Key result
Visual and vibratory guidance increases short-term heart rate variability during paced breathing compared with no guidance.
Why the study?
Optimal guidance methods for home-based and self-directed resonance frequency breathing practice remain unclear.
Does visual or vibratory guidance improve short-term heart rate variability during resonance frequency breathing in healthy volunteers compared to no guidance?
RCT (n=72)
Open-label
Crossover
Does visual or vibratory guidance improve short-term heart rate variability during resonance frequency breathing in healthy volunteers compared to no guidance?
p-value: p=<0.001
Visual and vibratory guidance methods are similarly effective at improving adherence to paced breathing and increasing short-term heart rate variability compared to no guidance.
May support guidance for home resonance breathing; leaves open optimal methods and clinical benefits.
INTRODUCTION: Resonance frequency breathing is a non-pharmacological self-regulation technique used in heart rate variability biofeedback and complementary health practices. However, optimal guidance methods for home-based and self-directed practice remain unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label crossover trial in 72 healthy volunteers. Participants performed 4min of paced breathing at a predicted resonance rate under three conditions (visual guidance, vibratory guidance, no guidance), with 3-min rest periods before and after each session. The primary outcome was the change in short-term heart rate variability. The secondary outcome was the percentage of time judged as "resonant" based on blinded waveform assessment. RESULTS: Both visual and vibratory guidance were associated with significantly greater increases in heart rate variability during and after paced breathing compared with no guidance (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between visual and vibratory guidance (P = 0.360). The proportion of time judged as resonant was significantly higher with both guidance methods than with no guidance (P < 0.001), without differences between guidance modalities (P = 0.110). CONCLUSION: Visual and vibratory guidance may facilitate adherence to paced breathing at a predicted resonance rate and increase short-term heart rate variability under these conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000052363. Registered 1 October 2023.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xing et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Healthy volunteers (n=72). Visual and vibratory guidance for resonance frequency breathing vs. No guidance was evaluated on Change in short-term heart rate variability (p=<0.001). Visual and vibratory guidance significantly increased short-term heart rate variability during and after 4 minutes of paced breathing compared with no guidance (P < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: