Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Experimental dyspnoea interferes with locomotion and cognition: a randomised trial

David Lawi, Elise Dupuis-Lozeron, Gregory Berra, Gilles Allali, Thomas Similowski, Dan Adler
European Respiratory Journal 2020 56: 2000054; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00054-2020
David Lawi
1Division of Pulmonary Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elise Dupuis-Lozeron
2Clinical Research Centre and Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Dept of Health and Community Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
3University of Geneva Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory Berra
1Division of Pulmonary Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gilles Allali
3University of Geneva Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
4Dept of Neurology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
5Dept of Neurology, Division of Cognitive and Motor Aging, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Similowski
6AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière Charles Foix, Intensive Care Unit and Respiratory Division (Département “R3S”), Paris, France
7Sorbonne University, UPMC Paris 06, INSERM, UMRS1158 Neurophysiologie Respiratoire Expérimentale et Clinique, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dan Adler
1Division of Pulmonary Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
3University of Geneva Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Dan Adler
  • For correspondence: dan.adler@hcuge.ch
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Chronic respiratory diseases are associated with cognitive dysfunction, but whether dyspnoea by itself negatively impacts on cognition has not been demonstrated. Cortical networks engaged in subjects experiencing dyspnoea are also activated during other tasks that require cognitive input and this may provoke a negative impact through interference with each other.

Methods This randomised, crossover trial investigated whether experimentally-induced dyspnoea would negatively impact on locomotion and cognitive function among 40 healthy adults. Crossover conditions were unloaded breathing or loaded breathing using an inspiratory threshold load. To evaluate locomotion, participants were assessed by the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Cognitive function was assessed by categorical and phonemic verbal fluency tests, the Trail Making Tests (TMTs) A and B (executive function), the CODE test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)-IV (processing speed) and by direct and indirect digit span (working memory).

Results The mean time difference to perform the TUG test between unloaded and loaded breathing was −0.752 s (95% CI −1.012 to −0.492 s) (p<0.001). Executive function, processing speed and working memory performed better during unloaded breathing, particularly for subjects starting first with the loaded breathing condition.

Conclusion Our data suggest that respiratory threshold loading to elicit dyspnoea had a major impact on locomotion and cognitive function in healthy adults.

Abstract

Acute experimental dyspnoea can negatively impact on locomotion/cognition through shared neural substrates. There is a need for clinical interventions to improve non-respiratory symptoms of chronic respiratory diseases by focussing on alleviating dyspnoea. https://bit.ly/2wGHcjW

Introduction

Chronic respiratory diseases, in particular chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are associated with cognitive dysfunction [1, 2]. In parallel, gradual ageing of the general population strongly impacts on the prevalence of neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular conditions affecting cognition [3]. As the prevalence of COPD increases with age [4], it is important to understand whether older patients with symptomatic respiratory diseases present cognitive dysfunction due to ageing or if there is a true causal association between symptomatic respiratory diseases and cognitive function. Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain the underlying pathophysiology of cognitive dysfunction in COPD, including modified arterial blood gases [5], persistent cigarette smoking, comorbid vascular diseases [6], loss of hippocampal volume and inflammatory mediator-related neuronal damage [7, 8]. An association between reduced lung function, impaired cognition and a greater risk of incident dementia has been also reported [9–11].

Dyspnoea, the most common symptom of respiratory disease, has been associated with disrupted brain activity [12], self-consciousness [13, 14] and gait control [15]. However, the effect of dyspnoea, itself an “all-consuming and life-changing” experience, on cognition is less well studied. A first set of studies have demonstrated that experimental dyspnoea impairs affective picture processing [16], response inhibition [17] and memory and face recognition [18, 19], but more research is needed to study important aspects of dyspnoea–cognition interaction, including the interaction with locomotion.

In healthy humans, normal breathing stems from automatic brainstem neural processes and does not give rise to conscious perception or require any motor or sensory cortical resources [13, 14, 20]. Under certain circumstances, such as voluntary respiratory movements or during speech, breathing can be operated by cortico–subcortical networks [21]. Cortically-driven breathing has also been described in reaction to changes in the mechanical properties of the respiratory system [20, 22] and externally-applied inspiratory and expiratory constraints can give rise to respiratory-related motor cortical activities [20, 23]. The corresponding network involves the primary motor cortex, the supplementary motor area and corticospinal projections. In addition, recent evidence suggests that cortical activation, as demonstrated by an electroencephalogram, may make a significant contribution to quiet breathing in older age [24].

