Perceived Pain Responses to Foam Rolling Associate with Basal Heart Rate Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Foam rolling (FR) is a self-myofascial release technique with unclear effects on autonomic functioning, indexed by heart rate variability (HRV). FR can be perceived as painful or relaxing, which may explain interindividual HRV responses. Purpose: To determine if acute FR alters resting HRV. A secondary aim was to determine if perceived pain during FR would predict HRV responses. Setting: Academic institution. Methods: In a randomized, crossover design, healthy adults (50% female) performed total body FR or control on separate days. Perceived pain ratings were obtained following FR of each muscle group and summed to generate an overall perceived pain rating. Seated measures of the mean RR interval and the natural logarithm of the root-mean square of successive RR interval differences (LnRMSSD, a parasympathetic HRV index) were obtained at 5-10 min pre-, 5-10 min post-, and 25-30 min post-FR. Results: No effects were observed for RR interval (p = .105–.561) or LnRMSSD (p = .110–.129). All effect sizes ranged from trivial–small (0.00–0.26). Changes in RR interval (r = 0.220–0.228, p = .433–.488) and LnRMSSD (r = 0.013–0.256, p = .376–.964) were not associated with pain scale sum. Baseline LnRMSSD was associated with pain scale sum (r = -0.663; p = .001). Conclusion: FR did not systematically alter HRV, nor did perceived pain ratings predict HRV responses. Those with lower pre-FR HRV reported higher perceived pain during FR. Basal cardiac autonomic activity may, therefore, influence pain sensitivity to FR in healthy adults.
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 | 0.035 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".