Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35972793›Full record

ArticleJMIR serious games2022

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

Yanick Xavier Lukic, Gisbert Wilhelm Teepe, Elgar Fleisch, Tobias Kowatsch

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR serious games, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06656741 (Neurological Evidence of Diverse Self-Help Breathing Trainings with Virtual Reality and Bio-Feedback Assistance), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06656741 nacompletednot on this map

Neurological Evidence of Diverse Self-Help Breathing Trainings with Virtual Reality and Bio-Feedback Assistance: an Extensive Exploration of EEG Markers

TypeinterventionalSponsorHei-Yin Hydra NgRan2021 to 2022Enrolled53ConditionsBreath Training StylesArmsResting State, Mindful Breathing, Guided Breathing, Breath Counting
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yanick Xavier LukicCentre for Digital Health Interventions, Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2576-6569
Gisbert Wilhelm TeepeCentre for Digital Health Interventions, Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2264-9797
Elgar FleischCentre for Digital Health Interventions, Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4842-1117
Tobias KowatschCentre for Digital Health Interventions, Department of Management, Technology, and Economics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5939-4145

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSlow-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.

objectiveThis 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsOur 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 (F

conclusionsMost 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.

Indexed as

biofeedbackbreathing trainingdeep learningdigital healthmachine learningmHealthmobile healthmobile phoneneural networksserious gametransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID35972793
PMCPMC9428773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.