| Literature DB >> 27929045 |
Hamidreza Namazi1, Vladimir V Kulish1.
Abstract
An important challenge in heart research is to make the relation between the features of external stimuli and heart activity. Olfactory stimulation is an important type of stimulation that affects the heart activity, which is mapped on Electrocardiogram (ECG) signal. Yet, no one has discovered any relation between the structures of olfactory stimuli and the ECG signal. This study investigates the relation between the structures of heart rate and the olfactory stimulus (odorant). We show that the complexity of the heart rate is coupled with the molecular complexity of the odorant, where more structurally complex odorant causes less fractal heart rate. Also, odorant having higher entropy causes the heart rate having lower approximate entropy. The method discussed here can be applied and investigated in case of patients with heart diseases as the rehabilitation purpose.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27929045 PMCID: PMC5144066 DOI: 10.1038/srep38555
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Characteristics of odorants.
| Name | Compound | Molecular complexity | Entropy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Benzyl alcohol | C7H8O | 55.4 | 85.55 |
| Dimethyl succinate | C6H10O4 | 114 | 118.24 |
| Diethyl malonate | C7H12O4 | 125 | 132.42 |
| Diethyl succinate | C8H14O4 | 135 | 136.29 |
| Diethyl malate | C8H14O5 | 177 | 145.50 |
Figure 1Molecular structure of selected odorants.
Subjects characteristics.
| Characteristic | Description |
|---|---|
| Sex | 20 male and 20 females |
| Age | 22.5 ± 0.5 years old |
| Height | 172 ± 10.2 cm |
| Weight | 71.5 ± 13.3 kg |
| Race | Indian |
| Ethnicity | Singaporean |
Figure 2A schematic of QRS complex.
Figure 3Fractal dimension for R-R interval time series due to different odorants (left side), and the odorants’ molecular complexities (right side).
Error bars indicate standard deviations.
Effect sizes for pairwise comparisons.
| Condition | Fractal dimension Effect size (r) | Approximate entropy Effect size (r) |
|---|---|---|
| No odorant vs. Benzyl alcohol | 0.46 | 0.51 |
| No odorant vs. Dimethyl succinate | 0.74 | 0.75 |
| No odorant vs. Diethyl malonate | 0.82 | 0.84 |
| No odorant vs. Diethyl succinate | 0.83 | 0.85 |
| No odorant vs. Diethyl malate | 0.84 | 0.87 |
| Benzyl alcohol vs. Dimethyl succinate | 0.25 | 0.31 |
| Benzyl alcohol vs. Diethyl malonate | 0.38 | 0.55 |
| Benzyl alcohol vs. Diethyl succinate | 0.46 | 0.62 |
| Benzyl alcohol vs. Diethyl malate | 0.54 | 0.70 |
| Dimethyl succinate vs. Diethyl malonate | 0.20 | 0.35 |
| Dimethyl succinate vs. Diethyl succinate | 0.35 | 0.48 |
| Dimethyl succinate vs. Diethyl malate | 0.48 | 0.61 |
| Diethyl malonate vs. Diethyl succinate | 0.20 | 0.21 |
| Diethyl malonate vs. Diethyl malate | 0.39 | 0.40 |
| Diethyl succinate vs. Diethyl malate | 0.21 | 0.19 |
Figure 4Approximate entropy for R-R interval time series due to different odorants (left side), and the odorants’ entropies (right side).
Error bars indicate standard deviations.