Mental Work Stimulates Cardiovascular Responses through a Reduction in Cardiac Parasympathetic Modulation in Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental Work (MW) stimulates Cardiovascular (CV) functions in healthy adults and a reduction in cardiac parasympathetic modulation could be one mechanism involved in such a response. The influence of sex on these CV responses remains ambiguous. The aim of the study was to evaluate CV impacts of MW in healthy individuals and whether sex influences CV responses induced by MW. The impact of a 45-min reading and writing session vs. a control condition, on Blood Pressure (BP), Heart Rate (HR), and Heart Rate Variability (HRV), was evaluated in 44 healthy adults with the use of a randomized crossover design. The influence of sex on those variables was then evaluated. Diastolic BP (74 ± 1 vs. 69 ± 1 mmHg; p < 0.05) and mean arterial pressure (MAP; 87 ± 7 vs. 83 ± 8 mmHg; p < 0.005), HR (68 ± 1 vs. 62 ± 1 bpm; p < 0.0001) and low frequency/high frequency ratio (2.8 ± 0.1 vs. 2.0 ± 0.1; p < 0.0001) were higher, while global HRV (SDNN: 84 ± 3 vs.104 ± 3 ms; p < 0.0001) and cardiac parasympathetic activity were lower during MW (p < 0.0001) vs. the control condition in the whole sample. During both experimental conditions, HR was higher (p < 0.0001), while BP, rMSSD, pNN50 and low frequency component of HRV were lower in women compared to men (all p < 0.05). The intensity of the cognitive demand and its influence on CV variables were comparable between men and women. These results support that MW increases BP and HR through decrement in cardiac parasympathetic modulation in healthy subjects and suggest that sex does not influence CV responses induced by cognitive demand of similar intensity.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".