Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40604169›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Transforming language research from classic desktops to virtual environments.

Francisco Rocabado, Laís Muntini, Omar Fahmi Jubran, Thomas Lachmann, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Francisco Rocabado *Centro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición, Universidad Nebrija, Madrid, 28043, Spain. jrocabado@nebrija.es.
Laís Muntini *Centro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición, Universidad Nebrija, Madrid, 28043, Spain.
Omar Fahmi JubranCenter for Cognitive Science, RPTU Kaiserslautern, 67663, Kaiserslautern, Germany.
Thomas LachmannCentro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición, Universidad Nebrija, Madrid, 28043, Spain.
Jon Andoni DuñabeitiaCentro de Investigación Nebrija en Cognición, Universidad Nebrija, Madrid, 28043, Spain.

Funding

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación PID2021-126884NB-I00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) offers novel opportunities for investigating human perception beyond conventional laboratory settings, facilitating the study of naturalistic behavior with controlled virtual environments. To benefit from this technology, the foundational aspects must be compared to traditional personal computer (PC) monitor setups. The validity and reliability of stimuli presentation and response collection must be established to ensure that any findings can be attributed to experimental variables, not the method. To address this, we designed a single-word recognition (lexical decision) task administered in both VR and PC monitor setups. Stimulus presentation was controlled across tasks, visual angles were matched, and responses were gathered via VR controllers in both settings. Results replicated the lexicality effect (i.e., faster word than pseudoword reading) in both setups. Reaction times and error rates showed no significant differences between VR and PC monitor setups, underscoring VR's utility for collecting reliable behavioral data in language studies. These results demonstrate that VR-derived mental chronometry measures yield findings comparable to conventional methods, establishing a benchmark for future immersive research.

Indexed as

LanguageVirtual RealityAdultFemaleHumansMaleReaction TimeReadingUser-Computer InterfaceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40604169
PMCPMC12223199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.