ArticleCureus2024
Effects of Different Visual Flow Velocities on Psychophysiological Responses During Virtual Reality Cycling.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVirtual reality cycling (VRC) is simulated outdoor cycling with changes in scenery in virtual reality (VR) with rotating ergometer pedals. The speed at which the scenery changes, which is the visual flow velocity, can shift according to the same pedal rotation speed.
objectivesThis study investigated the effects of different visual flow velocities on the psychophysiological responses of cyclists using the VRC.
methodsParticipants were asked to cycle for 20 min at 30% of their maximum exercise load under four conditions: (1) bicycle ergometer without VR (control), (2) VRC at normal visual flow velocity (VRC-normal), (3) VRC at 0.5 times the visual flow velocity of VRC-normal (VRC-slow), and (4) VRC at 1.5 times the visual flow velocity of VRC-normal (VRC-fast). The order of the four conditions was randomized in a counterbalanced design. The heart rate and rating of perceived exertion were recorded during the exercise. Participants graded their enjoyment of the task using the physical activity enjoyment scale (PACES). The measured data were analyzed by comparing the visual flow velocity conditions (VRC-slow, VRC-normal, and VRC-fast), and comparing the VRC and bicycle ergometer (VRC-normal and control).
resultsA total of 24 participants were enrolled in the study. There was a significant main effect observed in the PACES score (F
conclusionThe results suggest that a slower visual flow velocity may reduce the enjoyment of exercise, whereas a faster visual flow velocity may make the exercise feel less fatigued and more enjoyable.
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.