Here is a preprint reporting on what I believe is our lab’s most important project to date. We conducted a neuroimaging clinical trial to test how heart rate variability (HRV) influences brain networks involved in emotion regulation. medrxiv.org/cgi/content/sh… #medRxiv 1/n
Hundreds of studies show correlations between HRV and well-being. Thus, HRV seems to indicate the current state of regulatory systems in the brain. But we were interested in whether HRV might also play a causal role in influencing these brain networks. sciencedirect.com/science/articl… 2/n
Research using HRV biofeedback indicates that spending time every day in a state involving high oscillations in heart rate enhances emotional well-being and reduces depression and anxiety nature.com/articles/s4159… cup.org/3kUnNSI rdcu.be/cyGUF 3/n
Given these meta analyses showing effects of #HRVbiofeedback on emotional well-being, we hypothesized that daily practice of HRV biofeedback strengthens brain networks involved in emotion regulation. At this point, you may be wondering just what HRV biofeedback involves... 4/n
First, consider the heart in isolation. If disconnected from the brain, a heart beats steadily, driven by the heart's pacemaker cells. 5/n
The heart's pacemaker cells drive it to beat at around 100 beats per minute academic.oup.com/cardiovascres/… 6/n
When we are at rest, our heart rate is slowed down by signals transmitted via the vagus nerve. Thus most people have resting heart rates lower than their 'intrinsic' heart rate. 7/n
However, breathing blocks vagus nerve signal transmission during initial inspiration. physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11… 8/n
So in relaxed healthy people, heart rate oscillates with breathing. Here is an example 4-min sequence of heart rate from a participant in our study who had especially high RMSSD/HF-HRV (measures of HRV that are high when variability is high at normal breathing paces) 9/n
Breathing slowly increases the amplitude of these heart rate oscillations. Here is the same participant's heart rate while they breathed at a 10-s pace. In this healthy relaxed participant, the oscillations in heart rate induced by slow paced breathing are huge (see Y axis). 10/n
Not everyone shows such huge amplitude oscillations, but in healthy young adults, the oscillations in heart rate are typically quite large during relaxed slow paced breathing. 11/n
HRV biofeedback is simple - participants wear a pulse monitor, breath to a pacer, and see a constantly updating line indicating their heart rate and see colors and or points that indicate how large their oscillations in heart rate are. 12/n
We used the commercially available biofeedback program from @heartmath @heartmathinst 13/n
Here is a spectral frequency plot showing the high power at around the slow ~0.1 Hz breathing rate in our participants while they practiced. 14/n
We scanned the brains of our participants before and after they did five weeks of daily HRV biofeedback practice either trying to increase heart rate oscillations (Osc+, the standard HRV biofeedback), or trying to keep heart rate steady while relaxing (Osc-). 15/n
In this healthy cohort, the two conditions did not differentially affect anxiety, depression or mood. 16/n
However, the Osc+ intervention increased low-frequency heart rate variability and increased brain oscillatory dynamics and functional connectivity in emotion-related resting-state networks while participants were not doing the biofeedback. 17/n
And during an emotion regulation task conducted both before and after the intervention, Osc+ participants showed more suppression of activity in brain regions involved in interoception when trying to diminish emotions. 18/n
These findings indicate that heart rate oscillatory activity not only reflects the current state of regulatory brain systems but also changes how the brain operates beyond the moments of high oscillatory activity. 19/n
This 7-week neuroimaging clinical trial (N=106) was a major team effort led by co-first authors Kaoru Nashiro, Jungwon Min, Hyun Joo Yoo with collaborators including @shelbybachman, @cately00, @USC_SAIL, and others not on Twitter. 20/n

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mara Mather

Mara Mather Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MaraMather

29 Jun
This paper troubled me when it came out because it did not line up with my experience on a grant review panel where most reviewers (entering scores before seeing other reviews) tend to have similar scores most but not all the time. pnas.org/content/115/12… 1/
Rereading it, I noticed their sample of 25 grants that they had reviewers review had all been funded by NIH. That means those grants were in the top 20% or so of the scored grants. There were no previously poorly evaluated grants in the pool. 2/
So, yeah, duh, no surprise that there was not much consensus among reviewers of these top-rated grants as to which were the super top ones. They were missing the other 100 or so grants they would need to represent the full range of the scale. 3/
Read 4 tweets
29 Jun
This paper is misleading as they solicited grant applications from investigators and their entire set consisted of funded grants. So they did not have any poor quality grants (or even any that did not get funded) in their pool.
While the NIH process is not perfect, I am impressed by how carefully reviewers read proposals and know that my colleagues put a huge amount of effort into grant reviews.
Usually when I'm on a panel, I find my scores are not too different from the other reviewers, but when we disagree, we get the chance to air our disagreements in front of the rest of the room and everyone else can decide for themselves what they think.
Read 6 tweets
29 Jun
We have a broken system in science. Currently, the main bulwark still protecting science from total collapse in the US is the NIH scientific review system.

I know this may sound extreme. But hear me out. 1/N
For-profit “open-science” publishers make exponentially more money each year as they exploit the incentives of our system, in which authors are willing to pay to publish their papers and need to publish as many as possible to increase their own research impact factors. 2/
“The literature environment published in Chinese is already ruined, since hardly anyone believes them or references studies from them… Now this plague has eroded into the international medical journals.” nature.com/articles/d4158… 3/
Read 20 tweets
28 Jun
I co-reviewed for Cells with a lab member. I thought it was for the journal Cell until I submitted it at the reviewer online form. I felt duped. We gave extensive feedback and the authors responded in detail. The editor asked us to review the revision in just 3 days?!
I explained I'm working on a grant deadline and cannot do it that quickly. She was not willing to give me the extra time I needed. She told me to quickly review their response letter...
... and said, "If you don't have enough time to check the revised version, please feel free to let me know. We will ask our academic Editor to check if your concerns are all addressed." Our joint review was the only review received for this paper.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(