ArticleBehavior research methods2025
A novel reaction time assessment in virtual reality: Advantages over computerized tests.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Selective spatial attention to competing speakers in azimuth and depth: Evidence from real and virtual environments.Neuroimage. Reports · 2026Article
- Immersive virtual reality assessments of working memory and psychomotor skills: A comparison between immersive and non-immersive assessments.Journal of neuropsychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reaction time (RT) is a fundamental cognitive function impacting daily life and sports activities. Despite the increasing use of virtual reality (VR) for cognitive assessments, its efficacy for RT assessments remains uncertain. We aimed to develop and validate a novel RT test in VR, and to explore the potential contributions of VR technology to RT assessment. Forty-eight participants completed a computerized RT test (COM-RT) and a novel RT test in VR (VR-RT). The latter replicated the COM-RT test, assessing simple and choice RTs. Additionally, it introduced more complex conditions: reaching to touch static stimuli in known or unknown locations or moving stimuli. Correlations and differences between the tests and tasks were examined. Moderate-to-strong linear correlations were found between the tests for the simple (r ≥ 0.642) and choice (r ≥ 0.736) tasks, and the difference between them (r ≥ 0.677) (p < 0.001). However, RTs were significantly longer in the VR-RT test compared with the COM-RT test (p < 0.001). Significant differences were found among the RT-VR tasks (p < 0.001): reaching to touch stimuli involved longer RTs compared with pressing a button, and RT was even longer when stimuli appeared in unexpected locations. Moving stimuli were associated with shorter RT. Additionally, movement velocity was significantly higher when reaching for dynamic versus static stimuli in known or unknown locations (p < 0.001). VR is valid for RT measurement, yet its outcomes should be interpreted within its framework rather than in comparison to computer assessments. Furthermore, VR offers additional possibilities, such as using lifelike stimuli and measuring kinematics.
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.