Spirituality Studies 11-2 Fall 2025 49 Chanchal Surywanshi et al. 3.1.9 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on LowFrequency Power (LF Power) Post-intervention analysis in the Dhyāna Group (DG) showed a significant reduction in the mean ± SD of Low Frequency (LF) power (normalized units) from 43.91 ± 10.55 to 31.11 ± 7.41. This decrease was statistically significant (p = 0.004), indicating that the reduction in LF power may be confidently attributed to the Trimūrti Dhyāna intervention. The effect size was large (Cohen’s d = 1.40), with a 29.15% decrease in LF power (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), LF power increased slightly from 36.24 ± 11.28 to 36.69 ± 14.85, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.865), suggesting no meaningful change without intervention. The effect size was negligible (Cohen’s d = 0.03), with only a 1.24% increase in LF power (Table 3). Between-group comparison post-intervention showed no statistically significant difference in LF power between DG and CG (31.11 ± 7.41 vs 36.69 ± 14.85; p = 0.254). However, the within-group reduction and effect size were substantially greater in the DG, suggesting a potentially meaningful parasympathetic shift (Table 4). 3.1.10 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on Low Frequency (nu) Post-intervention analysis in the Dhyāna Group (DG) showed a decrease in the mean ± SD of Low Frequency (LF) power (normalized units) from 67.62 ± 10.71 to 56.81 ± 18.06. Although this reduction suggests a potential parasympathetic shift, it was not statistically significant (p = 0.211). The effect size was moderate (Cohen’s d = 0.72), with a 16% decrease in LF power (nu) (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), LF power (nu) remained nearly unchanged from 56.50 ± 19.23 to 56.62 ± 19. 75. This difference was statistically non-significant (p = 0.820), indicating stability in autonomic balance without intervention. The effect size was negligible (Cohen’s d = 0.00), with only a 0.12% increase in LF power (Table 3). Between-group comparison post-intervention revealed no statistically significant difference between DG and CG in LF power (56.81 ± 18.06 vs 56.62 ± 19.75; p = 0.852). Nonetheless, the Dhyāna Group exhibited a larger percentage change and effect size, suggesting a trend toward autonomic modulation that may warrant further investigation (Table 4). 3.1.11 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on HF Power (ms2) Post-intervention analysis in the Dhyāna Group (DG) revealed an increase in the mean ± SD of High-Frequency (HF) power from 353.56 ± 192.84 to 610.13 ± 675.74. Although this change reflects a 72.6% increase in parasympathetic activity, it was not statistically significant (p = 0.776), suggesting that the observed improvement may be due to random variation. The effect size was moderate (Cohen’s d = 0.51), indicating a potentially meaningful effect (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), HF power showed a minimal rise from 1248.93 ± 1471.73 to 1374.81 ± 1820.06. This change was also statistically non-significant (p = 0.955), and the effect size was very small (Cohen’s d = 0.07), with only a 10.08% increase (Table 3). Between-group comparison post-intervention indicated no statistically significant difference between DG and CG in HF power (610.13 ± 675.74 vs 1374.81 ± 1820.06; p = 0.178). However, the Dhyāna Group showed a comparatively larger effect size and percentage change, indicating a trend toward enhanced parasympathetic activation (Table 4). 3.1.12 Effect of Trimūrti Dhyāna on HighFrequency Power (HF Power) Post-intervention analysis in the Dhyāna Group (DG) showed an increase in the mean ± SD of High-Frequency (HF) power (normalized units) from 20.46 ± 7.70 to 26.29 ± 17. 37. Although this reflects a 28.5% improvement in parasympathetic modulation, the change was not statistically significant (p = 0.820), suggesting the possibility of random variation. The effect size was moderate (Cohen’s d = 0.43), indicating a potentially meaningful, though inconclusive, trend (Table 2). In the Control Group (CG), HF power slightly decreased from 30.08 ± 17.54 to 28.32 ± 13. 84. This decrease was also statistically non-significant (p = 0.733), with a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.11) and a −5.85% change (Table 3). Between-group comparison post-intervention revealed no statistically significant difference in HF power between DG and CG (26.29 ± 17.37 vs 28.32 ± 13.84; p = 0.419). However, the percentage change and effect size were relatively higher in the Dhyāna Group, suggesting a directionally positive impact of the intervention (Table 4).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==