Can wearable vibroacoustic stimulation devices impact perceived loneliness via artificial heart rate variability increases? — ASN Events
  1. Schedule
  2. Afternoon Tea & Poster Session 2
  3. Can wearable vibroacoustic stimulation devices impact perceived loneliness via artificial heart rate variability increases?

Can wearable vibroacoustic stimulation devices impact perceived loneliness via artificial heart rate variability increases? (#851)

Andy Proctor 1
  1. Brigham Young University, Vineyard, UT, United States

Background

Ample empirical evidence indicates that having less and lower-quality social relationships is associated with poorer health outcomes and higher risk for earlier death while having a greater number of positive relationships is associated with more positive physical health outcomes and higher overall odds of surviving (De Vogli et al., 2007; Snyder-Mackler et al., 2020). Meta-analytic studies have indicated that social support is a powerful protective factor against mortality. The importance of social support and social integration is comparable to or exceeds the importance of many established behavioral health risk factors: smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, lack of physical activity, obesity, air pollution, etc. (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010, 2015). Social connection has also been studied as a buffer for stress (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Gore, 1981; Pearlin, 1989). Those who have better social relationships tend to have higher heart rate variability (HRV) (Donoho et al., 2015; Gouin et al., 2015; Seeman et al., 2014). Studies have found that slow vibroacoustic stimulation tends to increase HRV (Lehrer & Gevirtz, 2014). 

Aims

We will be investigating whether wearable vibroacoustic stimulation devices shown to increase vagal tone (HRV) can have a significant impact on the subjective experience of loneliness measured by established loneliness scales. 

Method

 Research design  

RCT. Independent variable: device use. Dependent variables: HRV, Loneliness scores (UCLA Loneliness Scale).  

8 groups with 8 devices: 64 experimental participants. 

Research participants

Participants: undergraduate students; would get placebo devices, randomly. 

Interventions 

 Participants will wear devices for 2 weeks with vibroacoustic stimulation at random intervals during the duration of the measurement. 

Sample size 

Based on power analysis of point biserial model correlation t-test for an effect size of 0.3 with alpha levels at 0.05 and power of 0.80 sample size would need to be 64 participants with critical t of 1.66.

 

Results

 Data not collected, completed by May 2023.

Conclusion

 Data not collected, completed by May 2023.

  1. de Vogli, R., Chandola, T., & Marmot, M. G. (2007). Negative Aspects of Close Relationships and Heart Disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167(18), 1951. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.18.1951
  2. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352
  3. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, B. (2010). Social Relationships Are Key to Health, and to Health Policy. PLoS Medicine, 7(8), e1000334. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000334
  4. Gouin, J.-P., Zhou, B., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2015). Social Integration Prospectively Predicts Changes in Heart Rate Variability Among Individuals Undergoing Migration Stress. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49(2), 230-238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9650-7
  5. Donoho, C. J., Seeman, T. E., Sloan, R. P., & Crimmins, E. M. (2015). Marital status, marital quality, and heart rate variability in the MIDUS cohort. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(2), 290–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000068
  6. Seeman, T. E., Gruenewald, T. L., Cohen, S., Williams, D. R., & Matthews, K. A. (2014). Social relationships and their biological correlates: Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 43, 126-138. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.02.008
  7. Lehrer, P. M., & Gevirtz, R. (2014). Heart rate variability biofeedback: how and why does it work?. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 756. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00756
  8. Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2
  9. Snyder-Mackler, N., Burger, J. R., Gaydosh, L., Belsky, D. W., Noppert, G. A., Campos, F. A., Bartolomucci, A., Yang, Y. C., Aiello, A. E., O’Rand, A., Harris, K. M., Shively, C. A., Alberts, S. C., & Tung, J. (2020). Social determinants of health and survival in humans and other animals. Science, 368(6493). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax9553
  • Please select up to 3 keywords from the following list to best describe your submission content: Coping and Emotion Regulation, Health and Medicine, Relationships
#IPPAWorldCongress