ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Real-life relevant face perception is not captured by the N170 but reflected in later potentials: A comparison of 2D and virtual reality stimuli.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Working memory load and search efficiency in conventional monitor-based 2D versus 3D virtual settings: analysis of response times and parietal induced alpha activity in a modified Sternberg task.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perceptual Learning and Video Game Training for Adults with Monocular Amblyopia.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Review
- Impact of virtual agent facial emotions and attention on N170 ERP amplitude: comparative study.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of face and object perception in 2D laboratory and virtual reality settings: insights from induced oscillatory responses.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The perception of faces is one of the most specialized visual processes in the human brain and has been investigated by means of the early event-related potential component N170. However, face perception has mostly been studied in the conventional laboratory, i.e., monitor setups, offering rather distal presentation of faces as planar 2D-images. Increasing spatial proximity through Virtual Reality (VR) allows to present 3D, real-life-sized persons at personal distance to participants, thus creating a feeling of social involvement and adding a self-relevant value to the presented faces. The present study compared the perception of persons under conventional laboratory conditions (PC) with realistic conditions in VR. Paralleling standard designs, pictures of unknown persons and standard control images were presented in a PC- and a VR-modality. To investigate how the mechanisms of face perception differ under realistic conditions from those under conventional laboratory conditions, the typical face-specific N170 and subsequent components were analyzed in both modalities. Consistent with previous laboratory research, the N170 lost discriminatory power when translated to realistic conditions, as it only discriminated faces and controls under laboratory conditions. Most interestingly, analysis of the later component [230-420 ms] revealed more differentiated face-specific processing in VR, as indicated by distinctive, stimulus-specific topographies. Complemented by source analysis, the results on later latencies show that face-specific neural mechanisms are applied only under realistic conditions (A video abstract is available in the Supplementary material and via YouTube: https://youtu.be/TF8wiPUrpSY).
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.