Cargando…

Inconclusive evidence that breathing shapes pupil dynamics in humans: a systematic review

More than 50 years ago, it was proposed that breathing shapes pupil dynamics. This widespread idea is also the general understanding currently. However, there has been no attempt at synthesizing the progress on this topic since. We therefore conducted a systematic review of the literature on how bre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schaefer, Martin, Edwards, Sylvia, Nordén, Frans, Lundström, Johan N., Arshamian, Artin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9816272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35871662
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00424-022-02729-0
_version_ 1784864496432447488
author Schaefer, Martin
Edwards, Sylvia
Nordén, Frans
Lundström, Johan N.
Arshamian, Artin
author_facet Schaefer, Martin
Edwards, Sylvia
Nordén, Frans
Lundström, Johan N.
Arshamian, Artin
author_sort Schaefer, Martin
collection PubMed
description More than 50 years ago, it was proposed that breathing shapes pupil dynamics. This widespread idea is also the general understanding currently. However, there has been no attempt at synthesizing the progress on this topic since. We therefore conducted a systematic review of the literature on how breathing affects pupil dynamics in humans. We assessed the effect of breathing phase, depth, rate, and route (nose/mouth). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and conducted a systematic search of the scientific literature databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PsycInfo in November 2021. Thirty-one studies were included in the final analyses, and their quality was assessed with QualSyst. The study findings were summarized in a descriptive manner, and the strength of the evidence for each parameter was estimated following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The effect of breathing phase on pupil dynamics was rated as “low” (6 studies). The effect of breathing depth and breathing rate (6 and 20 studies respectively) were rated as “very low”. Breathing route was not investigated by any of the included studies. Overall, we show that there is, at best, inconclusive evidence for an effect of breathing on pupil dynamics in humans. Finally, we suggest some possible confounders to be considered, and outstanding questions that need to be addressed, to answer this fundamental question. Trial registration: This systematic review has been registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number: CRD42022285044. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00424-022-02729-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9816272
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98162722023-01-07 Inconclusive evidence that breathing shapes pupil dynamics in humans: a systematic review Schaefer, Martin Edwards, Sylvia Nordén, Frans Lundström, Johan N. Arshamian, Artin Pflugers Arch Review More than 50 years ago, it was proposed that breathing shapes pupil dynamics. This widespread idea is also the general understanding currently. However, there has been no attempt at synthesizing the progress on this topic since. We therefore conducted a systematic review of the literature on how breathing affects pupil dynamics in humans. We assessed the effect of breathing phase, depth, rate, and route (nose/mouth). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and conducted a systematic search of the scientific literature databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PsycInfo in November 2021. Thirty-one studies were included in the final analyses, and their quality was assessed with QualSyst. The study findings were summarized in a descriptive manner, and the strength of the evidence for each parameter was estimated following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The effect of breathing phase on pupil dynamics was rated as “low” (6 studies). The effect of breathing depth and breathing rate (6 and 20 studies respectively) were rated as “very low”. Breathing route was not investigated by any of the included studies. Overall, we show that there is, at best, inconclusive evidence for an effect of breathing on pupil dynamics in humans. Finally, we suggest some possible confounders to be considered, and outstanding questions that need to be addressed, to answer this fundamental question. Trial registration: This systematic review has been registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number: CRD42022285044. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00424-022-02729-0. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-07-25 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9816272/ /pubmed/35871662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00424-022-02729-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Schaefer, Martin
Edwards, Sylvia
Nordén, Frans
Lundström, Johan N.
Arshamian, Artin
Inconclusive evidence that breathing shapes pupil dynamics in humans: a systematic review
title Inconclusive evidence that breathing shapes pupil dynamics in humans: a systematic review
title_full Inconclusive evidence that breathing shapes pupil dynamics in humans: a systematic review
title_fullStr Inconclusive evidence that breathing shapes pupil dynamics in humans: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Inconclusive evidence that breathing shapes pupil dynamics in humans: a systematic review
title_short Inconclusive evidence that breathing shapes pupil dynamics in humans: a systematic review
title_sort inconclusive evidence that breathing shapes pupil dynamics in humans: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9816272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35871662
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00424-022-02729-0
work_keys_str_mv AT schaefermartin inconclusiveevidencethatbreathingshapespupildynamicsinhumansasystematicreview
AT edwardssylvia inconclusiveevidencethatbreathingshapespupildynamicsinhumansasystematicreview
AT nordenfrans inconclusiveevidencethatbreathingshapespupildynamicsinhumansasystematicreview
AT lundstromjohann inconclusiveevidencethatbreathingshapespupildynamicsinhumansasystematicreview
AT arshamianartin inconclusiveevidencethatbreathingshapespupildynamicsinhumansasystematicreview