ArticleBrain sciences2024
Comparison of Virtual Reality Exergames and Nature Videos on Attentional Performance: A Single-Session Study.
Article in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nature-based and technology-assisted exercise for cognitive and mobility outcomes in older adults: a systematic review of randomized trials.BMC geriatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of XRET in reducing anxiety symptoms and secondary effects on depression in adolescents with depressive disorder: a prospective non-randomized study.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the acute effects of a single session of a VR exergame (
methodsA total of 39 psychology students, aged 19-25, were randomly assigned to one of three groups: VR exergame, VR nature video, or control. Participants completed the Flanker and AB tasks before and after the intervention. A repeated measures design was employed to analyze changes in response times and accuracy across pre- and post-test sessions.
resultsThe study revealed significant improvements in response times and accuracy across all groups in the post-test measures, indicating a strong training effect. In the AB task, shorter stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) led to decreased accuracy and slower response times, emphasizing the difficulty in processing closely spaced targets. The interaction between Type and Group in response times for target stimuli suggested that the intervention types differentially influenced processing speed in specific conditions.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that while brief VR interventions did not produce significant differences between groups, the training effect observed highlights the influence of task-specific factors such as SOA and target presence. Further research is needed to explore whether longer or repeated VR sessions, as well as the optimization of task-specific parameters, might lead to more pronounced cognitive benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.