Fuyuan Liao, Ben-Yi Liau, Ian M. Rice, Jeannette Elliott, Ian Brooks, Yih-Kuen Jan
Abstract
Heart rate variability (HRV) is a promising marker for evaluating the remaining autonomic function in people with spinal cord injury (SCI). HRV is commonly assessed by spectral analysis and detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA). This study aimed to investigate whether local scale exponent α(t) can reveal new features of HRV that cannot be reflected by spectral measures and DFA coefficients. We studied 12 participants with SCI and 15 healthy able-bodied controls. ECG signals were continually recorded during 10 min sitting and 10 min prone postures. α(t) was calculated for scales between 4 and 60 s. Because α(t) could be overestimated at small scales, we developed an approach for correcting α(t) based on previous studies. The simulation results on simulated monofractal time series with α between 0.5 and 1.3 showed that the proposed method can yield improved estimation of α(t). We applied the proposed method to raw RR interval series. The results showed that α(t) in healthy controls monotonically decreased with scale at scales between 4 and 12 s (0.083-0.25 Hz) in both the sitting and prone postures, whereas in participants with SCI, α(t) slowly decreased at almost all scales. The sharp decreasing trend in α(t) in controls suggests a more complex dynamics of HRV in controls. α(t) at scales between 4 (0.25 Hz) and around 7 s (0.143 Hz) was lower in subjects with SCI than in controls in the sitting posture; α(t) at a narrow range of scales around 12 s (0.083 Hz) was higher in participants with SCI than in controls in the prone posture. However, none of normalized low frequency (0.04-0.15 Hz) power, the ratio of low frequency power to high frequency (0.15-0.4 Hz) power and long-term (>11 beats) DFA coefficient showed significant difference between healthy controls and subjects with SCI in the prone posture. Our results suggest that α(t) can reveal more detailed information in comparison to spectral measures and the standard DFA parameters.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,810,408
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#5,661
of 13,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,575
of 264,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#41
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
