Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36201546›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Comparing virtual reality, desktop-based 3D, and 2D versions of a category learning experiment.

Robin Colin Alexander Barrett, Rollin Poe, Justin William O'Camb, Cal Woodruff, Scott Marcus Harrison, Katerina Dolguikh, Christine Chuong, Amanda Dawn Klassen, Ruilin Zhang, Rohan Ben Joseph and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Robin Colin Alexander BarrettDepartment of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4501-0910
Rollin PoeCognitive Science Program, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Justin William O'CambDepartment of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Cal WoodruffDepartment of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Scott Marcus HarrisonCognitive Science Program, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Katerina DolguikhCognitive Science Program, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Christine ChuongDepartment of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Amanda Dawn KlassenCognitive Science Program, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Ruilin ZhangCognitive Science Program, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Rohan Ben JosephDepartment of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Mark Randall BlairDepartment of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) has seen increasing application in cognitive psychology in recent years. There is some debate about the impact of VR on both learning outcomes and on patterns of information access behaviors. In this study we compare performance on a category learning task between three groups: one presented with three-dimensional (3D) stimuli while immersed in the HTC Vive VR system (n = 26), another presented with the same 3D stimuli while using a flat-screen desktop computer (n = 26), and a third presented with a two-dimensional projection of the stimuli on a desktop computer while their eye movements were tracked (n = 8). In the VR and 3D conditions, features of the object to be categorized had to be revealed by rotating the object. In the eye tracking control condition (2D), all object features were visible, and participants' gaze was tracked as they examined each feature. Over 240 trials we measured accuracy, reaction times, attentional optimization, time spent on feedback, fixation durations, and fixation counts for each participant as they learned to correctly categorize the stimuli. In the VR condition, participants had increased fixation counts compared to the 3D and 2D conditions. Reaction times for the 2D condition were significantly faster and fixation durations were lower compared to the VR and 3D conditions. We found no significant differences in learning accuracy between the VR, 3D, and 2D conditions. We discuss implications for both researchers interested in using VR to study cognition, and VR developers hoping to use non-VR research to guide their designs and applications.

Indexed as

Virtual RealityAttentionCognitionHumansLearningUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID36201546
PMCPMC9536585

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.