Key result
Controlling respiration enabled subjects to reliably increase heart rate (p < .001) but not decrease it, and biofeedback did not improve heart rate control compared to simple instructions.
Why the study?
Does voluntary control of respiration and biofeedback improve the ability to increase or decrease heart rate in human subjects?
Does voluntary control of respiration and biofeedback improve the ability to increase or decrease heart rate in human subjects?
p-value: p=<.001
Voluntary respiratory control can reliably increase heart rate, but biofeedback does not provide additional benefit for heart rate control over simple instructions.
Respiratory instructions may aid heart rate increases in research settings; leaves open biofeedback value and clinical translation.
Ninety‐six subjects participated in an experiment conducted to determine the separate and combined effects of respiratory control and biofeedback on control of heart rate (HR). The results indicated, first, that controlling respiration enabled subjects to reliably (p < .001) increase HR but did not enable them to decrease HR, and second, that HR biofeedback did not enable subjects to change their HR more than they did when simply instructed to do so and not given biofeedback. These results are consistent with and add to previous findings concerning respiratory control, biofeedback and HR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holmes et al. (1979) studied this question. Respiratory control and biofeedback vs. Simple instructions without biofeedback was evaluated on Control of heart rate (HR) (p=<.001). Controlling respiration enabled subjects to reliably increase heart rate (p < .001) but not decrease it, and biofeedback did not improve heart rate control compared to simple instructions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: