Effects of Contralateral Forearm Somatosensory Stimulation on Heart Rate Responses to Isometric Hand Grip Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Vagal withdrawal forms the dominant mechanism determining the rapid heart rate (HR) response at the onset of moderate intensity isometric handgrip (IHG) exercise. Previous evidence suggested that the addition of submotor somatosensory stimulation (STIM) can elevate vagal cardiac function in some individuals. This study tested the hypothesis that STIM can interfere with the vagal withdrawal and HR responses at the exercise onset. Methods Young healthy individuals (n=7, ages 24 ± 1.2 years) were recruited. STIM was provided by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS; 100 Hz, 50 μs) on the medial forearm through anesthetized skin. A 3‐lead ECG provided R‐R interval data. Participants performed 2–3 trials of IHG at 35–40% maximal voluntary contraction, each lasting 20 seconds and separated by one minute of rest. These were performed both with and without STIM and baseline cardiovagal influence was modified by repeating the tests in seated and supine positions using a varied order of STIM delivery. Results IHG elicited increased HR in each posture (supine: baseline=64 ± 9 bpm, IHG=73 ± 7 bpm; p<0.05; seated: baseline=66 ± 6 bpm, IHG=78 ± 8 bpm, p<0.05). In the seated position, STIM reduced the maximum HR response to IHG, compared to no STIM, in five out of seven participants resulting in an overall modest effect (no STIM: 19 ± 10 bpm; STIM: 15 ± 8 bpm; p<0.05; d =0.44). In the supine position, however, the effect of STIM to reduce the HR response was observed in only three out of seven participants. Thus, there was no significant difference between treatments (no STIM: 15 ± 7 bpm; STIM: 16 ± 9 bpm; p>0.05; d =0.12). Conclusion These data suggests that the HR response to exercise in young healthy adults can be modulated with submotor somatosensory nerve stimulation but that this effect is most apparent in the seated position. Support or Funding Information Supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".