| Literature DB >> 29713957 |
Lorenza S Colzato1,2,3, Bryant J Jongkees4, Matthijs de Wit4, Melle J W van der Molen5, Laura Steenbergen4,6.
Abstract
The neurovisceral integration model proposes that heart rate variability (HRV) is linked to prefrontal cortex activity via the vagus nerve, which connects the heart and the brain. HRV, an index of cardiac vagal tone, has been found to predict performance on several cognitive control tasks that rely on the prefrontal cortex. However, the link between HRV and the core cognitive control function "shifting" between tasks and mental sets is under-investigated. Therefore, the present study tested the neurovisceral integration model by examining, in 90 participants, the relationship between vagally mediated resting-state HRV and performance in a task-switching paradigm that provides a relatively process-pure measure of cognitive flexibility. As predicted, participants with higher resting-state HRV (indexed both by time domain and frequency domain measures) showed smaller switch costs (i.e., greater flexibility) than individuals with lower resting-state HRV. Our findings support the neurovisceral integration model and indicate that higher levels of vagally mediated resting-state HRV promote cognitive flexibility.Entities:
Keywords: Cardiac vagal tone; Cognitive control; Cognitive flexibility; HF; Heart rate variability; RMSSD; Task-switching paradigm
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29713957 PMCID: PMC6096636 DOI: 10.3758/s13415-018-0600-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci ISSN: 1530-7026 Impact factor: 3.282
Demographic characteristics, descriptive statistics for the visual analogue scale (VAS), for the HRV scores and behavioral parameters for the task-switching paradigm separated for short and long response-stimulus interval (RSI)
| Variables (SD) | |
|---|---|
| N (M:F) | 90 (30:60) |
| Age | 22.1 (2.5) |
| Body mass index | 23.4 (3.7) |
| Cigarettes (daily) | 0.9 (3.0) |
| VAS anxiety | 8.0 (11.3) |
| VAS nervousness | 16.6 (17.6) |
| VAS insecurity | 12.6 (12.9) |
| VAS stress | 15.9 (17.2) |
| HRV scores | |
| Average BPM | 77.7 (11.2) |
| RMSSD (ms) | 46.5 (26.5) |
| HF (ms2) | 1092 (1334) |
| LF (ms2) | 1613 (1715) |
| Task-switching paradigm | |
| RSI short | |
| Task repeated (RT) | 711 (101) |
| Task repeated (PE) | 3.93 (4.4) |
| Task alternated (RT) | 993 (151) |
| Task alternated (PE) | 9.38 (6.9) |
| RSI long | |
| Task repeated (RT) | 675 (103) |
| Task repeated (PE) | 4.37 (3.7) |
| Task alternated (RT) | 871 (165) |
| Task alternated (PE) | 9.64 (6.6) |
| Overall switch costs RT (collapsed across RSI conditions) | 239 (86) |
| Overall switch costs PE (collapsed across RSI conditions) | 5.36 (3.7) |
BPM, Heart rate in beats per minute; RMSSD, Root Mean Square of the Successive Differences; HF, high frequency; LF, low frequency.
Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.
Fig. 1Schematic illustration of the task-switching paradigm
Partial correlations (controlled for gender, BMI, daily number of cigarettes smokes, level of stress and anxiety, heart rate per minute) between switch costs in short and long response-stimulus interval (RSI) conditions, overall switch costs (collapsed across RSI conditions) for RTs and PEs, and vagally mediated (as indexed by RMSSD and HF and, as a control, LF) resting-state HRV
| RTs switch costs-short RSI | RTs switch costs-long RSI | RTs Overall switch costs | PEs switch costs-short RSI | PEs switch costs-long RSI | PEs Overall switch costs | RMSSD | HF | LF | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RTs switch costs-short RSI | Pearson’s r | 1 | 0.694*** | 0.923*** | -0.150 | -0.140 | -169 | -0.314** | -0.297** | -0.161 |
| 0.00001 | 0.00001 | 0.173 | 0.205 | 0.124 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.143 | |||
| RTs switch costs-long RSI | Pearson’s r | 1 | 0.918*** | -0.190 | -0.130 | -188 | -0.209 | -0.208 | -0.204 | |
| 0.00001 | 0.083 | 0.238 | 0.087 | 0.056 | 0.057 | 0.062 | ||||
| RTs Overall switch costs | Pearson’s r | 1 | -0.185 | -0.147 | -0.194 | -0.282 | -0.276 | -0.198 | ||
| 0.093 | 0.183 | 0.077 | 0.009 | 0.011 | 0.071 | |||||
| PEs switch costs-short RSI | Pearson’s r | 1 | 0.469*** | 0.865*** | -0.077 | -0.039 | -0.040 | |||
| 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.486 | 0.727 | 0.721 | ||||||
| PEs switch costs-long RSI | Pearson’s r | 1 | 0.848*** | 0.034 | 0.036 | -0.014 | ||||
| 0.0001 | 0.756 | 0.742 | 0.900 | |||||||
| PEs Overall switch costs | Pearson’s r | 1 | -0.027 | -0.003 | -0.032 | |||||
| 0.809 | 0.982 | 0.776 | ||||||||
| RMSSD | Pearson’s r | 1 | 0.892*** | 0.625*** | ||||||
| 0.00001 | 0.00001 | |||||||||
| HF | Pearson’s r | 1 | 0.581*** | |||||||
| 0.00001 | ||||||||||
| LF | Pearson’s r | 1 | ||||||||
RMSSD, Root Mean Square of the Successive Differences; HF, high frequency; LF, low frequency.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Fig. 2Scatter diagram of individual root mean squared successive differences (RMSSD) against RTs overall switch costs (collapsed across RSI conditions) in the short response-stimulus interval (RSI) condition