Similar to breathing, gait is considered to be an automatic function in young adults that should not depend on cognition [25]. However, in elderly patients and those suffering from neuropsychiatric conditions, gait control relies on cognitive function, particularly executive function [26, 27] and shares similar cortical networks to those activated by a respiratory load [28, 29]. Thus, the cortical networks engaged in response to inspiratory loading are also activated during complex locomotor tasks that require cognitive input, such as gait. As a reliable measure of locomotion, the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test has largely been used in the elderly population [30] to identify poor clinical outcomes, such as cognitive impairment or dementia [31, 32]. More recently, an imaginary version of the TUG test, the imagined Timed Up and Go (iTUG) test, has been developed to evaluate the central control of locomotion [33].

In a preliminary study [15], we showed that progressive inspiratory threshold loading linearly increased the time to perform the TUG test and suggested that, among other mechanisms, a competition for cortical resources may account for the observed breathing–locomotion interference. This study is designed to test the hypothesis that laboratory-induced dyspnoea would, in healthy young subjects, impact on gait control and cognitive function.

Methods

Study design

This randomised, two-condition, two-period crossover study was conducted at Geneva University Hospitals (Geneva, Switzerland). The study was approved by the local ethics committee on research involving humans and registered on the Swiss national clinical trials portal (ID 2016-00807). All participants provided written informed consent in accordance with Swiss federal laws on human research and clinical trials ordinance.

Subjects

Forty highly-educated subjects were recruited from the Geneva University campus. Individuals aged from 18 to 40 years old and of French mother tongue were eligible for study inclusion. Exclusion criteria were a physician's diagnosis of a respiratory, neurological or psychiatric disorder and pregnancy. Subjects were also excluded if considered unable to perform the TUG test. During enrolment, all eligible participants underwent a medical examination by a physician and data were collected on past medical history, age, gender, body mass index (BMI, in kg·m−2), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2), sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) and maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) [34].

Experimental dyspnoea

Participant enrolment, randomisation and testing took place from February 2017 to May 2019 at the respiratory physiology laboratory of Geneva University Hospitals. Lung function parameters were assessed using a portable spirometer (Spirotel with Winspiro PRO software version 7.3; Medical International Research, Rome, Italy). SNIP and MIP were measured using a respiratory muscle testing device (microRPM; CareFusion, Hoechberg, Germany) [34]. Dyspnoea was induced by an inspiratory threshold load device (POWERbreathe Classic; POWERbreathe Ltd, London, UK) connected to a comfortable commercial orofacial mask (AcuCare F1-0; Resmed, Sydney, Australia) designed for noninvasive ventilation. The inspiratory threshold load device provides an inspiratory pressure ranging from 10 to 170 cmH2O (with nine predefined levels) that needs to be overcome by the study participant at every breath during the experimentally-induced dyspnoea sequence of the trial. It also has an inbuilt one-way expiratory valve to prevent carbon dioxide rebreathing. Before the experiment started, the inspiratory load was progressively increased to a predefined dyspnoea rating of six out of 10 on a visual analogue scale. Before and after each period of experimentally-induced dyspnoea, subjects completed the Multidimensional Dyspnoea Profile (MDP) questionnaire [35]. This assesses dyspnoea during a specific time or condition and is a proven valid instrument for clinical and laboratory research [36].

Locomotion

We used the TUG test as described by Podsiadlo et al. [30] and the iTUG test as validated by Beauchet et al. [33] to assess locomotion. For the TUG test subjects had, on command, to stand up from an armchair, walk 3 m, turn around a cone, walk back and sit down again on the chair. For the iTUG test subjects had, on command, to imagine the TUG test and signal to the investigator its mental completion. The difference in time (i.e. Δ time) between the TUG and iTUG conditions was calculated according to the formula (TUG−iTUG)/(TUG+iTUG/2) and used as an outcome variable. Cognitive status is strongly associated with TUG and iTUG test times, as well as Δ time [31, 33, 37, 38], as these tasks place additional cognitive challenges on brain function.

Cognition

Categorical and phonemic verbal fluency tests [39], as well as the Trail Making Tests (TMTs) A and B [40], were used to assess executive function. During the categorical verbal fluency test, the subjects had 2 min to produce the maximum number of words from the “animal” category; while for the phonemic verbal fluency test, they had 2 min to produce the maximum number of words starting with the letter “P”. For the TMT A, subjects had to connect numerated bullets as fast as possible in an increasing manner. The same principle was applied for the TMT B, except that the subjects had to alternatively connect a number to a letter in an increasing way.

Processing speed was assessed by the CODE test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)-IV [41, 42], where subjects had 2 min in which to copy the maximum number of symbols from a sheet where they are associated with numbers to an answer sheet containing numbers without symbols.

Working memory was assessed by direct and indirect digit span tests [41, 42]. During the direct digit span test, subjects had to repeat in the same order a series of numbers read by the investigator. For the indirect digit span test, subjects had to repeat the series of numbers read by the investigator but in reverse order.

