Cited by 74Music Therapy and HealthDiverse Music Education InsightsMusicians’ Health and Performance

Effects of heart rate variability coherence biofeedback training and emotional management techniques to decrease music performance anxiety.

Thurber, Myron R., Bodenhamer-Davis, Eugenia, Johnson, Mark, Chesky, Kris, Chandler, Cynthia K.·2010·Biofeedback

Abstract

Abstract Due to the prevalence of music performance anxiety and the emergence of new biofeedback technologies used to decrease anxiety, student musicians were recruited to participate in an experimental repeated-measures study to identify effects of heart rate variability coherence biofeedback training and emotional self-regulation techniques on music performance anxiety and music performance. Fourteen students were assigned randomly to a treatment or control group following a 5-minute unaccompanied baseline performance. Treatment group participants received 4–5 heart rate variability training sessions of 30–50 minutes each. Training included bibliotherapy, computerized heart rate variability biofeedback training, emotional regulation exercises, and use of a portable heart rate variability training device. Measures included the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Performance Anxiety Inventory, Flow State Scale, average heart rate, and heart rate variability. Quade's rank-transformed analysis of covariance was used to evaluate treatment and no-treatment group comparisons. Combined music performance anxiety scores showed statistically significant improvement at a p = .05 level with a large effect size of ηp2 = .320. State anxiety measurement showed a large effect size of ηp2 = .291. The Performance Anxiety Inventory showed a large effect size of ηp2 = .149. Heart rate showed a large effect size of ηp2 = .143. Heart rate variability showed statistical significance at p = .001 level and a large effect size of ηp2 = .698. The treatment group average subjective decrease in music performance anxiety was 71%, and the treatment group average subjective improvement in performance was 62%. This study demonstrated statistical and practical/clinical significance of a relatively quick and inexpensive biofeedback training that had a large effect on decreasing mental, emotional, and physiological aspects of music performance anxiety and subjective improvement of performance for university students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5298/1081-5937-38.1.28

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thurber, M. R., Bodenhamer-Davis, E., Johnson, M., Chesky, K., & Chandler, C. K.
Affiliations
  • Neurotherapy Northwest, Spokane Valley, WA
  • University of North Texas (US)
Venue
Biofeedback
Published
2010
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
28-40
ISSN
  • 1081-5937 (ISSN-L)
  • 2158-348X
OpenAlex
W1982436335
Cited by
74
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biofeedback (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Music Therapy and Health
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Music › Diverse Music Education Insights
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musicians’ Health and Performance
Keywords
music performance anxiety, heart rate variability coherence, biofeedback training, emotion regulation, music students, bibliotherapy, state anxiety, flow experience, heart rate variability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review