ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Distress detection in VR environment using Empatica E4 wristband and Bittium Faros 360.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Distress detection in virtual reality systems offers a wealth of opportunities to improve user experiences and enhance therapeutic practices by catering to individual physiological and emotional states. Methods: This study evaluates the performance of two wearable devices, the Empatica E4 wristband and the Faros 360, in detecting distress in a motion-controlled interactive virtual reality environment. Subjects were exposed to a baseline measurement and two VR scenes, one non-interactive and one interactive, involving problem-solving and distractors. Heart rate measurements from both devices, including mean heart rate, root mean square of successive differences, and subject-specific thresholds, were utilized to explore distress intensity and frequency. Results: Both the Faros and E4 sensors adequately captured physiological signals, with Faros demonstrating a higher signal-to-noise ratio and consistency. While correlation coefficients were moderately positive between Faros and E4 data, indicating a linear relationship, small mean absolute error and root mean square error values suggested good agreement in measuring heart rate. Analysis of distress occurrence during the interactive scene revealed that both devices detect more high- and medium-level distress occurrences compared to the non-interactive scene. Discussion: Device-specific factors in distress detection were emphasized due to differences in detected distress events between devices.
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.