Reprint of "Learning to breathe? Feedforward regulation of the inspiratory motor drive"

Claims have been made that breathing is in part controlled by feedforward regulation. In a classical conditioning paradigm, we investigated anticipatory increases in the inspiratory motor drive as measured by inspiratory occlusion pressure (P100). In an acquisition phase, an experimental group (N = 13) received a low-intensity resistive load (5 cmH2O/l/s) for three consecutive inspirations as Conditioned Stimulus (CS), preceding a load of a stronger intensity (20 cmH2O/l/s) for three subsequent inspirations as unconditioned stimulus (US). The control group (N = 11) received the low-intensity load for six consecutive inspirations. In a post-acquisition phase both groups received the low-intensity load for six consecutive inspirations. Responses to the CS-load only differed between groups during the first acquisition trials and a strong increase in P100 during the US-loads was observed, which habituated across the experiment. Our results suggest that the disruption caused by adding low to moderate resistive loads to three consecutive inspirations results in a short-lasting anticipatory increase in inspiratory motor drive.

Resistance to extinction in an odor-20% CO2 inhalation paradigm: further evidence for a symptom learning account of multiple chemical sensitivity

OBJECTIVE

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is characterized by a variety of symptoms in response to nontoxic concentrations of chemicals. To further test a laboratory model of MCS based on symptom learning, we used a stronger respiratory challenge in this study than in previous studies to induce symptoms (20% CO(2)-enriched air, unconditioned stimulus). Additionally, extinction of learned symptoms was investigated.

METHODS

Diluted ammonia (AM) and butyric acid (BA) served as conditioned (odor) stimuli (CSs). In a learning phase, healthy participants received three breathing trials of BA mixed with CO(2) and three trials of AM mixed with regular air, or the reversed combination. In a test phase, the same trials were administered without CO(2). Immediately after odor onset, participants rated their anxiety and expectancy to experience symptoms during that trial. Self-reported symptoms were assessed after each trial; respiratory behavior was measured throughout the experiment.

RESULTS

Only participants who learned to correctly anticipate symptoms (learning phase) reported elevated symptoms in response to the CS+ odor (test phase). Anticipation was more likely correct and learned symptoms were more elevated when BA had been previously associated with CO(2). Across test trials, anticipatory anxiety diminished, but learned symptoms did not. Participants failing to learn the prearranged contingencies reported overall more symptoms and anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong respiratory challenges impede extinction of learned symptoms. Conscious expectancy, which may be modulated by odor quality, determines whether learned symptoms develop in response to a specific odor or to the general context. The results further support a symptom learning account of MCS.

High symptom reporters are less interoceptively accurate in a symptom-related context

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the role of a symptom interpretation frame on the accuracy of interoception and on retrospective symptom reporting in nonclinical high and low reporters of medically unexplained symptoms.

METHODS

All participants (N=74) went through two subsequent trials of the Rebreathing Test, inducing altered respiration and other physical sensations as a result of a gradually increasing pCO(2) level in the blood. Each trial consisted of a baseline (60 s), a rebreathing phase (150 s), and a recovery phase (150 s). In one trial, the sensations were framed in a neutral way ("the gas mixture might alter breathing behavior and induce respiratory sensations"). In the other trial, a symptom frame was induced ("the gas mixture might alter breathing behavior and induce respiratory symptoms"). Breathing behavior was continuously monitored, subjective sensations were rated every 10 s, and after each trial, participants filled out a symptom checklist. Within-subject correlations between the subjective rating and its physiological referent were calculated for the rebreathing phase and recovery phase of each trial separately.

RESULTS

High symptom reporters had more (retrospective) complaints than low symptom reporters, especially in the symptom trial. Only in the symptom frame were high symptom reporters less accurate than low symptom reporters. The reduction in interoceptive accuracy (IA) in high symptom reporters was most striking in the recovery phase of the symptom frame trial.

CONCLUSION

A contextual cue, such as a reference to symptoms, reduced IA in high symptom reporters and this was more so during recovery from the symptom induction.