ArticleInternational journal of yoga
A Comparison of the Effects of Three Volitional Yoga Breathing Practices versus Two Nonvolitional Breathing Controls on Auditory-evoked Potentials.
Article in International journal of yoga. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous research has suggested that volitional yoga breathing (VYB) facilitates auditory information processing, whereas control nonvolitional breathing has opposite effects. Objective: This study investigated auditory middle latency responses (AMLR) in (i) three VYB which vary breath rate differently (i.e., bellows yoga breathing, high-frequency yoga breathing, and bumblebee yoga breathing), and (ii) two control conditions (i.e., breath awareness and quiet rest). Methods: Fifty healthy participants aged between 18 and 35 years (M:F, 1:1) participated in this study, with assessment in five random order sessions (each 28 min) over 5 consecutive days. AMLR and respiration were assessed before, during, and after each session. Results: During the three VYB sessions, there were significant decreases in peak latencies (repeated-measures analysis of variance and preduring post hoc tests). In contrast, during breath awareness, the peak latencies of the Pa and Nb waves increased with no change in latencies during quiet rest. Discussion: The changes in peak latencies suggest VYB facilitated auditory transmission at thalamic and primary auditory cortex levels (based on the neural generators of AMLR components). In contrast, breath awareness was associated with prolonged transmission at primary auditory cortex levels (from Pa and Nb latency changes). Peak amplitude changes suggest neuronal recruitment increased during VYB but not during controls. Hence, irrespective of changes in breathing, VYB enhances sensory transmission, whereas nonvolitional breathing may inhibit it. Conclusion: These changes may contribute to the beneficial effects of VYB in cognition and perception, with possible applications in various activities and occupations requiring optimal auditory sensory functioning. Limitations include a focus on experienced practitioners and the examination of short-term effects alone.
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.