Sport-Specific Stressor Effectiveness of athletes’ coping strategies in maintaining high heart rate variability: Examination of the physiological recovery of collegiate soccer players Joanne Perry M.S., Michael Ross, Ph.D. ABPP, Taylor Montgomery M.S., Ashley Hansen M.S., Jeremiah Weinstock Ph.D. Abstract Purpose: The current study utilized heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback equipment to explore athletes’ ability to recover from stressful experiences. HRV refers to changes in the distance between one heartbeat and the next. High HRV is a sign of good health and is associated with improved athletic performance. This study examined the effectiveness of athletes’ existing coping strategies in achieving high HRV following various stressors. Methods: Twenty male collegiate soccer players completed a demographics questionnaire and the HRV assessment. This assessment used emWave Pro technology and was adapted from previous research. The assessment included 3 stressors (i.e., cognitive, physical, sport-specific), each of which was followed by a recovery period (RP). During each RP, participants were instructed to utilize the coping strategies they typically employ when stressed during their sport (e.g., deep breathing, positive self-talk). Repeated measures ANOVA analyses were conducted. Participants: Ages ranged from 18-21 years old (M = 19.65, SD = 1.04). All were members of a Division 1 collegiate soccer program. Results: Statistically significant differences in HRV were found between the cognitive stressor (M = 8.30) and RP (M = 14.05), [F(1,19) = 7.84, p = .01], as well as between the sport-specific stressor (M = 8.20) and RP (M = 12.85), [F(1,19) = 5.23, p = .03). No significance was found between the physical stressor and the RP (p > .05). Discussion: Athletes were able to achieve significantly higher HRV when recovering from a cognitive stressor and a sport-specific stressor. This demonstrates effectiveness of existing coping strategies. These strategies could help athletes recover from similar stressors encountered during performance. Athletes did not show differences in HRV following a physical stressor task, suggesting that these strategies may be less effective in helping athletes recover from physical pain. Introduction Athletes are consistently faced with various types of stressors (e.g., cognitive, physical, and sport-specific) throughout training and competition. As athletes encounter stressors that exceed existing coping resources, performance begins to suffer. Heart rate variability (HRV) is the variation in the time interval between heartbeats. High HRV suggests that a body has a high ability to self-regulate. When HRV is functioning at a high level, the body is able to restore equilibrium following a stressful experience. Alternatively, when HRV is low, the body’s ability to self-regulate is negatively impacted. Previous research demonstrates that utilizing various psychological skills and techniques (e.g., mindfulness, diaphragmatic breathing) can improve HRV. Therefore, the current study examined the effectiveness of athletes’ existing coping strategies in maintaining high HRV following various stressful experiences. HRV Assessment Baseline Athlete sits quietly and is instructed to let his or her mind wander (1:30) Orienting Athlete Assessment procedure of three stressors and three recovery periods (RPs) is explained Clinician helps athlete identify existing coping strategies to be used during the RPs Cognitive Stressor Mental Arithmetic Task (1:30) Cognitive RP Athlete is instructed to use coping strategies typically used during his or her sport (1:30) Physical Stressor Cold Pressor Task (1:30) Physical Sport-Specific Stressor Negative Sport Imagery Task (1:30) Sport-Specific RP Athlete is instructed use coping strategies typically used during his or her sport (1:30) Methods Participants 20 male Division I collegiate soccer players (18-21 years old, M = 19.65, SD = 1.04) 75% identified as Caucasian/White and 25% African-American/Black Measures Demographic Questionnaire HRV Assessment Equipment emWave Pro Analyses Repeated measures ANOVA analyses were conducted between each stressor and the associated RP Discussion Cognitive Stress Athletes were able to achieve significantly higher HRV following the cognitive stressor. The cognitive stressor sought to induce frustration, anxiety, confusion, feeling evaluated, and feeling overwhelmed. Results indicate that athletes’ coping strategies were effective in restoring higher HRV. It is likely that their athletic performance would be less impacted by experiences similar to this task. Physical Stress Athletes were unable to achieve significantly higher HRV following a physical stressor. This demonstrates that the athletes coping strategies were not effective in restoring high HRV following the experience of pain. Athletes may benefit from more advanced training of psychological strategies to use in the presence of physical stress and/or pain. Sport-Specific Stress Athletes were able to achieve significantly higher HRV following the sport-specific stressor. The sport-specific stressor sought to evoke negative thoughts and emotions by focusing on experiences related to playing below expectations, making mistakes, and letting teammates down. Results indicate that athletes’ coping strategies were effective in restoring higher HRV. It is likely that their athletic performance would be less impacted by experiences similar to this task. Results Cognitive Stressor There was a statistically significant difference in HRV achievement between the cognitive stressor (M = 8.30, SD = 4.09) and the cognitive RP (M = 14.05, SD = 8.61), F(1,19) = 7.84, p = .01, partial η2 = .292 (See Figure 1). Physical Stressor There was not a statistically significant difference in HRV achievement between the physical stressor (M = 9.95, SD = 8.43) and the physical RP (M = 9.15, 6.23), p = .680. Sport-Specific Stressor There was a statistically significant difference in HRV achievement between the sport-specific stressor (M = 8.20, SD = 4.82) and the sport-specific RP (M = 12.85, SD = 8.36), F(1,19) = 5.23, p = .03, , partial η2 = .216 (See Figure 2). Figures Figure 1 Figure 2