scholarly journals The heartbeat evoked potential is a questionable biomarker in nightmare disorder: a replication study

2021 ◽  
pp. 102933
Author(s):  
Tamás Bogdány ◽  
Pandelis Perakakis ◽  
Róbert Bódizs ◽  
Péter Simor
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 101701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lampros Perogamvros ◽  
Hyeong-Dong Park ◽  
Laurence Bayer ◽  
Aurore A. Perrault ◽  
Olaf Blanke ◽  
...  

NeuroImage ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 186 ◽  
pp. 595-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederike H. Petzschner ◽  
Lilian A. Weber ◽  
Katharina V. Wellstein ◽  
Gina Paolini ◽  
Cao Tri Do ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 357-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Yuan ◽  
Hong-Mei Yan ◽  
Xiao-Gang Xu ◽  
Fei Han ◽  
Qing Yan

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Celeste Salamone ◽  
Lucas Sedeño ◽  
Agustina Legaz ◽  
Tristán Bekinschtein ◽  
Miguel Martorell ◽  
...  

Abstract Heart–brain integration dynamics are critical for interoception (i.e. the sensing of body signals). In this unprecedented longitudinal study, we assessed neurocognitive markers of interoception in patients who underwent orthotopic heart transplants and matched healthy controls. Patients were assessed longitudinally before surgery (T1), a few months later (T2) and a year after (T3). We assessed behavioural (heartbeat detection) and electrophysiological (heartbeat evoked potential) markers of interoception. Heartbeat detection task revealed that pre-surgery (T1) interoception was similar between patients and controls. However, patients were outperformed by controls after heart transplant (T2), but no such differences were observed in the follow-up analysis (T3). Neurophysiologically, although heartbeat evoked potential analyses revealed no differences between groups before the surgery (T1), reduced amplitudes of this event-related potential were found for the patients in the two post-transplant stages (T2, T3). All these significant effects persisted after covariation with different cardiological measures. In sum, this study brings new insights into the adaptive properties of brain–heart pathways.


2011 ◽  
Vol 122 (9) ◽  
pp. 1838-1845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiyun Shao ◽  
Kaiquan Shen ◽  
Einar P.V. Wilder-Smith ◽  
Xiaoping Li

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Verdonk ◽  
Marion Trousselard ◽  
Caroline Di Bernardi Luft ◽  
Takfarinas Medani ◽  
Jean‐Baptiste Billaud ◽  
...  

SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Péter Simor ◽  
Tamás Bogdány ◽  
Róbert Bódizs ◽  
Pandelis Perakakis

Abstract Sleep is a fundamental physiological state that facilitates neural recovery during periods of attenuated sensory processing. On the other hand, mammalian sleep is also characterized by the interplay between periods of increased sleep depth and environmental alertness. Whereas the heterogeneity of microstates during non-rapid-eye-movement (NREM) sleep was extensively studied in the last decades, transient microstates during REM sleep received less attention. REM sleep features two distinct microstates: phasic and tonic. Previous studies indicate that sensory processing is largely diminished during phasic REM periods, whereas environmental alertness is partially reinstated when the brain switches into tonic REM sleep. Here, we investigated interoceptive processing as quantified by the heartbeat evoked potential (HEP) during REM microstates. We contrasted the HEPs of phasic and tonic REM periods using two separate databases that included the nighttime polysomnographic recordings of healthy young individuals (N = 20 and N = 19). We find a differential HEP modulation of a late HEP component (after 500 ms post-R-peak) between tonic and phasic REM. Moreover, the late tonic HEP component resembled the HEP found in resting wakefulness. Our results indicate that interoception with respect to cardiac signals is not uniform across REM microstates, and suggest that interoceptive processing is partially reinstated during tonic REM periods. The analyses of the HEP during REM sleep may shed new light on the organization and putative function of REM microstates.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esra Al ◽  
Fivos Iliopoulos ◽  
Vadim V. Nikulin ◽  
Arno Villringer

Our perception of the external world is influenced by internal bodily signals. For example, we recently showed that timing of stimulation along the cardiac cycle and spontaneous fluctuations of heartbeat-evoked potential (HEP) amplitudes influence somatosensory perception and the associated neural processing (Al et al., 2020). While cardiac phase affected detection sensitivity and late components of the somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs), HEP amplitudes affected detection criterion and both early and late SEP components. In a new EEG study, we investigate whether these results are replicable in a modified paradigm, which includes two succeeding temporal intervals. Only in one of these intervals, subjects received a weak electrical finger stimulation and then performed a yes/no and two-interval forced-choice detection task. Our results confirm the previously reported cardiac cycle and prestimulus HEP effects on somatosensory perception and evoked potentials. In addition, we obtain two new findings: A source analysis in these two studies shows that the increased likelihood of conscious perception goes along with HEP fluctuations in parietal and posterior cingulate regions, known to play important roles in interoceptive processes. Furthermore, HEP amplitudes are shown to decrease when subjects engage in the somatosensory task compared to their resting state condition. Our findings are consistent with the view that HEP amplitudes are a marker of interoceptive (versus exteroceptive) attention and provide a neural underpinning for this view.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document