Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33265932›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2020

Extended Reality for the Clinical, Affective, and Social Neurosciences.

Thomas D Parsons, Andrea Gaggioli, Giuseppe Riva

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. When I say … extended reality.Medical education · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Searching for the Metaverse: Neuroscience of Physical and Digital Communities.Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thomas D ParsonsiCenter for Affective Neurotechnologies (iCAN), Denton, TX 76203, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0331-5019
Andrea GaggioliHumane Technology Lab, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 20123 Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe RivaHumane Technology Lab, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 20123 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3657-106X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain science research often involves the use of low-dimensional tools and stimuli that lack several of the potentially valuable features of everyday activities and interactions. Although this research has provided important information about cognitive, affective, and social processes for both clinical and nonclinical populations, there is growing interest in high-dimensional simulations that extend reality. These high-dimensional simulations involve dynamic stimuli presented serially or concurrently to permit the assessment and training of perceivers' integrative processes over time. Moreover, high-dimensional simulation platforms can contextually restrain interpretations of cues about a target's internal states. Extended reality environments extend assessment and training platforms that balance experimental control with emotionally engaging background narratives aimed at extending the affective experience and social interactions. Herein, we highlight the promise of extended reality platforms for greater ecological validity in the clinical, affective, and social neurosciences.

Indexed as

affective neuroscienceclinical neuroscienceextended realityneuropsychologypresencesocial neurosciencevirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID33265932
PMCPMC7761460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.