ArticleFrontiers in network physiology2026
Assessing effects of vibroacoustic stimulation compared to a guided mindfulness meditation using the biosignal of human speech.
Article in Frontiers in network physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of Vibroacoustic Stimulation on Psychological, Physiological, and Cognitive Stress.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: High stress and low wellbeing pose severe individual, societal and economic threats, and there is a pressing demand for non-invasive stress reduction tools. This exploratory pilot study assessed the efficacy of speech prosody as a biosignal for stress elicitation, when comparing relaxation outcomes of two interventions with a control group. Method: Thirty participants were divided into three treatment groups; (1) guided mindfulness meditation (2) vibroacoustic intervention (3) control. All participants read aloud a text before and after one 20-min treatment. The sixty readings were assessed using a multi-parametric acoustic-prosodic analysis, and within-speaker differences were compared between the initial and final reading. Results: Results show groups (1) and (2) spoke with a breathier vocal quality in the second reading, while group (3) speech was tenser and at a lower, less variable loudness. Discussion: Results demonstrate speech prosody is a sensitive biomarker for treatment-effect classification and evaluation. Practical limitations and future research perspectives are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.