Trial reportPloS one2018
Modulation of tactile perception by Virtual Reality distraction: The role of individual and VR-related factors.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of Virtual Reality on evoked potentials following painful electrical stimuli and subjective pain.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- The Application of Virtual Simulation Technology in Scaling and Root Planing Teaching.International dental journal · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual reality (VR) has shown to be an effective distraction method in health care. However, questions remain regarding individual and VR-related factors that may modulate the effect of VR. PURPOSE: To explore the effect of VR distraction on tactile perception thresholds in healthy volunteers, in relation to personal characteristics and interactivity of VR applications.
methodsA randomized three way cross-over study was conducted to investigate the effects of active and passive VR applications in 50 healthy participants. Main outcome measures were monofilament detection thresholds (MDT) and electrical detection thresholds (EDT). Personal characteristics (e.g. age, gender, susceptibility for immersion) and immersion in the VR conditions were analyzed for their effect on VR induced threshold differences.
resultsThe use of VR caused a significant increase in both MDT and EDT compared to the control condition (MDT: F (2, 76) = 20.174, p < 0.001; EDT F (2, 76) = 6.907, p = 0.002). Furthermore, a significant difference in favour of active VR compared to passive VR was found in MDT (p = 0.012), but not in EDT. No significant gender effect was found. There was a significant positive correlation between age and active VR distraction (r = 0.333, p = 0.018). Immersion in the VR world was positively correlated with the effect of VR, whereas visualization and daydreaming were negatively correlated with VR effects.
conclusionVR increased tactile perception thresholds, with active VR having the largest effect. Results indicate that the efficacy of VR may increase with increasing age. Gender did not affect VR susceptibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.