ArticlePLoS biology2026
No evidence for modulation of the readiness potential by respiratory phase during natural breathing.
Article in PLoS biology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory processes are increasingly implicated in shaping neural activity and behavior. Recent studies have reported a coupling between respiratory phase and the cortical readiness potential (RP), suggesting that breathing may modulate the neural processes preceding voluntary action. Here, using electroencephalography recordings in humans, we re-examine this claim using the original dataset and a new independent dataset, as well as in simulated data with no coupling. We show that the reported association arises from a confound: both RP amplitude and respiratory phase are coupled to movement onset. The original analysis does not control for this dependency, leading to a spurious effect that is also observed in simulated data. When trials are instead grouped by respiratory phase at the time of movement, thereby controlling for this confound, the apparent coupling disappears. Across datasets, Bayesian analyses provide evidence for the absence of an effect under natural breathing conditions. These findings indicate that respiratory phase does not directly modulate RP amplitude during spontaneous behavior. More broadly, they reveal a shortcoming of phase-amplitude coupling analyses applied to epoched data with slowly varying signals, and highlight the importance of controlling for shared dependencies when interpreting physiological-neural relationships.
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.