ArticleNPJ science of learning2025
Using virtual reality to study spatial mapping and threat learning.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 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.
- Anxiety, stress, and affective modulation on object-location memory: A systematic review in virtual environments.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Using spatial mapping processes to discriminate between threat and safety is crucial for survival. Little is known why some fail to discriminate during contextual conditioning. We used a virtual reality (VR) contextual conditioning paradigm to elucidate the effects of state and trait anxiety on contextual threat learning. Participants (n = 70) "picked" flowers in a VR environment. Dangerous zone flowers predicted an electric shock, while safe zone flowers did not. Between trials, participants completed a spatial memory task. Galvanic skin response (GSR) and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores were recorded. Participants were considered learners for correctly identifying both zones. Non-learners, compared to learners, performed worse during the spatial memory task and demonstrated higher state anxiety scores and GSR. Learners showed higher skin conductance response (SCR) in the dangerous compared to the safe zone, while non-learners showed no SCR differences between zones. Results indicate state anxiety may impair spatial mapping, disrupting contextual threat learning.
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.