Discrimination of transiently applied mechanical loads: breathing vs. pulling

Abstract

Two groups of 24 subjects each attempted to discriminate between large elastic and resistive loads during 50 randomized presentations of each load. Breathers inspired from the loads through a J valve, whereas pullers reciprocally stroked the plunger of a 2-liter syringe connected to the J valve. A range of load durations was obtained in each subject by prematurely unloading approximately one-half of the trials at graded times from their onset. Breathers produced random discrimination scores [50.8 +/- 2.5% (SE) correct] when loaded inspirations were shorter than unloaded inspirations [trials in which both loads induced equal airway pressure (and probably respiratory muscle tension) waveforms] and nonrandom discrimination scores (65.7 +/- 2.8% correct) when loaded inspirations were longer than unloaded inspirations (trials in which both loads induced different waveforms). In contrast, pullers produced nonrandom discrimination scores (62.2 +/- 2.9% correct) when loaded airflow durations were shorter than unloaded inspirations [trials in which both loads induced equal line pressure (and therefore limb muscle tension) waveforms]. Supplemental audio feedback related to instantaneous airflow (an expression of movement) improved load perception in breathers (to 64.2 +/- 3.0% correct; P < 0.01), indicating that airflow feedback introduced load-specific information that was lacking during breathing but redundant during pulling. In support of this hypothesis, airflow feedback by itself enabled a third group of listeners to identify load type with equal accuracy as pullers but with greater accuracy than breathers. These findings suggest that 1) uniformed subjects rely heavily on feedback from airway pressure and/or muscle tension receptors to perceive added loads to breathing and 2) limb mechanoreceptors provide a more sensitive appreciation of movement than do respiratory mechanoreceptors.