ArticleCyberpsychology, behavior and social networking2020
Group Decision-Making in Multi-User Immersive Virtual Reality.
Article in Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 2020. 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.
- Article
- Article
- Virtual reality, face-to-face, and 2D video conferencing differently impact fatigue, creativity, flow, and decision-making in workplace dynamics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
Head-mounted displays enable social interactions in immersive virtual environments. However, it is yet unclear whether the technology is also suitable for collaborative work between remote group members. Previous research comparing group performance in nonimmersive computer-mediated communication and face-to-face (FtF) interaction yielded inconsistent results. For this reason, we set out to compare multi-user immersive virtual reality (IVR), video conferencing (VC), and FtF interaction in a group decision task. Furthermore, we examined whether the conditions differed with respect to cognitive load and social presence. Using the hidden profile paradigm, we tested 174 participants in a fictional personnel selection case. Discussion quality in IVR did not differ from VC and FtF interaction. All conditions showed the typical bias for discussing information that was provided for all participants (i.e., shared information) compared with information that was only disclosed to individual participants (i.e., unshared information). Furthermore, we found that IVR groups showed the same probability of solving the task correctly. Social presence in IVR was reduced compared with FtF interaction; however, we found no differences in cognitive load. In sum, our results imply that IVR can effectuate efficient group behavior in a modern working environment that is characterized by a growing demand for remote collaboration.
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.