ArticleNPJ microgravity2025
Virtual reality-based sensory stimulation preferences at Amundsen-Scott South Pole station in Antarctica.
Article in NPJ microgravity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health effects of plants, light, and natural elements of biophilic interventions in confined settings: a systematic review.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Pooled it
- Spaceflight human optimization and performance: positioning astronauts in an operational framework to promote health, fitness, and mission readiness.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Virtual Reality (VR)-based sensory stimulation can provide relaxation and psychological restoration in isolated, confined and extreme conditions such as long-duration spaceflight, but it remains unclear which aspects of VR would be most beneficial. To investigate individual preferences for various VR attributes, 25 overwintering crew members at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station in Antarctica underwent 16 variations of VR stimulation at the end of their mission, with manipulations in delivery mode (VR vs. laptop), content (nature vs. city environments), duration (4 vs. 10 min), and sensory augmentation (with or without temperature cues). Data collection included pre- and post-intervention surveys on perceived quality (value, immersiveness, restorativeness) and mood, as well open-ended qualitative feedback. We found that VR was viable and restorative in a high-fidelity spaceflight analog. Although longer-lasting nature scenes were preferred overall, interindividual variation in preferences for sensory stimulation emphasizes the need for a personalized approach.
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.