Intervention

The randomisation sequence was computer-generated using the permuted block method with blocks of varying size (four to six). Using a sealed, opaque, envelope randomisation system, we assigned subjects in a one to one ratio to receive either the sequence “loaded breathing/unloaded breathing” or the sequence “unloaded breathing/loaded breathing” (figure 1). During the first period (either experimentally-loaded breathing or unloaded breathing), subjects had to complete the locomotion and cognitive tests in a fixed order. During the loaded breathing period, subjects wore the orofacial mask connected with the respiratory load at a predefined level of resistance. During the unloaded breathing period, subjects wore the same mask without the respiratory load. During the second period, subjects were switched to the complementary condition (either unloaded or loaded breathing) and the exact same tests were completed in the same order. Oxygen saturation was monitored continuously during both periods with pulse oximetry (Konica Minolta Pulsox-300i; Konica Minolta Sensing, Osaka, Japan).

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Design of the randomised, open-label, two-condition, two-period crossover study. PFT: pulmonary function test; SNIP: sniff nasal inspiratory pressure; MIP: maximal inspiratory pressure; TUG: Timed Up and Go; iTUG: imagined Timed Up and Go.

Predetermination of study endpoints

The primary endpoint was the time to perform the TUG and iTUG tests (measured in seconds). Secondary endpoints were the fluency tests (measured by the number of correct words), the TMTs A and B (measured in seconds), the CODE test (measured by the number of correct associations) and the digit span tests (measured by the number of correct sequences of numbers).

Statistical analysis

The study was designed to show a difference in time to perform the TUG test of 0.5 s between the two experimental conditions, with a standard deviation (sd) of the difference of 1 s according to our previous findings [15]. To show this difference in a crossover design using a paired t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.8, enrolment of 36 subjects was required. The effect of dyspnoea on each test was assessed using a linear mixed-effects model with a random intercept for each participant. In addition to the experimental condition (loaded breathing versus unloaded breathing), each model also included as fixed effects the experimental sequence (starting the experiment with unloaded or loaded breathing) and the interaction between the experimental sequence and the experimental condition. The statistical significance of the interactions was assessed using the likelihood ratio test. All p-values were two-sided and statistical significance was set at p=0.05. All analyses were performed using R for Windows (version 3.6.1) [43] with the lme4 [44], emmeans [45] and tidyverse [46] packages.

Results

Forty healthy subjects were randomly assigned either to the sequence “loaded breathing/unloaded breathing” (n=20) or to the sequence “unloaded breathing/loaded breathing” (n=20). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (table 1). Experimentally-induced dyspnoea (with a self-rated intensity of six out of 10 on a visual analogue scale) was obtained in all subjects at a median threshold level of 4.75 (interquartile range (IQR) 3.00–7.62) on the inspiratory threshold device. Oxygen saturation was stable during the entire experiment with no drop during experimentally-induced dyspnoea (SpO2 99%, IQR 98–100%). Differences in locomotion and neuropsychological test performance between conditions are reported in table 2. Mean estimated values±sdfor each test according to respiratory conditions are provided in supplementary table S1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Baseline characteristics of participants

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Results summary

Motor function

The mean time to perform the TUG test was 8.97 ±1.35 s during unloaded breathing and 9.72±1.54 s during loaded breathing, with an estimated difference of −0.75 s (95% CI −1.01 to −0.49 s) (p<0.001) between conditions (figure 2a). An interaction between experimental conditions (unloaded or loaded breathing) and experimental sequence (starting the experiment with unloaded breathing or starting it with loaded breathing) was demonstrated for the TUG test (p=0.005) (figure 2b). We did not observe a difference between conditions or an interaction for the iTUG Test. Conversely, Δ time increased with loaded breathing compared to unloaded breathing (estimated difference=−0.08 s, 95% CI −0.14 to −0.02 s) (p=0.011), with no interaction between conditions and sequences.

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

Timed Up and Go (TUG) test results. The thick line within a box plot represents the median, the boundary of the box closest to zero indicates the 25th percentile and that furthest from zero the 75th percentile. The whiskers above and below the box indicate the 10th and 90th percentiles, while points above the upper whisker indicate outliers outside the 90th percentile. a) Boxplots depicting subjects' TUG test performance during the calm breathing phase compared to the experimentally-induced dyspnoea phase, independent of experimental sequence. b) Boxplots depicting subjects' TUG test performance during the calm breathing phase compared to the experimentally-induced dyspnoea phase, classified by experimental sequence.

