Key result
Focused use of a tangible breathing guide significantly improved cognitive performance and reduced anxiety compared to an ambient modality, though dynamic biofeedback did not outperform a static sham.
Why the study?
Does a tangible biofeedback device with adapted breathing guidance reduce psychological stress and improve cognitive performance compared to a fixed breathing guide in healthy volunteers?
RCT (n=36)
No
Does a tangible biofeedback device with adapted breathing guidance reduce psychological stress and improve cognitive performance compared to a fixed breathing guide in healthy volunteers?
Absolute Event Rate: 11.23% vs 4.21%
p-value: p=<0.01
A tangible biofeedback device requiring focused attention improved cognitive performance and relaxation compared to an ambient modality, but adapting the breathing guide to heart rate did not provide additional benefits over a fixed guide.
Hypothesis-generating for tangible breathing guides in anxiety and cognition; should not change practice without further trials.
Anxiety is a common health issue that can occur throughout one's existence. In this pilot study we explore an alternative technique to regulate it: biofeedback. The long-term objective is to offer an ecological device that could help people cope with anxiety, by exposing their inner state in a comprehensive manner. We propose a first iteration of this device, "Inner Flower", that uses heart rate to adapt a breathing guide to the user, and we investigate its efficiency and usability. Traditionally, such device requires user's full attention. We propose an ambient modality during which the device operates in the peripheral vision. Beside comparing "Ambient" and "Focus" conditions, we also compare the biofeedback with a sham feedback (fixed breathing guide). We found that the Focus group demonstrated higher relaxation and performance on a cognitive task (N-back). However, there was no noticeable effect of the Ambient feedback, and the biofeedback condition did not yield any significant difference when compared to the sham feedback. These results, while promising, highlight the pitfalls of any research related to biofeedback, where it is difficult to fully comprehend the underlying mechanisms of such technique.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hamon et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Psychological stress (n=36). Inner Flower tangible interface (Focus vs Ambient) vs. Ambient modality was evaluated on Change in N-back task performance accuracy (p=<0.01). Focused use of a tangible breathing guide significantly improved cognitive performance and reduced anxiety compared to an ambient modality, though dynamic biofeedback did not outperform a static sham.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: