Cardiac, respiratory, and gastric rhythms independently modulate motor corticospinal excitability in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interoception refers to the brain's sensing of internal body state and encompasses various bodily systems, notably the cardiac, respiratory, and gastric rhythms. Beyond their roles in physiological regulation and emotional states, each of these visceral rhythms has been shown to influence brain activity and cognition, prompting for the development of various interpretative functional frameworks. However, both experimental data and functional hypothesis leave it unclear whether and how each visceral rhythm acts simultaneously and independently on brain activity. Here, we address this question by measuring in human participants how the corticospinal excitability of the motor system varies with the phase of each of the three visceral rhythms. We applied single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the hand region in primary motor cortex to elicit Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs), whose amplitude reflects corticospinal excitability, and tested whether MEP amplitude depends on the phase of the simultaneously measured cardiac, respiratory, and gastric rhythms. All three visceral rhythms were coupled to motor excitability with similar effect sizes at the group level. However, we found no relation between coupling strengths: participants displaying high coupling with one organ did not necessarily display high coupling to the other organs. These results indicate that independent mechanisms could underly the coupling between the cardiac, respiratory, and gastric rhythms and motor excitability. We further introduce the concept of individual interoceptive profiles and show that such interoceptive profiles obtained from objective coupling strength measures were not explained by self-reported awareness of the organ. Altogether, our results call for refined specifications of the frameworks offering a functional or clinical interpretation of viscera-brain coupling taking into account both independent mechanisms and individual interoceptive profiles.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".