Neuropsychological tests

Executive function

Categorical and verbal fluency tests both demonstrated the same profile. While subjects were able to produce more words during unloaded breathing compared to loaded breathing, the effect of the experimental conditions was more pronounced for those who started the experiment with loaded breathing, as a result of an interaction between the experimental conditions and the experimental sequence (p=0.003 for verbal fluency and p=0.004 for categorical fluency). For TMT A, although no differences in time to perform the test were observed between experimental conditions, subjects who started the experiment with loaded breathing had much improved performance times with unloaded breathing, as a result of an interaction between the experimental conditions and the experimental sequence (p<0.001). For TMT B, no differences in time to perform the test were observed between experimental conditions and, as for TMT A, an interaction was found between the experimental conditions and the experimental sequence (p<0.001). However, subjects who started the experiment with unloaded breathing performed better during the second condition compared to those who started with loaded breathing.

Processing speed

Overall, the number of correct associations performed during the CODE test seemed to be higher during unloaded breathing compared to loaded breathing (difference in correct associations between conditions: 4.13, 95% CI −0.27 to 8.52) (p=0.07). Furthermore, subjects who started the experiment with loaded breathing had much improved performance with unloading breathing, as a result of an interaction between the experimental conditions and the experimental sequence (p<0.001).

Working memory

No differences between conditions were observed for both direct and indirect digit span. However, subjects who started the experiment with loaded breathing had much improved performance with unloading breathing, as a result of an interaction between the experimental conditions and the experimental sequence (p=0.03 for direct digit span and p=0.008 for indirect digit span).

Discussion

In this randomised, crossover trial of experimental dyspnoea in healthy subjects, we found that experimental dyspnoea (to a predetermined intensity of six out of 10 on a visual analogue scale) had a major impact on locomotion and cognitive function in a sample of highly educated, younger adults. Our data support previous evidence of dyspnoea–cognition interactions [15–18] and suggest a plausible causal association between dyspnoea and brain function leading to altered locomotion and cognition. The crossover design also highlighted that alleviation of dyspnoea had a positive effect on locomotion and cognition.

Among locomotion parameters, gait speed is considered as the “sixth vital sign” [47] and mainly depends upon exercise capacity related to cardiorespiratory fitness (but also the integrity of the musculoskeletal, peripheral and central nervous systems). Reduced gait speed is associated with a poor clinical outcome in ageing and is associated with mortality [48]. Only a few studies have focussed on gait speed in respiratory disease, as the 6-min walk test and the incremental shuttle walk are historically so important in quantifying cardiorespiratory reserve and exercise tolerance in this field. However, gait speed (as measured by the 4-m gait speed) correlates with exercise capacity, dyspnoea and health-related quality of life [49] and is a predictor of hospital readmission for acute exacerbation of COPD [50]. The 4-m gait speed is also responsive to pulmonary rehabilitation [51] and has been proposed as a promising functional assessment tool in COPD in order to inform the clinician about many functional aspects and overall outcome [52].

As suggested in a previous study by our group, albeit with no formal demonstration [15], dyspnoea might independently impact on gait through sharing of neural networks with cognitive functions. In the present study, experimentally-induced dyspnoea increased time to perform the TUG test and consistently impacted on cognition across all neuropsychological tests, particularly for subjects starting the experiment with the loaded breathing condition. Indeed, dual-tasking experimental paradigms state that two tasks performed simultaneously may have a negative impact on each other when they both depend on similar cortical networks [53], as demonstrated here. The impact of dyspnoea on the time to perform the TUG test (+8.4% from baseline) and on the neuropsychological tests in our trial is large, especially when considering that only highly educated young subjects were included. Recent evidence from a large cohort also suggests that challenging gait speed with a concurrent cognitive task may represent a sensitive marker in younger subjects to assess brain health and cognitive function. This calls for rethinking locomotion and gait speed, not only as a geriatric index of frailty but also as a surrogate marker of brain function in younger subjects or in patients with chronic respiratory disease. For instance, in patients surviving an exacerbation of COPD, the development of a test to challenge gait speed with a respiratory load at hospital discharge could inform the clinician about those patients more likely to present with or to develop poor cognition. The clinician would thus be aware of which patients would be at risk of poor adherence to medical treatment and thus would be at increased risk of readmission [54].

The current observations that dyspnoea is associated with poor executive function, attention and processing speed are in line with previous findings showing that chronic respiratory diseases are associated with cognitive impairment. However, it has been consistently reported that other intermediate factors, such as altered blood gases [5, 55], reduced lung function [11, 56], persistent cigarette smoking [57], vascular disease [10, 58, 59], loss of hippocampal volume and inflammatory mediator-related neuronal damage [60, 61], are responsible for this association with cognition. As lung dysfunction and disease severity do not fully explain the development of cognitive impairment, our findings expand current knowledge by highlighting that dyspnoea per se is independently associated with locomotion and cognition in a plausible causal relationship.

