ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
New is not always better: Virtual reality does not necessarily enhance mnemonic processing.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative analysis of face and object perception in 2D laboratory and virtual reality settings: insights from induced oscillatory responses.Experimental brain research · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrating new technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR) can contribute to increasing efficiency in several areas relevant to society. VR can be applied in various contexts and has the potential to improve mnemonic processes and memory performance. However, the specific conditions under which VR is more beneficial than conventional learning methods remain unclear. To further investigate the value of VR for mnemonic processing, participants performed a memory task under three different conditions. For that task, they were presented with rules regarding the spatial arrangement of building blocks with a written text or a video in 2D on a screen or in 3D/360° with a head-mounted display. Following the learning session, memory performance was measured by a recognition test involving a multiple-choice questionnaire, in which participants had to mark the correct arrangement of building blocks, and a construction test, in which they had to arrange five different building blocks according to the rules learned. Additionally, participants had to arrange 38 building blocks according to the rules in a free recall test the following day. Surprisingly, results revealed no superiority effect for learning in VR. Instead, learning the rules with the text yielded the best memory performance results, indicating that prior experience with conventional learning methods facilitates declarative knowledge acquisition. Considering previous findings regarding cognitive processing in VR, our results suggest that in passive learning, processing the more salient and personally relevant virtual stimuli in the surrounding VR environment requires more attentional resources. Therefore, VR impairs focusing on the relevant declarative information and impedes the transfer of the learned knowledge to different contexts. When considering to implement VR, the value to the particular domain and specific learning task should be taken into consideration: For learning basic declarative information without actively involving the students, conventional learning methods seem sufficient and more efficient for mnemonic processing compared to new technologies.
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.