Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38704442›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Virtual reality, face-to-face, and 2D video conferencing differently impact fatigue, creativity, flow, and decision-making in workplace dynamics.

Gregorio Macchi, Nicola De Pisapia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Gregorio MacchiDepartment of Psychology and Cognitive Science (DIPSCO), University of Trento, Corso Bettini 31, 38068, Rovereto, TN, Italy.
Nicola De PisapiaDepartment of Psychology and Cognitive Science (DIPSCO), University of Trento, Corso Bettini 31, 38068, Rovereto, TN, Italy. nicola.depisapia@unitn.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital communication technologies are rapidly evolving, and understanding their impact on group dynamics and cognitive performance in professional settings becomes central. This study investigates the psychological impact of different interaction settings-two-dimensional Video Conferencing (VC), Face-To-Face (FTF), and Virtual Reality (VR)-on group dynamics, cognitive performance, and aspects of well-being in a professional context. Utilizing a sample of 40 participants from a large Italian electricity transmission company, the study employs a within-subjects design to explore various metrics, including flow, creativity, fatigue and aspects of interaction. The results indicate that FTF interactions are optimal for idea generation and task absorption. VR, although initially more fatiguing for first-time users, fosters a more collaborative and peaceful environment, encouraging participants to engage more openly with each other. VC was found to be the least fatiguing, but also the least engaging in terms of task absorption and idea generation. Additionally, age-related differences were observed, particularly in the perception of motivational and emotional fatigue in the VR setting. The study provides empirical evidence supporting the integration of VR in professional settings for specific types of meetings, while also highlighting the limitations and areas for future research. These findings have implications for organizational well-being, cognitive ergonomics, and the evolving landscape of remote work technologies.

Indexed as

CreativityDecision MakingFatigueVirtual RealityWorkplaceAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVideoconferencingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38704442
PMCPMC11069516

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.