Alleviation of dyspnoea consistently improved locomotion and cognition across all neuropsychological tests in our study, suggesting a possible learning effect. However, this observation also suggests that addressing chronic or persistent breathlessness as a syndrome with a specific treatment, in addition to treating the underlying respiratory condition, may also improve outcomes [62, 63].

The dyspnoea–inactivity vicious circle model in COPD is now supported by real-life data that has bridged a gap in our knowledge by identifying dyspnoea as a major endpoint in a chain of events leading to disability [64, 65]. More research is needed to determine where cognitive dysfunction stands in this chain of events and whether a specific intervention on dyspnoea itself might reverse the vicious circle. At present, opiates are the only evidence-based pharmacologic treatment to target dyspnoea. Immediate-release morphine has been shown to improve exercise-induced breathlessness and exercise endurance in a significant proportion of COPD patients with advanced disease [66]. Our findings may support the notion that such a treatment would also have an impact on locomotion and cognition while respiratory mechanics are unchanged, thus providing a definitive demonstration that dyspnoea impacts on cognitive function.

Our study has some potential limitations. First, we did not assess any modification of brain activity by electroencephalography or functional MRI, nor did we assess arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) or a surrogate thereof during the experiment. Indeed, we considered that using a randomised trial of experimentally-induced dyspnoea would provide sufficient evidence to infer that dyspnoea impacts on cognition and locomotion. It is now firmly established that respiratory loading modifies respiratory-related cortical activity [67–71] and recent evidence suggests that such a modification is associated with impaired cognitive performance (VENTIPSY trial: NCT03095729; Prof. T. Similowski, personal communication). Moreover, the respiratory system has a remarkable ability to fight externally applied mechanical loads to maintain alveolar ventilation within normal range [72]. Secondly, our findings cannot be generalised to an older population with chronic respiratory diseases, in which dyspnoea at an intensity of four out of 10 is already clinically relevant [73]. Indeed, we specifically focussed on high functioning young adults. Interestingly, it was easy to artificially induce cognitive impairment in young healthy brains with the simple method of respiratory loading and this should certainly open up research avenues devoted to exploring the interaction between dyspnoea and cognition in older adults. Thirdly, acute dyspnoea was induced in a secured experimental setting and does not reflect the chronic condition associated with respiratory disease. Therefore, our results may not reflect the interactions between physiological, psychological, social and environmental factors involved in secondary physiological and behavioural responses to refractory dyspnoea in the clinical setting.

Conclusions

Acute experimental dyspnoea can negatively impact on locomotion and cognition in a reversible manner by challenging shared neural substrates. These findings challenge current understanding of non-respiratory symptoms of chronic respiratory disease and will provide a rationale for future clinical interventions aimed at improving locomotion and cognition by focussing on alleviating dyspnoea.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary material ERJ-00054-2020.SUPPLEMENT

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-00054-2020.Shareable

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Rosemary Sudan (Freelance Technical Editor) for editorial assistance.

Footnotes

  • This article has an editorial commentary: https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01096-2020

    This article has supplementary material available from erj.ersjournals.com

  • This study is registered as a clinical trial: Basec ID 2016-00807. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Dan Adler, upon reasonable request.

  • Author contributions: D. Lawi: study conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript. E. Dupuis-Lozeron: study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. G. Berra: study conception and design, acquisition of data, critical manuscript revision. G. Allali: study conception and design, interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. T. Similowski: study conception and design, interpretation of data, critical manuscript revision. D. Adler: study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript.

  • Conflict of interest: D. Lawi has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: E. Dupuis-Lozeron has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: G. Berra has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: G. Allali has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: T. Similowski reports personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis France; personal fees from AstraZeneca France, Boehringer Ingelheim France, GSK France, TEVA France, Chiesi France, Lungpacer Inc. and ADEP Assistance; and grants from Air Liquide Medical Systems, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: D. Adler reports grants from The Geneva Pulmonary League (grant number 73732), during the conduct of the study.

  • Support statement: The study is funded by The Geneva Pulmonary League (grant number 73732). Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received January 15, 2020.
  • Accepted March 24, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2020
https://www.ersjournals.com/user-licence

