Effect of feedback signal and psychological characteristics on blood pressure self‐manipulation capability

Abstract

Blood pressure presentation mode and personality are likely to influence biofeedback outcome. Thirty-six normotensive subjects were randomly assigned to visual or auditory continuous systolic feedback. "Distracting speech" and "broad band noise" were also superimposed and the effect on the biofeedback response was investigated. Psychological influence was also investigated. Systolic pressure reduction of 4 +/- 4.3 mmHg (visual, p = .04) and 5 +/- 5.5 mmHg (visual + auditory, p = .03) were achieved compared with auditory feedback (2 +/- 4.7 mmHg), which was less effective. The addition of noise or speech had no effect on the systolic response, but speech adversely affected diastolic reduction (p = .04). Mood (p = .003) was associated with systolic lowering, whereas increased trait anxiety (p = .06) and expectation (p = .03) had trends for opposite effects. Increased anger-hostility, state-anxiety, and expectation (p = .06) had links with systolic raising capability. We conclude that feedback modality and psychological characteristics have implications for studies investigating blood pressure manipulation capability.

A Review of Neurofeedback Training for Improving Sport Performance From the Perspective of User Experience

“…In addition, if the two feedback modes are not well combined, they may easily confuse the participants and adversely affect the feedback effect. Researchers who support using both types of feedback believe that the combination of the two allows participants to inadvertently ignore one feedback and rely on the other to remind them to continue to train (Lal et al, 1998;Vernon et al, 2004).…”

Neurofeedback as a Treatment for ADHD: A Methodological Review with Implications for Future Research

“…Traditional biofeedback research has shown that the mode of presenting sensory feedback can influence the response (Lal et al, 1998). Lal et al compared the use of visual, auditory or a combination of visual and auditory biofeedback to lower blood pressure in a group of thirty-six participants.…”

Heart rate and blood pressure interactions during attempts to consciously raise or lower heart rate and blood pressure in normotensive subjects

“…Raising and lowering the arm caused the BP feedback display to appropriately change, confirming the correct feedback prior to the commencement of the study. We wanted to assess the effect of background noise on the subjects' ability to control HR and BP as previous studies have suggested a detrimental effect (Lal et al 1998). The addition of background noise can be considered to more realistically simulate an actual environment in which conscious control might be undertaken by subjects either in the home, workplace or clinic where background noise is common.…”

“…However, studies on normotensive subjects have been undertaken and are important in understanding differences in health and disease. Although it is generally agreed that normotensive subjects can significantly raise and lower HR using a variety of different techniques (Weems 1998, Lott and Gatchel 1978, James et al 1997, Pollard and Ashton 1982, there is mixed evidence as to whether BP can be consistently controlled in the same manner (Cejnar et al 1988, Lal et al 1998, Bowers and Murray 2004. The techniques employed in these studies included respiratory modulation (fast/deep breathing and breath holds) (Bowers and Murray 2004), as well as the use of both visual and auditory feedback (Cejnar et al 1988, Lal et al 1998.…”