Perception of exercise-induced dyspnea after experimentally induced breathing discomfort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perception of dyspnea is influenced by both physiological and psychological factors. We sought to determine whether exertional dyspnea perception could be experimentally manipulated through prior exposure to heightened dyspnea while exercising. We hypothesized that dyspnea perception during exercise would be lower following an induced dyspnea task (IDT). Sixteen healthy participants (eight females, eight males) completed two days of exercise testing. Day 1 involved an incremental cycle exercise test starting at 40 W for females and 60 W for males, increasing by 20 W each minute until volitional exhaustion. Following the maximal exercise test on Day 1, participants completed IDT, involving 5 min of exercise at 70% of peak work rate with 500 mL dead space and external resistance (i.e., 6.8 ± 2.3 cm·H2O·s−1·L−1 inspiration, 3.8 ± 0.7 cm·H2O·s−1·L−1 expiration). Day 2 consisted of an incremental exercise test identical to Day 1. At maximal exercise, there were no differences in oxygen uptake (V̇O2; 44.7 ± 7.7 vs. 46.5 ± 6.3 mL·kg−1·min−1), minute ventilation (120 ± 35 vs. 127 ± 38 L·min−1), dyspnea (6.5 [4, 8.5] vs. 6 [4.25, 8.75]), or leg discomfort (6 [5, 8.75] vs. 7 [5, 9]) between days (all p > 0.05). At 60%–80% of peak V̇O2 (V̇O2peak), dyspnea was significantly lower on Day 2 (−0.75 [−1.375, 0] for 60% and −0.5 [0, −2] for 80%, p < 0.05) despite no differences in relevant physiological variables. The onset of perceived dyspnea occurred at a significantly higher exercise intensity on Day 2 than on Day 1 (42% ± 19% vs. 51% ± 17% V̇O2peak, respectively; p < 0.05). Except for 40% V̇O2peak ( p = 0.05), RPE-L was not different at any intensities nor was the onset of perceived leg discomfort different between days (38% ± 14% vs. 43% ± 10% V̇O2peak, respectively; p = 0.10). Exposure to heightened dyspnea alters exercise-induced dyspnea perception during subsequent submaximal exercise bouts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".