References

  1. ↵
    1. Dodd JW
    . Lung disease as a determinant of cognitive decline and dementia. Alzheimers Res Ther 2015; 7: 32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Villeneuve S,
    2. Pepin V,
    3. Rahayel S, et al.
    Mild cognitive impairment in moderate to severe COPD: a preliminary study. Chest 2012; 142: 1516–1523.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Langa KM,
    2. Levine DA
    . The diagnosis and management of mild cognitive impairment: a clinical review. JAMA 2014; 312: 2551–2561.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Lopez-Campos JL,
    2. Tan W,
    3. Soriano JB
    . Global burden of COPD. Respirology 2016; 21: 14–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Thakur N,
    2. Blanc PD,
    3. Julian LJ, et al.
    COPD and cognitive impairment: the role of hypoxemia and oxygen therapy. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2010; 5: 263–269.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Maclay JD,
    2. MacNee W
    . Cardiovascular disease in COPD: mechanisms. Chest 2013; 143: 798–807.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Andrianopoulos V,
    2. Gloeckl R,
    3. Vogiatzis I, et al.
    Cognitive impairment in COPD: should cognitive evaluation be part of respiratory assessment? Breathe (Sheff) 2017; 13: e1–e9.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Lawi D,
    2. Berra G,
    3. Janssens JP, et al.
    BPCO et troubles cognitifs [COPD and cognitive impairment]. Rev Med Suisse 2018; 14: 2066–2069.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Chyou PH,
    2. White LR,
    3. Yano K, et al.
    Pulmonary function measures as predictors and correlates of cognitive functioning in later life. Am J Epidemiol 1996; 143: 750–756.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Pathan SS,
    2. Gottesman RF,
    3. Mosley TH, et al.
    Association of lung function with cognitive decline and dementia: the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) study. Eur J Neurol 2011; 18: 888–898.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Lutsey PL,
    2. Chen N,
    3. Mirabelli MC, et al.
    Impaired lung function, lung disease, and risk of incident dementia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019; 199: 1385–1396.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Raux M,
    2. Tyvaert L,
    3. Ferreira M, et al.
    Functional magnetic resonance imaging suggests automatization of the cortical response to inspiratory threshold loading in humans. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2013; 189: 571–580.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Allard E,
    2. Canzoneri E,
    3. Adler D, et al.
    Interferences between breathing, experimental dyspnoea and bodily self-consciousness. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 9990.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Adler D,
    2. Herbelin B,
    3. Similowski T, et al.
    Breathing and sense of self: visuo-respiratory conflicts alter body self-consciousness. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2014; 203: 68–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Nierat MC,
    2. Demiri S,
    3. Dupuis-Lozeron E, et al.
    When breathing interferes with cognition: experimental inspiratory loading alters Timed Up-and-Go test in normal humans. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0151625.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Juravle G,
    2. Reicherts P,
    3. Riechmann-Weinstein M, et al.
    Neural responses to affective pictures while anticipating and perceiving respiratory threat. Psychophysiology 2017; 54: 182–192.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Sucec J,
    2. Herzog M,
    3. Van den Bergh O, et al.
    The effects of repeated dyspnea exposure on response inhibition. Front Physiol 2019; 10: 663.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Vinckier F,
    2. Morélot-Panzini C,
    3. Similowski T
    . Dyspnoea modifies the recognition of fearful expressions by healthy humans. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1702253.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Sucec J,
    2. Herzog M,
    3. Van den Bergh O, et al.
    The effect of dyspnea on recognition memory. Int J Psychophysiol 2020; 148: 50–58.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Raux M,
    2. Straus C,
    3. Redolfi S, et al.
    Electroencephalographic evidence for pre-motor cortex activation during inspiratory loading in humans. J Physiol 2007; 578: 569–578.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Tremoureux L,
    2. Raux M,
    3. Ranohavimparany A, et al.
    Electroencephalographic evidence for a respiratory-related cortical activity specific of the preparation of prephonatory breaths. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2014; 204: 64–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Raux M,
    2. Ray P,
    3. Prella M, et al.
    Cerebral cortex activation during experimentally induced ventilator fighting in normal humans receiving noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology 2007; 107: 746–755.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Morawiec E,
    2. Raux M,
    3. Kindler F, et al.
    Expiratory load compensation is associated with electroencephalographic premotor potentials in humans. J Appl Physiol 2015; 118: 1023–1030.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Nguyen DAT,
    2. Boswell-Ruys CL,
    3. McBain RA, et al.
    Inspiratory pre-motor potentials during quiet breathing in ageing and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Physiol 2018; 596: 6173–6189.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Hausdorff JM
    . Gait dynamics, fractals and falls: finding meaning in the stride-to-stride fluctuations of human walking. Hum Mov Sci 2007; 26: 555–589.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Allali G,
    2. Kressig RW,
    3. Assal F, et al.
    Changes in gait while backward counting in demented older adults with frontal lobe dysfunction. Gait Posture 2007; 26: 572–576.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Beauchet O,
    2. Annweiler C,
    3. Montero-Odasso M, et al.
