Table 1.

Series of scenarios highlighting discrepancies in physiological conclusions based upon the burst occurrence quantification method and response to stimuli.

In the baseline, subject 1 and 2 have different HRs, and if quantifying SNA based on BF the 2 subjects are equal, but based on BI, subject 1 has higher SNA.

In Trial 1, each subject has an increase in HR of 10 beats min-1 but no change in BF. If drawing conclusions from BI, subject 1 had a decrease in SNA more than double the decrease of subject 2.

In Trial 2, there is no change in HR, but an equal increase in BF for both subjects. A conclusion from BI would indicate that subject 1 had a much greater increase in SNA.

In Trial 3, there is an increase in both HR and BF equally in both subjects. A conclusion from BI would indicate that subject 2 had the greater increase in SNA.

Finally in Trial 4, where both subjects are exercised up to the same HR, and if BF were the same in both subjects, a conclusion from BI would indicate that subject 2 did not change SNA, while subject 1 had a decrease. Interestingly, assuming that mean burst height is equal for both subjects, total activity would be the same in both subjects in each trial.

		HR	BF	BI	Max Change in BF to Ceiling	Max Change in BI to Ceiling	ΔHR	ΔBF	ΔBI	%Δ HR	%Δ BF	%Δ BI
Baseline	Subject 1	40	30	75	10	25	Changes from Baseline
	Subject 2	60	30	50	30	50
Trial 1	Subject 1	50	30	60	20	40	10	0	−15	25	0	−20
	Subject 2	70	30	43	40	57	10	0	−7	17	0	−14
Trial 2	Subject 1	40	40	100	0	0	0	10	25	0	33	33
	Subject 2	60	40	67	20	33	0	10	17	0	33	33
Trial 3	Subject 1	50	40	80	10	20	10	10	5	25	33	7
	Subject 2	70	40	57	30	43	10	10	7	17	33	14
Trial 4	Subject 1	100	50	50	50	50	60	20	−25	150	67	−33
	Subject 2	100	50	50	50	50	40	20	0	67	67	0