Department of Human Anatomy and Physiology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa,
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa,
Neuropsychobiology. 2019;78(1):14-26. doi: 10.1159/000495519. Epub 2019 Feb 5.
Despite strong reservations regarding the validity of a number of heart rate variability (HRV) measures, these are still being used in recent studies.
We aimed to compare the reactivity of ostensible sympathetic HRV markers (low and very low frequency [LF and VLF]) to that of electrodermal activity (EDA), an exclusively sympathetic marker, in response to cognitive and orthostatic stress, investigate the possibility of LF as a vagal-mediated marker of baroreflex modulation, and compare the ability of HRV markers of parasympathetic function (root mean square of successive differences [RMSSD] and high frequency [HF]) to quantify vagal reactivity to cognitive and orthostatic stress.
None of the purported sympathetic HRV markers displayed a reactivity that correlated with electrodermal reactivity. LF (ms2) reactivity correlated with the reactivity of both RMSSD and HF during baroreflex modulation. RMSSD and HF indexed the reactivity of the parasympathetic nervous system under conditions of normal breathing; however, RMSSD performed better as a marker of vagal activity when the task required breathing changes.
Neither LF (in ms2 or normalized units [nu]) nor VLF represent cardiac sympathetic modulation of the heart. LF (ms2) may reflect vagally mediated baroreflex cardiac effects. HRV linear analysis therefore appears to be restricted to the determination of vagal influences on heart rate. With regard to HRV parasympathetic markers, this study supports the suggestion that HRV frequency domain analyses, such as HF, should not be used as an index of vagal activity in study tasks where verbal responses are required, as these responses may induce respiratory changes great enough to distort HF power.
尽管对许多心率变异性(HRV)指标的有效性存在强烈保留意见,但这些指标仍在最近的研究中使用。
我们旨在比较表面交感神经 HRV 标志物(低频和极低频[LF 和 VLF])与皮肤电活动(EDA)对认知和直立应激的反应性,研究 LF 作为压力反射调制的迷走介导标志物的可能性,并比较 HRV 自主神经功能标志物(连续差值的均方根[RMSSD]和高频[HF])量化认知和直立应激时迷走神经反应的能力。
没有一个所谓的交感 HRV 标志物的反应性与皮肤电反应性相关。LF(ms2)反应性与 RMSSD 和 HF 在压力反射调制期间的反应性相关。RMSSD 和 HF 在正常呼吸条件下可以量化副交感神经系统的反应性;然而,当任务需要呼吸变化时,RMSSD 作为迷走神经活动的标志物表现更好。
LF(以 ms2 或归一化单位[nu]表示)和 VLF 均不能代表心脏的交感神经调制。LF(ms2)可能反映迷走介导的压力反射心脏效应。因此,HRV 线性分析似乎仅限于确定心率对迷走神经的影响。关于 HRV 副交感神经标志物,本研究支持这样的观点,即 HRV 频域分析(如 HF)不应作为需要口头反应的研究任务中迷走神经活动的指标,因为这些反应可能引起足够大的呼吸变化,从而扭曲 HF 功率。