    Gait control: a specific subdomain of executive function? J Neuroeng Rehabil 2012; 9: 12.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Snijders AH,
    2. van de Warrenburg BP,
    3. Giladi N, et al.
    Neurological gait disorders in elderly people: clinical approach and classification. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6: 63–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    1. Allali G,
    2. van der Meulen M,
    3. Beauchet O, et al.
    The neural basis of age-related changes in motor imagery of gait: an fMRI study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2014; 69: 1389–1398.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Podsiadlo D,
    2. Richardson S
    . The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39: 142–148.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Allali G,
    2. Laidet M,
    3. Assal F, et al.
    Adapted timed up and go: a rapid clinical test to assess gait and cognition in multiple sclerosis. Eur Neurol 2012; 67: 116–120.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Lallart E,
    2. Jouvent R,
    3. Herrmann FR, et al.
    Gait and motor imagery of gait in early schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 2012; 198: 366–370.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Beauchet O,
    2. Annweiler C,
    3. Assal F, et al.
    Imagined Timed Up & Go test: a new tool to assess higher-level gait and balance disorders in older adults? J Neurol Sci 2010; 294: 102–106.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Laveneziana P,
    2. Albuquerque A,
    3. Aliverti A, et al.
    ERS statement on respiratory muscle testing at rest and during exercise. Eur Respir J 2019; 53: 1801214.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Meek PM,
    2. Banzett R,
    3. Parsall MB, et al.
    Reliability and validity of the multidimensional dyspnea profile. Chest 2012; 141: 1546–1553.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. Banzett RB,
    2. O'Donnell CR,
    3. Guilfoyle TE, et al.
    Multidimensional dyspnea profile: an instrument for clinical and laboratory research. Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 1681–1691.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Bahureksa L,
    2. Najafi B,
    3. Saleh A, et al.
    The impact of mild cognitive impairment on gait and balance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using instrumented assessment. Gerontology 2017; 63: 67–83.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. McGough EL,
    2. Kelly VE,
    3. Logsdon RG, et al.
    Associations between physical performance and executive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: gait speed and the timed “up & go” test. Phys Ther 2011; 91: 1198–1207.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Cardebat D,
    2. Doyon B,
    3. Puel M, et al.
    [Formal and semantic lexical evocation in normal subjects. Performance and dynamics of production as a function of sex, age and educational level]. Acta Neurol Belg 1990; 90: 207–217.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. Reitan RM
    . The relation of the trail making test to organic brain damage. J Consult Psychol 1955; 19: 393–394.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Matsuda O,
    2. Saito M,
    3. Kato M, et al.
    Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III profile in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease: performance in subtests sensitive to and resistant to normal decline with ageing. Psychogeriatrics 2015; 15: 1–6.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Wechsler D
    . Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). 4th Edn. Pearson, 2008. www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Cognition-%26-Neuro/Wechsler-Adult-Intelligence-Scale-%7C-Fourth-Edition/p/100000392.html
  43. ↵
    R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018.
  44. ↵
    1. Bates D,
    2. Mächler M,
    3. Bolker BM, et al.
    Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 2015; 67: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01. www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v067i01
  45. ↵
    1. Lenth R
    . Emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. InR package 1.4.1. Vienna, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
  46. ↵
    1. Wickham H
    . Tidyverse: easily install and load the ‘Tidyverse’. In R package 1.2.1. Vienna, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse
  47. ↵
    1. Fritz S,
    2. Lusardi M
    . White paper: “walking speed: the sixth vital sign”. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2009; 32: 46–49.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Studenski S,
    2. Perera S,
    3. Patel K, et al.
    Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA 2011; 305: 50–58.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    1. Kon SS,
    2. Patel MS,
    3. Canavan JL, et al.
    Reliability and validity of 4-metre gait speed in COPD. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 333–340.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. ↵
    1. Kon SS,
    2. Jones SE,
    3. Schofield SJ, et al.
    Gait speed and readmission following hospitalisation for acute exacerbations of COPD: a prospective study. Thorax 2015; 70: 1131–1137.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Kon SS,
    2. Canavan JL,
    3. Nolan CM, et al.
    The 4-metre gait speed in COPD: responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference. Eur Respir J 2014; 43: 1298–1305.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Karpman C,
    2. Benzo R
    . Gait speed as a measure of functional status in COPD patients. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2014; 9: 1315–1320.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Blumen HM,
    2. Holtzer R,
    3. Brown LL, et al.
    Behavioral and neural correlates of imagined walking and walking-while-talking in the elderly. Hum Brain Mapp 2014; 35: 4090–4104.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Chang SS,
    2. Chen S,
    3. McAvay GJ, et al.
    Effect of coexisting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cognitive impairment on health outcomes in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60: 1839–1846.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Klein M,
