for a given posture, but with opposite effects between standing and seated postures. This could be related to the different biomechanical configuration of the body in each posture, corresponding to distinct kinematic patterns of the osteoarticular chain. In addition, the lateral component of the CG acceleration induced by unilateral diaphragm contractions could be clinically relevant in patients with hemidiaphragm paralysis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".