ArticleExperimental brain research2021
Does co-presence affect the way we perceive and respond to emotional interactions?
Article in Experimental brain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of binocular disparity and active motion parallax in cybersickness.Experimental brain research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study compared how two virtual display conditions of human body expressions influenced explicit and implicit dimensions of emotion perception and response behavior in women and men. Two avatars displayed emotional interactions (angry, sad, affectionate, happy) in a "pictorial" condition depicting the emotional interactive partners on a screen within a virtual environment and a "visual" condition allowing participants to share space with the avatars, thereby enhancing co-presence and agency. Subsequently to stimulus presentation, explicit valence perception and response tendency (i.e. the explicit tendency to avoid or approach the situation) were assessed on rating scales. Implicit responses, i.e. postural and autonomic responses towards the observed interactions were measured by means of postural displacement and changes in skin conductance. Results showed that self-reported presence differed between pictorial and visual conditions, however, it was not correlated with skin conductance responses. Valence perception was only marginally influenced by the virtual condition and not at all by explicit response behavior. There were gender-mediated effects on postural response tendencies as well as gender differences in explicit response behavior but not in valence perception. Exploratory analyses revealed a link between valence perception and preferred behavioral response in women but not in men. We conclude that the display condition seems to influence automatic motivational tendencies but not higher level cognitive evaluations. Moreover, intragroup differences in explicit and implicit response behavior highlight the importance of individual factors beyond gender.
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.