    2. Gauggel S,
    3. Sachs G, et al.
    Impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on attention functions. Respir Med 2010; 104: 52–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Sachdev PS,
    2. Anstey KJ,
    3. Parslow RA, et al.
    Pulmonary function, cognitive impairment and brain atrophy in a middle-aged community sample. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006; 21: 300–308.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  57. ↵
    1. Hill RD,
    2. Nilsson LG,
    3. Nyberg L, et al.
    Cigarette smoking and cognitive performance in healthy Swedish adults. Age Ageing 2003; 32: 548–550.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. ↵
    1. Haley AP,
    2. Forman DE,
    3. Poppas A, et al.
    Carotid artery intima-media thickness and cognition in cardiovascular disease. Int J Cardiol 2007; 121: 148–154.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Müllerova H,
    2. Agusti A,
    3. Erqou S, et al.
    Cardiovascular comorbidity in COPD: systematic literature review. Chest 2013; 144: 1163–1178.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Stacey D,
    2. Ciobanu LG,
    3. Baune BT
    . A systematic review on the association between inflammatory genes and cognitive decline in non-demented elderly individuals. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2017; 27: 568–588.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Anblagan D,
    2. Valdés Hernández MC,
    3. Ritchie SJ, et al.
    Coupled changes in hippocampal structure and cognitive ability in later life. Brain Behav 2018; 8: e00838–e00838.
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Johnson MJ,
    2. Yorke J,
    3. Hansen-Flaschen J, et al.
    Chronic breathlessness: re-thinking the symptom. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1702326.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Morélot-Panzini C,
    2. Adler D,
    3. Aguilaniu B, et al.
    Breathlessness despite optimal pathophysiological treatment: on the relevance of being chronic. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1701159.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    1. Ramon MA,
    2. Ter Riet G,
    3. Carsin AE, et al.
    The dyspnoea-inactivity vicious circle in COPD: development and external validation of a conceptual model. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1800079.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. Adler D
    . Bridging the gap in knowledge between dyspnoea scientists and clinicians. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: 1801308.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Abdallah SJ,
    2. Wilkinson-Maitland C,
    3. Saad N, et al.
    Effect of morphine on breathlessness and exercise endurance in advanced COPD: a randomised crossover trial. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1701235.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  67. ↵
    1. Herigstad M,
    2. Faull OK,
    3. Hayen A, et al.
    Treating breathlessness via the brain: changes in brain activity over a course of pulmonary rehabilitation. Eur Respir J 2017; 50: 1701029.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Stoeckel MC,
    2. Esser RW,
    3. Gamer M, et al.
    Dyspnea catastrophizing and neural activations during the anticipation and perception of dyspnea. Psychophysiology 2018; 55: e13004.
    OpenUrl
    1. Hudson AL,
    2. Navarro-Sune X,
    3. Martinerie J, et al.
    Electroencephalographic detection of respiratory-related cortical activity in humans: from event-related approaches to continuous connectivity evaluation. J Neurophysiol 2016; 115: 2214–2223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Banzett RB,
    2. Mulnier HE,
    3. Murphy K, et al.
    Breathlessness in humans activates insular cortex. Neuroreport 2000; 11: 2117–2120.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  68. ↵
    1. Seino T,
    2. Masaoka Y,
    3. Inagaki K, et al.
    Breathlessness-related brain activation: electroencephalogram dipole modeling analysis. Showa Univ J Med Sci 2015; 27: 11–19.
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Yanos J,
    2. Banner A,
    3. Stanko R, et al.
    Ventilatory responses to inspiratory threshold loading in humans. J Appl Physiol 1990; 68: 2511–2520.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  70. ↵
    1. Stevens JP,
    2. Baker K,
    3. Howell MD, et al.
    Prevalence and predictive value of dyspnea ratings in hospitalized patients: pilot studies. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0152601.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 56 Issue 2 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 56 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Experimental dyspnoea interferes with locomotion and cognition: a randomised trial
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Experimental dyspnoea interferes with locomotion and cognition: a randomised trial
David Lawi, Elise Dupuis-Lozeron, Gregory Berra, Gilles Allali, Thomas Similowski, Dan Adler
European Respiratory Journal Aug 2020, 56 (2) 2000054; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00054-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Experimental dyspnoea interferes with locomotion and cognition: a randomised trial
David Lawi, Elise Dupuis-Lozeron, Gregory Berra, Gilles Allali, Thomas Similowski, Dan Adler
European Respiratory Journal Aug 2020, 56 (2) 2000054; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00054-2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Supplementary material
    • Shareable PDF
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Respiratory clinical practice
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Original Articles

  • Ambulatory management of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax
  • Systematic assessment of respiratory health in illness susceptible athletes
  • Identifying early PAH biomarkers in systemic sclerosis
Show more Original Articles

Dyspnoea

  • Perspectives on palliative oxygen for breathlessness
  • Assessing intensity of exertional dyspnoea during cycle ergometry
  • MCIDs in intensity and unpleasantness of chronic breathlessness
Show more Dyspnoea

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society