OBJECTIVES: The phenomenon of stress is understood as a multidimensional concept which can be captured by psychological and physiological measures. There are various laboratory stress protocols which enable stress to be investigated under controlled conditions. However, little is known about whether these protocols differ with regard to the induced psycho-physiological stress response pattern. METHODS: In a within-subjects design, 20 healthy young men underwent four of the most common stress protocols (Stroop test [Stroop], cold pressor test [CPT], Trier Social Stress Test [TSST], and bicycle ergometer test [Ergometer]) and a no-stress control condition (rest) in a randomized order. For the multidimensional assessment of the stress response, perceived stress, endocrine and autonomic biomarkers (salivary cortisol, salivary alpha-amylase, and heart rate) were obtained during the experiments. RESULTS: All stress protocols evoked increases in perceived stress levels, with the highest levels in the TSST, followed by Ergometer, Stroop, and CPT. The highest HPA axis response was found in the TSST, followed by Ergometer, CPT, and Stroop, whilst the highest autonomic response was found in the Ergometer, followed by TSST, Stroop, and CPT. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that different stress protocols differentially stimulate various aspects of the stress response. Physically demanding stress protocols such as the Ergometer test appear to be particularly suitable for evoking autonomic stress responses, whereas uncontrollable and social-evaluative threatening stressors (such as the TSST) are most likely to elicit HPA axis stress responses. The results of this study may help researchers in deciding which stress protocol to use, depending on the individual research question.
OBJECTIVES: The phenomenon of stress is understood as a multidimensional concept which can be captured by psychological and physiological measures. There are various laboratory stress protocols which enable stress to be investigated under controlled conditions. However, little is known about whether these protocols differ with regard to the induced psycho-physiological stress response pattern. METHODS: In a within-subjects design, 20 healthy young men underwent four of the most common stress protocols (Stroop test [Stroop], cold pressor test [CPT], Trier Social Stress Test [TSST], and bicycle ergometer test [Ergometer]) and a no-stress control condition (rest) in a randomized order. For the multidimensional assessment of the stress response, perceived stress, endocrine and autonomic biomarkers (salivary cortisol, salivary alpha-amylase, and heart rate) were obtained during the experiments. RESULTS: All stress protocols evoked increases in perceived stress levels, with the highest levels in the TSST, followed by Ergometer, Stroop, and CPT. The highest HPA axis response was found in the TSST, followed by Ergometer, CPT, and Stroop, whilst the highest autonomic response was found in the Ergometer, followed by TSST, Stroop, and CPT. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that different stress protocols differentially stimulate various aspects of the stress response. Physically demanding stress protocols such as the Ergometer test appear to be particularly suitable for evoking autonomic stress responses, whereas uncontrollable and social-evaluative threatening stressors (such as the TSST) are most likely to elicit HPA axis stress responses. The results of this study may help researchers in deciding which stress protocol to use, depending on the individual research question.
Authors: John M Violanti; Desta Fekedulegn; Michael E Andrew; Tara A Hartley; Luenda E Charles; Diane B Miller; Cecil M Burchfiel Journal: Psychoneuroendocrinology Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 4.905
Authors: Thomas Ritz; David Rosenfield; Chris D St Laurent; Ana F Trueba; Chelsey A Werchan; Pia D Vogel; Richard J Auchus; Eduardo Reyes-Serratos; A Dean Befus Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2017-04-05 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: D Kapsdorfer; N Hlavacova; D Vondrova; L Argalasova; L Sevcikova; Daniela Jezova Journal: Cell Mol Neurobiol Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 5.046