ReviewFrontiers in neuroanatomy2022
Neurogenic mechanisms for locomotor-respiratory coordination in mammals.
Review in Frontiers in neuroanatomy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Preliminary Validation of the Breath Motor Pattern Index (BMPI): An Observational Measure of Respiratory Pattern Quality in Children.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- High-Pass Filtering through Short-Term Synaptic Facilitation Amplifies Low-Frequency Modulation of Bursting Input.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Neuroanatomical and neurochemical organization of brainstem and forebrain circuits involved in breathing regulation.Journal of neurophysiology · 2025Review
- Neuropeptide Modulation Enables Biphasic Internetwork Coordination via a Dual-Network Neuron.eNeuro · 2024Article
- Locomotor-Respiratory Entrainment upon Phonated Compared to Spontaneous Breathing during Submaximal Exercise.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Central motor rhythm-generating networks controlling different functions are generally considered to operate mostly independently from one another, each controlling the specific behavioral task to which it is assigned. However, under certain physiological circumstances, central pattern generators (CPGs) can exhibit strong uni- or bidirectional interactions that render them closely inter-dependent. One of the best illustrations of such an inter-CPG interaction is the functional relationship that may occur between rhythmic locomotor and respiratory functions. It is well known that in vertebrates, lung ventilatory rates accelerate at the onset of physical exercise in order to satisfy the accompanying rapid increase in metabolism. Part of this acceleration is sustained by a coupling between locomotion and ventilation, which most often results in a periodic drive of the respiratory cycle by the locomotor rhythm. In terrestrial vertebrates, the likely physiological significance of this coordination is that it serves to reduce the mechanical interference between the two motor systems, thereby producing an energetic benefit and ultimately, enabling sustained aerobic activity. Several decades of studies have shown that locomotor-respiratory coupling is present in most species, independent of the mode of locomotion employed. The present article aims to review and discuss mechanisms engaged in shaping locomotor-respiratory coupling (LRC), with an emphasis on the role of sensory feedback inputs, the direct influences between CPG networks themselves, and finally on spinal cellular candidates that are potentially involved in the coupling of these two vital motor functions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.