ArticleVirtual reality2026
Prediction-based attention computing: a proof of concept study.
Article in Virtual reality, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advancements in extended reality (XR) and data modelling present new opportunities for adaptive simulation solutions, which can measure and respond to individual neuropsychological states. However, questions remain about the optimal metrics for real-time data capture and the applicability of these solutions for enhancing user experiences. The present research examined a novel form of adaptive XR, called "prediction-based attention computing" (PbAC), which tailors simulations based on computational models of the brain and, thus, the dynamic sensorimotor processes theorised to underpin human perception and learning. Specifically, this study aimed to demonstrate whether PbAC can adaptively capture users' internal state predictions and modulate associated neuropsychological responses. To test this, we used an XR-based racquetball paradigm, in which participants were tasked with intercepting virtual balls that emerged from different starting locations. For PbAC conditions, in-situ eye tracking data assessments were utilised to index participant's prior beliefs and manipulate levels of expectedness (i.e., prediction error) on each trial. Various measures of predictive sensorimotor behaviour were then extracted and compared with data from probability-controlled and matched-order control conditions. Results showed that sensorimotor responses were affected by the expectedness of XR stimuli, and that clear, prediction-related biases emerged within PbAC conditions. The novel computing software also provoked marked surprisal responses on trials designed to elicit high levels of prediction error, and these surprisal effects were similar, or even greater than, those in our comparison conditions. Together, the findings provide proof of concept for PbAC and support its development within future research and technology innovations. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10055-025-01307-w.
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.