Research Roundup (#25)
.png/:/rs=w:1440,h:1440)
Welcome...
Welcome to the twenty-fifth-ever Research Roundup! A weekly catch-up on the latest developments in the field of XR research.
It’s a little late, after a week of illness, so let's not hang around.
The Week in 3 (Sentences)
New research on consumer experience examined how VR affects product appeal positively for hedonic items, compared interactive versus non-interactive VR loading screens, and contrasted mobile VR against full wearable VR systems at the Le-Corbusier Museum for cultural heritage visitors.
Researchers investigating educational applications compared VR headsets with laptops for virtual lab experiences, evaluated VR-based ceramic production training against traditional video teaching methods, and tested virtual reality library orientation systems for hearing- and physically-impaired undergraduates.
And finally, new studies have explored therapeutic applications through VR distraction during childhood vaccinations, biosensor-enhanced virtual exergames for rehabilitating children with cerebral palsy hemiparesis, and the usability of 'VRainSUD' for cognitive training in addiction recovery.
The Week in 300 (words)
Although we rarely talk about it, the VR loading screen is an odd experience. On desktops you can look at your phone, eat, chat to someone, and generally distract yourself. Within VR it is just you and the waiting screen, trapped together until something (anything) happens creating both time distortion and general frustration. Researchers in Taiwan have tested out both interactive and non-interactive loading screens and measured the impact on emotions and perception of time. As you might predict, the interactive waiting screen was found to shorten the perceived time, decrease negative emotions and increase positive ones. Of course it can’t be too overwhelming either, but still something to think about as you sit in the dark waiting for Batman: Arkham VR to load.
In the world of Educational VR the idea of virtual laboratories is one of those hooks that has fixed itself in. It was therefore fascinating to see research that directly compared a VR version to a laptop based version. The comparison is such an important one but isn’t always looked at. Did VR offer anything more? As always, it is tricky to interpret null results (especially with small samples) but there was no indication that perceptions of learning or learning itself improved, with the main difference simply being that the students felt more immersed in VR. Despite the limitations of the research, this adds to a growing body of evidence struggling to find meaningful differences between VR and more realistic control conditions beyond immersion and motivation. Perhaps that is enough.
And finally, something that most definitely does exist is the use of VR to manage pain. One of the minor success stories in the literature, it is now at the stage that we are seeing more trials outside of the laboratory confirming its effectiveness in the real world. This time researchers tested 300 young children in Catalonia that were getting their scheduled vaccinations. The participants were randomly split into a control group and an intervention group, with the latter taking part in a VR adventure game in which the main character Leia rescues a Panda that has hurt himself. Overall, children in the intervention group had less pain and anxiety than those in the control group. All very positive but would this have been as effective without the VR headset? Possibly?
Paper of the Week
The paper of the week this week stood out for the ambition of it’s design as much as it’s findings. Focusing on fear and anxiety in university students, it sought to work out if engaging with an extended period of training in VR could get that fear and anxiety under control.
Participants were students at Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, who volunteered to take part in the study. They were then split into two groups: the control; and the intervention group.
The intervention group underwent 6 months of training with two 60 minute sessions every week. The training consisted of playing ‘The Climb’ on a Quest 2, gradually exposing themselves to more fearful scenarios (e.g. climbing mountains and skyscrapers) in order to build confidence and emotional resilience.
Fear, anxiety and general health were measured at three points in time: the start; the end; and in the middle. It was found that participants in the VR gaming group showed improvements in both fear and anxiety levels compared to those in the control group, particularly towards the end.
Often interventions like this are demonstrated over the short-term, such as 2 or 3 weeks, with the inevitable caveat that it needs to be demonstrated with more intensive training over longer periods of time. What made this paper the paper of the week was the sheer amount of effort involved. Keeping this up for this period time can be something of a logistical nightmare, and requires a level of dedication as well as a strong belief in the intervention (who wants to spend 6 months doing something that doesn’t work).
The paper nevertheless has limitations, it is unclear what exactly the control group did and the sample was limited to students with good mental health to begin with perhaps limiting any potential change that could occur. Nevertheless, an intriguing idea that regular game-based climbing activities could have broader effects on people’s levels of fear and anxiety. Perhaps conquering fears in VR may make us more fearless in the real world.