The effectiveness and user preferences of two tactile breathing devices in reducing stress in stressed individuals: A mixed methods study

Abstract

Background: Rising stress levels have led to increased interest in stress management tools, particularly tactile breathing devices. Despite their popularity, there is limited evidence on their physiological and psychological effectiveness and user perceptions. This study evaluates the effectiveness of and preferences toward two tactile breathing devices among highly stressed individuals.

Methods: The study involved 36 participants using two breathing devices, moonbird and Core. Physiological data were collected using EEG, ECG, and a breathing belt. User preferences and self-reported experiences were assessed via questionnaires.

Results: Moonbird usage was associated with increased delta power and decreased alpha power, while Core did not significantly modify EEG power. ECG analysis indicated no significant differences in mean heart rate between devices. Both devices reduced heart rate variability during use, but no lasting effects were observed post-intervention. Respiratory rates decreased during both devices' use, with moonbird showing more sustained effects post-intervention. There were no significant differences in self-reported relaxation and energy levels between the devices, though moonbird was preferred overall for its handling and breathing guidance.

Conclusion: Both devices demonstrated the ability to lower physiological stress, as indicated by improvements in certain neurophysiological measures during use, with moonbird preferred for its ergonomic design and tactile feedback. These findings underscore the importance of user experience in device effectiveness, highlighting the need for a user-centric approach in device design. Future research should explore long-term effectiveness, real-world user feedback, and the physiological and psychological mechanisms associated with these devices.

Keywords: Breathing devices; ECG; EEG; Physiological measures; Respiration; Stress management; User preferences.

Fig. 1

The Core breathing device.

Fig. 2

The moonbird breathing device.

Fig. 3

Protocol of the study. Questionnaire A: general experience, Questionnaire B: device use and experience, Questionnaire C: after-effects device use, Questionnaire E: device preferences.

Fig. 4

ECG and time domain HRV measures for the different phases and devices. HRV measures that were significantly correlated to the heart rate are depicted after having been corrected using the mean RR intervals.

Fig. 5

Frequency domain and complexity HRV measures for the different phases and devices. HRV measures that were significantly correlated to the heart rate are depicted after having been corrected using the mean RR intervals.

Fig. 6

Respiration and RVV measures for the different phases and devices. RVV measures that were significantly correlated to the respiratory rate are depicted after having been corrected using the mean breath-to-breath (BB) intervals.

Fig. 7a

EEG relative power in the different frequency bands for the different phases and devices. BL = Baseline, int. = Intervention.

Fig. 7b

EEG mean connectivity in the different frequency bands for the different phases and devices. BL = Baseline, int. = Intervention.

Fig. 8

Questionnaire E: General device preference (QE1), Device holding preference (QE2), and Device guidance preference (QE3). N = 35.

Fig. 9

Questionnaire A: general experience – Change from baseline: (a) intervention phase minus baseline, and (b) post-intervention resting phase minus baseline.

Fig. 10

Questionnaire A: general experience – Estimated differences between devices (moonbird minus Core) and 95 % confidence intervals during intervention phase (a) and post-intervention phase (b).

Fig. 11

(a) Questionnaire B: device use and (b) Questionnaire C: after-effects – Estimated differences between devices (moonbird minus Core) and 95 % confidence intervals.