Why the study?
Fast-paced work environments can cause shallow breathing that exacerbates stress and anxiety, prompting the development of micro-interventions to promote deep breathing during stressors.
Do game-based breathing guidance interventions with biofeedback or pacing improve deep breathing and relaxation in healthy individuals?
Do game-based breathing guidance interventions with biofeedback or pacing improve deep breathing and relaxation in healthy individuals?
Game-based breathing interventions with biofeedback improve skill transfer and are more enjoyable, though they may require more training time to achieve deep breathing consistently compared to non-game interventions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Game biofeedback may aid deep breathing skill transfer under stress; leaves open optimal real-world integration with pacing or gaming.
Working in a fast-paced environment can lead to shallow breathing, which can exacerbate stress and anxiety. To address this issue, this study aimed to develop micro-interventions that can promote deep breathing in the presence of stressors. First, we examined two types of breathing guides to help individuals learn deep breathing: providing their breathing rate as a biofeedback signal, and providing a pacing signal to which they can synchronize their breathing. Second, we examined the extent to which these two breathing guides can be integrated into a casual game, to increase enjoyment and skill transfer. We used a 2 × 2 factorial design, with breathing guide (biofeedback vs. pacing) and gaming (game vs. no game) as independent factors. This led to four experimental groups: biofeedback alone, biofeedback integrated into a game, pacing alone, and pacing integrated into a game. In a first experiment, we evaluated the four experimental treatments in a laboratory setting, where 30 healthy participants completed a stressful task before and after performing one of the four treatments (or a control condition) while wearing a chest strap that measured their breathing rate. Two-way ANOVA of breathing rates, with treatment (5 groups) and time (pre-test, post-test) as independent factors shows a significant effect for time [ F (4, 50) = 18.49, p < 0.001, ηtime2=0.27 ] and treatment [ F (4, 50) = 2.54, p = 0.05, η 2 = 0.17], but no interaction effects. Post-hoc t-tests between pre and post-test breathing rates shows statistical significance for the game with biofeedback group [ t (5) = 5.94, p = 0.001, d = 2.68], but not for the other four groups, indicating that only game with biofeedback led to skill transfer at post-test. Further, two-way ANOVA of self-reported enjoyment scores on the four experimental treatments, with breathing guide and game as independent factors, found a main effect for game [ F(1,20)=24.49,p<0.001, ηgame2=0.55 ], indicating that the game-based interventions were more enjoyable than the non-game interventions. In a second experiment, conducted in an ambulatory setting, 36 healthy participants practiced one of the four experimental treatments as they saw fit over the course of a day. We found that the game-based interventions were practiced more often than the non-game interventions [ t (34) = 1.99, p = 0.027, d = 0.67]. However, we also found that participants in the game-based interventions could only achieve deep breathing 50% of the times, whereas participants in the non-game groups succeeded 85% of the times, which indicated that the former need adequate training time to be effective. Finally, participant feedback indicated that the non-game interventions were better at promoting in-the-moment relaxation, whereas the game-based interventions were more successful at promoting deep breathing during stressful tasks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gummidela et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: