MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286524748 · doi:10.2196/39186

Breathing as an Input Modality in a Gameful Breathing Training App (Breeze 2): Development and Evaluation Study

2022· article· en· W4286524748 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yanick Xavier Lukic, Gisbert Wilhelm Teepe, Elgar Fleisch, Tobias Kowatsch

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreathingComputer scienceWilcoxon signed-rank testModality (human–computer interaction)Relaxation (psychology)Breathing exercisesAudiologyPhysical therapyMedicineArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Slow-paced breathing training can have positive effects on physiological and psychological well-being. Unfortunately, use statistics indicate that adherence to breathing training apps is low. Recent work suggests that gameful breathing training may help overcome this challenge. Objective This study aimed to introduce and evaluate the gameful breathing training app Breeze 2 and its novel real-time breathing detection algorithm that enables the interactive components of the app. Methods We developed the breathing detection algorithm by using deep transfer learning to detect inhalation, exhalation, and nonbreathing sounds (including silence). An additional heuristic prolongs detected exhalations to stabilize the algorithm’s predictions. We evaluated Breeze 2 with 30 participants (women: n=14, 47%; age: mean 29.77, SD 7.33 years). Participants performed breathing training with Breeze 2 in 2 sessions with and without headphones. They answered questions regarding user engagement (User Engagement Scale Short Form [UES-SF]), perceived effectiveness (PE), perceived relaxation effectiveness, and perceived breathing detection accuracy. We used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare the UES-SF, PE, and perceived relaxation effectiveness scores with neutral scores. Furthermore, we correlated perceived breathing detection accuracy with actual multi-class balanced accuracy to determine whether participants could perceive the actual breathing detection performance. We also conducted a repeated-measure ANOVA to investigate breathing detection differences in balanced accuracy with and without the heuristic and when classifying data captured from headphones and smartphone microphones. The analysis controlled for potential between-subject effects of the participants’ sex. Results Our results show scores that were significantly higher than neutral scores for the UES-SF (W=459; P<.001), PE (W=465; P<.001), and perceived relaxation effectiveness (W=358; P<.001). Perceived breathing detection accuracy correlated significantly with the actual multi-class balanced accuracy (r=0.51; P<.001). Furthermore, we found that the heuristic significantly improved the breathing detection balanced accuracy (F1,25=6.23; P=.02) and that detection performed better on data captured from smartphone microphones than than on data from headphones (F1,25=17.61; P<.001). We did not observe any significant between-subject effects of sex. Breathing detection without the heuristic reached a multi-class balanced accuracy of 74% on the collected audio recordings. Conclusions Most participants (28/30, 93%) perceived Breeze 2 as engaging and effective. Furthermore, breathing detection worked well for most participants, as indicated by the perceived detection accuracy and actual detection accuracy. In future work, we aim to use the collected breathing sounds to improve breathing detection with regard to its stability and performance. We also plan to use Breeze 2 as an intervention tool in various studies targeting the prevention and management of noncommunicable diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicEmotion and Mood RecognitionFrench-language works237,207