4.4 Article

A longitudinal study in youth of heart rate variability at rest and in response to stress

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
卷 73, 期 3, 页码 212-217

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.03.002

关键词

Heart rate variability; Longitudinal study; Sex; Ethnicity

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [HLD86530, HL69999]
  2. American Heart Association [0730156N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Few longitudinal studies have examined ethnic and sex differences, predictors and tracking stabilities of heart rate variability (HRV) at rest and in response to stress in youths and young adults. Methods: Two evaluations were performed approximately 1.5 years apart on 399 youths and young adults (189 European Americans [EAs] and 210 African Americans [AAs]; 190 males and 209 females). HRV was measured at rest and during a video game challenge. Results: AAs showed significantly higher resting root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) of normal R-R intervals and high-frequency (HF) power than EAs (ps < 0.01). Females displayed larger decrease of RMSSD and HF during video game challenge than males (ps < 0.05). These ethnic and sex differences were consistent across 1.5 years. No significant sex difference of resting HRV or ethnic difference of HRV response to stress was observed. In addition to age, ethnicity or sex, baseline resting HRV or HRV response to stress are predictors of the corresponding variables 1.5 years later (ps < 0.01). Furthermore, weight gain indexed by either body mass index or waist circumference predicts declined resting HRV levels during follow up (ps < 0.05). Tracking stabilities were high (> 0.5) for resting HRV, but relatively low (< 0.3) for HRV in response to stress. Conclusion: AAs show higher resting HRV than EAs, and females display greater HRV response to stress than males; and these ethnic and sex differences are consistent across 1.5 years. Resting HRV declines with weight gain. (c) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据