ReviewBrain sciences2025
Approach-Avoidance Bias in Virtual and Real-World Simulations: Insights from a Systematic Review of Experimental Setups.
Review in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring Brain Dynamics Within the Approach-Avoidance Bias.Brain sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundApproach and avoidance bias (AAB) describes automatic behavioral tendencies to react toward environmental stimuli regarding their emotional valence. Traditional setups have provided evidence but often lack ecological validity. The study of the AAB in naturalistic contexts has recently increased, revealing significant methodological challenges. This systematic review evaluates the use of virtual reality (VR) and real-world setups to study the AAB, summarizing methodological innovations and challenges.
methodsWe systematically reviewed peer-reviewed articles employing VR and real-world setups to investigate the AAB. We analyzed experimental designs, stimuli, response metrics, and technical aspects to assess their alignment with research objectives and identify limitations.
resultsThis review included 14 studies revealing diverse methodologies, stimulus types, and novel behavioral responses, highlighting significant variability in design strategies and methodological coherence. Several studies used traditional reaction time measures yet varied in their application of VR technology and participant interaction paradigms. Some studies showed discrepancies between simulated and natural bodily actions, while others showcased more integrated approaches that preserved their integrity. Only a minority of studies included control conditions or acquired (neuro)physiological data.
conclusionsVR offers a potential ecological setup for studying the AAB, enabling dynamic and immersive interactions. Our results underscore the importance of establishing a coherent framework for investigating the AAB tendencies using VR. Addressing the foundational challenges of developing baseline principles that guide VR-based designs to study the AAB within naturalistic contexts is essential for advancing the AAB research and application. This will ultimately contribute to more reliable and reproducible experimental paradigms and develop effective interventions that help individuals recognize and change their biases, fostering more balanced behaviors.
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.