Key result
Tibetan singing bowl protocols show no protocol-specific effects on heart rate variability.
Why the study?
Phase-related changes in heart rate variability during and after exposure to Tibetan singing bowl sounds, and whether these changes differ according to baseline autonomic profiles and sound protocols, required investigation.
Does exposure to Tibetan singing bowl sounds alter heart rate variability indices in university students?
Does exposure to Tibetan singing bowl sounds alter heart rate variability indices in university students?
While cardiac autonomic regulation changed significantly across experimental phases and differed by baseline autonomic profile, different Tibetan singing bowl sound protocols did not produce distinct phase-dependent heart rate variability responses in university students.
Purpose. To investigate phase-related changes in heart rate variability (HRV) during and after exposure to Tibetan singing bowl sounds and to determine whether these changes differed according to baseline autonomic profiles and sound protocols. Materials & Methods. The study included 61 university students (mean age 20.1±2.20 years; 47 women and 14 men) in a within-subject crossover design with repeated measurements. R-R intervals were recorded using a Polar H10 chest-strap sensor and the Research HRV application. Seven HRV indices were analysed: Mean R-R, SDNN, RMSSD, log-transformed Baevsky stress index (log(SI)), SD2/SD1, Sample Entropy, and DFAα1. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess Profile, Phase, Protocol, and their interactions. P-values were adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate procedure. Results. Significant main effects of Phase were observed for Mean R-R, SDNN, RMSSD, log(SI), SD2/SD1, and DFAα1 (all pBH-FDR <0.001), but not for Sample Entropy. No significant main effect of Protocol was identified for any HRV index (all pBH-FDR ≥0.778). Significant Profile × Phase interactions were found for Mean R-R, SDNN, RMSSD, and log(SI) (all pBH-FDR ≤0.009), indicating that phase-related changes differed according to baseline autonomic profile. However, neither Protocol × Phase nor Profile × Protocol × Phase interactions were statistically significant. Conclusions. The findings demonstrate significant phase-related changes in cardiac autonomic regulation during the experimental procedure. However, the absence of protocol-specific interactions provides no evidence that the different Tibetan singing bowl sound protocols produced distinct phase-dependent HRV responses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Furduy et al. (2026) studied Healthy university students (n=61). Tibetan singing bowl sound protocols vs. Different Tibetan singing bowl sound protocols across phases was evaluated on Phase-related changes in seven HRV indices (Mean R-R, SDNN, RMSSD, log(SI), SD2/SD1, Sample Entropy, and DFAα1) (p=<0.001 for Phase main effects (except Sample Entropy); ≥0.778 for Protocol main effects). Tibetan singing bowl sound protocols showed no significant protocol-specific main effects on HRV indices (all pBH-FDR ≥0.778), though phase-related HRV changes occurred (pBH-FDR <0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: