↓ Skip to main content

Hypothesis: Pulmonary Afferent Activity Patterns During Slow, Deep Breathing Contribute to the Neural Induction of Physiological Relaxation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, September 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
6 X users
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hypothesis: Pulmonary Afferent Activity Patterns During Slow, Deep Breathing Contribute to the Neural Induction of Physiological Relaxation
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, September 2019
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2019.01176
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donald J. Noble, Shawn Hochman

Abstract

Control of respiration provides a powerful voluntary portal to entrain and modulate central autonomic networks. Slowing and deepening breathing as a relaxation technique has shown promise in a variety of cardiorespiratory and stress-related disorders, but few studies have investigated the physiological mechanisms conferring its benefits. Recent evidence suggests that breathing at a frequency near 0.1 Hz (6 breaths per minute) promotes behavioral relaxation and baroreflex resonance effects that maximize heart rate variability. Breathing around this frequency appears to elicit resonant and coherent features in neuro-mechanical interactions that optimize physiological function. Here we explore the neurophysiology of slow, deep breathing and propose that coincident features of respiratory and baroreceptor afferent activity cycling at 0.1 Hz entrain central autonomic networks. An important role is assigned to the preferential recruitment of slowly-adapting pulmonary afferents (SARs) during prolonged inhalations. These afferents project to discrete areas in the brainstem within the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS) and initiate inhibitory actions on downstream targets. Conversely, deep exhalations terminate SAR activity and activate arterial baroreceptors via increases in blood pressure to stimulate, through NTS projections, parasympathetic outflow to the heart. Reciprocal SAR and baroreceptor afferent-evoked actions combine to enhance sympathetic activity during inhalation and parasympathetic activity during exhalation, respectively. This leads to pronounced heart rate variability in phase with the respiratory cycle (respiratory sinus arrhythmia) and improved ventilation-perfusion matching. NTS relay neurons project extensively to areas of the central autonomic network to encode important features of the breathing pattern that may modulate anxiety, arousal, and attention. In our model, pronounced respiratory rhythms during slow, deep breathing also support expression of slow cortical rhythms to induce a functional state of alert relaxation, and, via nasal respiration-based actions on olfactory signaling, recruit hippocampal pathways to boost memory consolidation. Collectively, we assert that the neurophysiological processes recruited during slow, deep breathing enhance the cognitive and behavioral therapeutic outcomes obtained through various mind-body practices. Future studies are required to better understand the physio-behavioral processes involved, including in animal models that control for confounding factors such as expectancy biases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 231 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Master 22 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Other 10 4%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 99 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 8%
Neuroscience 18 8%
Engineering 12 5%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 102 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 22 May 2024.
All research outputs
#473,500
of 25,978,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#255
of 15,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,670
of 353,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#6
of 339 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,978,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 353,584 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 339 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.