ArticlePloS one2023
Anxiety classification in virtual reality using biosensors: A mini scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Biosensor-Integrated Virtual Reality for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Psychosis: A Systematic Review of a New Therapeutic Frontier.Biosensors · 2026Pooled it
- The Interplay Between Environment and Drug Effects: Decoding the Ecocebo Phenomenon with Virtual Technologies.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnxiety prediction can be used for enhancing Virtual Reality applications. We aimed to assess the evidence on whether anxiety can be accurately classified in Virtual Reality.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review using Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library as data sources. Our search included studies from 2010 to 2022. Our inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed studies which take place in a Virtual Reality environment and assess the user's anxiety using machine learning classification models and biosensors.
results1749 records were identified and out of these, 11 (n = 237) studies were selected. Studies had varying numbers of outputs, from two outputs to eleven. Accuracy of anxiety classification for two-output models ranged from 75% to 96.4%; accuracy for three-output models ranged from 67.5% to 96.3%; accuracy for four-output models ranged from 38.8% to 86.3%. The most commonly used measures were electrodermal activity and heart rate.
conclusionResults show that it is possible to create high-accuracy models to determine anxiety in real time. However, it should be noted that there is a lack of standardisation when it comes to defining ground truth for anxiety, making these results difficult to interpret. Additionally, many of these studies included small samples consisting of mostly students, which may bias the results. Future studies should be very careful in defining anxiety and aim for a more inclusive and larger sample. It is also important to research the application of the classification by conducting longitudinal studies.
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.