Trial reportPloS one2025
The impact of visual fidelity on screen-based virtual reality food choices: A randomized pilot study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand the impact of fidelity and perceived realism on virtual reality food choices, and task motivation, engagement, and interest.
designRandomized controlled trial.
settingOnline.
participants84 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk.
interventionParticipants were randomly assigned to either a high- (n = 43) or a low- (n = 41) visual fidelity environment and were asked to select foods to have a meal with a friend.
main outcome measuresFood choice, motivation of food choices, engagement, and interest. ANALYSIS: Simple linear regressions between visual fidelity and perceived realism, and log-linear regressions for visual fidelity or perceived realism on either motivation, interest, or engagement. Poisson models between visual fidelity or perceived realism, and food selections.
resultsManipulating visual fidelity was not associated with perceived realism, motivation, interest, or engagement in the food selection task. Perceived realism increased motivation by 0.3% (SE 0.056; p = 0.022), interest by 1.4% (SE 0.002; p<0.001), and engagement by 0.9% (SE 0.001; p<0.001) in the food selection task. High visual fidelity decreased the total number of foods selected (B = 0.216; CI (-0.384; -0.047); p = 0.012). CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Perceived realism, but not visual fidelity, is important for task related factors like motivation, engagement, and interest. Visual fidelity may influence some food selections.
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.