A Biofeedback App to Instruct Abdominal Breathing (Breathing-Mentor): Pilot Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Deep and slow abdominal breathing is an important skill for the management of stress and pain. However, despite multiple proofs on the effectiveness of biofeedback, most breathing apps remain limited to pacing specific breathing patterns, without sensor feedback on the actual breathing behavior. Objective To fill this gap, an app named Breathing-Mentor was developed. This app combines effective visualization of the instruction with biofeedback on deep abdominal breathing, based on the mobile phone’s accelerometers. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate users’ feedback and breathing behavior during initial contact with the app. Methods To reveal the possible effects of biofeedback, two versions of the mobile app were developed. Both contained the same visual instruction, but only the full version included additional biofeedback. In total, 40 untrained participants were randomly assigned to one of the two versions of the app. They had to follow the app’s instructions as closely as possible for 5 min. Results The group with additional biofeedback showed an increased signal-to-noise ratio for instructed breathing frequency (0.1 Hz) compared with those using visual instruction without biofeedback (F1,37=4.18; P<.048). During this initial contact with the full version, self-reported relaxation effectivity was, however, lower than the group using visual instruction without biofeedback (t37=−2.36; P=.02), probably owing to increased cognitive workload to follow the instruction. Conclusions This study supports the feasibility and usefulness of incorporating biofeedback in the Breathing-Mentor app to train abdominal breathing. Immediate effects on relaxation levels should, however, not be expected for untrained users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".