Article (Scientific journals)
The effectiveness and user preferences of two tactile breathing devices in reducing stress in stressed individuals: A mixed methods study
Honinx, Elisabeth; Meys, Michiel; Broes, Stefanie et al.
2025In International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 25 (3), p. 100603
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
 

Files


Full Text
1-s2.0-S1697260025000614-main.pdf
Publisher postprint (6.28 MB) Creative Commons License - Attribution
Article PDF
Download
Annexes
1-s2.0-S1697260025000614-mmc1.docx
(397.82 kB) Creative Commons License - Attribution
Supplementary materials
Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to



Details



Keywords :
Stress management; Breathing devices; User preferences; Physiological measures; EEG; ECG; Respiration
Abstract :
[en] 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.
Disciplines :
Cardiovascular & respiratory systems
Author, co-author :
Honinx, Elisabeth;  Moonbird, Antwerp, Belgium
Meys, Michiel  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > GIGA
Broes, Stefanie;  Moonbird, Antwerp, Belgium
Van Langenhoven, Leen;  KU Leuven - Catholic University of Leuven > Department of Public Health and Primary Care > L-BioStat
Janssens, Rosanne;  KU Leuven - Catholic University of Leuven > Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences > Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
Huys, Isabelle;  KU Leuven - Catholic University of Leuven > Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences > Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
Oswald, Victor;  UdeM - University of Montreal > Department of Psychology > Cognitive & Computational Neuroscience Lab
Annen, Jitka  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > GIGA > GIGA Neurosciences - Coma Science Group
Laureys, Steven  ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques
Martial, Charlotte   ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > GIGA > GIGA Neurosciences - Coma Science Group
Gosseries, Olivia   ;  Université de Liège - ULiège > GIGA > GIGA Neurosciences - Coma Science Group
 These authors have contributed equally to this work.
Language :
English
Title :
The effectiveness and user preferences of two tactile breathing devices in reducing stress in stressed individuals: A mixed methods study
Publication date :
July 2025
Journal title :
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
ISSN :
1697-2600
eISSN :
2174-0852
Publisher :
Elsevier
Volume :
25
Issue :
3
Pages :
100603
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
Available on ORBi :
since 16 July 2025

Statistics


Number of views
63 (8 by ULiège)
Number of downloads
62 (1 by ULiège)

Scopus citations®
 
0
Scopus citations®
without self-citations
0
OpenCitations
 
0
OpenAlex citations
 
0

Bibliography


Similar publications



Contact ORBi