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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.