MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405100157 · doi:10.2196/55478

Neurological Evidence of Diverse Self-Help Breathing Training With Virtual Reality and Biofeedback Assistance: Extensive Exploration Study of Electroencephalography Markers

2024· article· en· W4405100157 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hei‐Yin Hydra Ng, Changwei W. Wu, Hao‐Che Hsu, Chih‐Mao Huang, Ai‐Ling Hsu, Yi‐Ping Chao, Tzyy‐Ping Jung, Chun‐Hsiang Chuang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science and Technology CouncilMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanChang Gung Medical FoundationMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsBreathingElectroencephalographyBiofeedbackNeurofeedbackPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBreathing exercisesMedicineBrain–computer interfacePsychologyAudiologyNeurosciencePhysical therapyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in virtual reality (VR) and biofeedback (BF) technologies have opened new avenues for breathing training. Breathing training has been suggested as an effective means for mental disorders, but it is difficult to master the technique at the beginning. VR-BF technologies address the problem of breathing, and visualizing breathing may facilitate the learning of breathing training. This study explores the integration of VR and BF to enhance user engagement in self-help breathing training, which is a multifaceted approach encompassing mindful breathing, guided breathing, and breath counting techniques. OBJECTIVE: We identified 3 common breathing training techniques in previous studies, namely mindful breathing, guided breathing, and breath counting. Despite the availability of diverse breathing training methods, their varying effectiveness and underlying neurological mechanisms remain insufficiently understood. We investigated using electroencephalography (EEG) indices across multiple breathing training modalities to address this gap. METHODS: Our automated VR-based breathing training environment incorporated real-time EEG, heart rate, and breath signal BF. We examined 4 distinct breathing training conditions (resting, mindful breathing, guided breathing, and breath counting) in a cross-sectional experiment involving 51 healthy young adults, who were recruited through online forum advertisements and billboard posters. In an experimental session, participants practiced resting state and each breathing training technique for 6 minutes. We then compared the neurological differences across the 4 conditions in terms of EEG band power and EEG effective connectivity outflow and inflow with repeated measures ANOVA and paired t tests. RESULTS: The analyses included the data of 51 participants. Notably, EEG band power across the theta, alpha, low-beta, high-beta, and gamma bands varied significantly over the entire scalp (t ≥1.96, P values <.05). Outflow analysis identified condition-specific variations in the delta, alpha, and gamma bands (P values <.05), while inflow analysis revealed significant differences across all frequency bands (P values <.05). Connectivity flow analysis highlighted the predominant influence of the right frontal, central, and parietal brain regions in the neurological mechanisms underlying the breathing training techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides neurological evidence supporting the effectiveness of self-help breathing training through the combined use of VR and BF technologies. Our findings suggest the involvement of internal-external attention focus and the dorsal attention network in different breathing training conditions. There is a huge potential for the use of breathing training with VR-BF techniques in terms of clinical settings, the new living style since COVID-19, and the commercial value of introducing VR-BF breathing training into consumer-level digital products. Furthermore, we propose avenues for future research with an emphasis on the exploration of applications and the gamification potential in combined VR and BF breathing training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06656741; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06656741.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207