| Literature DB >> 35408317 |
Lila Iznita Izhar1, Areej Babiker2, Edmi Edison Rizki3, Cheng-Kai Lu4, Mohammad Abdul Rahman5.
Abstract
Neuroticism has recently received increased attention in the psychology field due to the finding of high implications of neuroticism on an individual's life and broader public health. This study aims to investigate the effect of a brief 6-week breathing-based mindfulness intervention (BMI) on undergraduate neurotic students' emotion regulation. We acquired data of their psychological states, physiological changes, and electroencephalogram (EEG), before and after BMI, in resting states and tasks. Through behavioral analysis, we found the students' anxiety and stress levels significantly reduced after BMI, with p-values of 0.013 and 0.027, respectively. Furthermore, a significant difference between students in emotion regulation strategy, that is, suppression, was also shown. The EEG analysis demonstrated significant differences between students before and after MI in resting states and tasks. Fp1 and O2 channels were identified as the most significant channels in evaluating the effect of BMI. The potential of these channels for classifying (single-channel-based) before and after BMI conditions during eyes-opened and eyes-closed baseline trials were displayed by a good performance in terms of accuracy (~77%), sensitivity (76-80%), specificity (73-77%), and area-under-the-curve (AUC) (0.66-0.8) obtained by k-nearest neighbor (KNN) and support vector machine (SVM) algorithms. Mindfulness can thus improve the self-regulation of the emotional state of neurotic students based on the psychometric and electrophysiological analyses conducted in this study.Entities:
Keywords: electroencephalography; emotion regulation; mindfulness; neuroticism
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35408317 PMCID: PMC9002961 DOI: 10.3390/s22072703
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Mean values of emotional video clips used during experiment in the pre- and post-intervention phases.
| Phase | Mean Length (min) | Mean Arousal | Mean Valence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-intervention | 2.35 | 5.26 | 2.73 |
| Post-intervention | 2.42 | 5.35 | 2.77 |
Figure 1Flowchart of the study protocol and the experiment timeline.
Figure 2Schematic illustration of an experimental trial.
Figure 3General framework.
Statistical comparison of results of pre- (T1) and post-intervention (T2) for AES, FFMQ, and DASS pre-experimental questionnaires.
| Questionnaire | M(SD) | η2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | ||||
| AES | 123.22 (11.53) | 119.89 (9.65) | 0.975 | 0.337 | 0.054 |
| FFMQ-observe | 28.72 (3.97) | 27.787 (4.86) | 0.702 | 0.414 | 0.40 |
| FFMQ-describe | 22.83 (6.4) | 23.78 (4.15) | 0.545 | 0.470 | 0.031 |
| FFMQ-act-with-awareness | 22.56 (4.95) | 22.39 (4.62) | 0.023 | 0.882 | 0.001 |
| FFMQ-non-judgmental | 17.17 (5.06) | 19.33 (4.54) | 4.95 |
| 0.225 |
| FFMQ-non-reactive-to-inner-experience | 19.94 (3.35) | 22.33 (2.33) | 7.79 |
| 0.314 |
| DASS-anxiety | 21.78 (6.36) | 15.78 (8.51) | 7.61 |
| 0.309 |
| DASS-stress | 21.33 (8.62) | 16.11(6.42) | 5.89 |
| 0.257 |
| DASS-depression | 13.33 (7.7) | 11.56(7.66) | 0.63 | 0.438 | 0.036 |
Statistical comparison results of pre- (T1) and post-intervention (T2) for post-experiment emotion regulation questionnaire (ERQ).
| Q | M(SD) | η2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | ||||
| ERQ-appraisal | 29.56 (4.31) | 30.89 (3.72) | 1.766 | 0.201 | 0.094 |
| ERQ-suppression | 18.17 (3.67) | 15.89 (3.67) | 4.620 |
| 0.214 |
The significant channels obtained from paired t-test analysis of brain activities between students in the two conditions (pre- and post-BMI) that could serve as potential EEG channels to identify/indicate BMI effect.
| Brain | Eyes-Closed (EC) | Eyes-Opened (EO) | Trial 1 | Trial 2 | Trial 3 | Trial 4 | Trial 5 | Most-Selected Channel |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delta | - | Fp1, F3 | P4 | - | P4, O1, Fp2, Fp1 | P3, Fp1, T7 | Fp1, Fp2, P4 | Fp1 *** |
| Theta | P8, O1, O2 | F4 | - | - | - | - | FP1, F4 | F4 ** |
| Alpha | O1, O2, T7 | F3 | Pz | - | - | - | C4, F4, C3, F3 | F3 ** |
| Beta | O2 | - | - | - | T8 | - | - | NA |
| Gamma | - | - | - | - | T8 | - | - | NA |
| Most-selected channel | O2 *** | F3 ** | NA | NA | T8 ** | NA | Fp1 ** | O2 ***, Fp1 *** |
** Indicates two times appeared as significant channel; *** indicates three times appeared as significant channel; NA—appeared as significant channel less than twice.
Figure 4Classification accuracy using O2 channel during EC for delta, theta, and alpha wave bands.
Evaluation of classification performance for O2 channel.
| Classification Method | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 76.9% | 76.9%% | 76.9%% | 0.8 |
| SVM | 76.9% | 76.9%% | 76.9%% | 0.75 |
Evaluation of classification performance for Fp1 channel.
| Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | AUC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KNN | 76.7% | 80% | 73.3% | 0.66 |
| SVM | 76.7% | 80% | 73.3% | 0.75 |
Classification performance for O2 and Fp1 channels achieved by both the KNN and SVM classifiers.
| Channel | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| O2 | 76.9% | 76.9% | 76.9% |
| Fp1 | 76.7% | 80% | 73.3% |