ArticlePloS one2025
Usability, sense of presence, and performance of a virtual reality emotion recognition task.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) has been proposed as a tool that could fulfill some of the limitations in emotion recognition (ER) assessment. Our research group created a VR task (VR-Tóol) for ER assessment. The aims of this study were to assess the usability, sense of presence, and acceptability of the VR-Tóol; to describe the performance of a VR-Tóol setup task and to examine the association between VR-Tóol performance and empathy. Forty-six healthy participants were assessed. A semi-structured interview, the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), the Cognitive and Affective Empathy Test (TECA), and the ICT Use Questionnaire (ICTUQ) were administered. Subsequently, a VR-Tóol protocol was applied. Finally, the System Usability Scale (SUS), Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ), and a Motivation Questionnaire were administered. The SUS total score showed acceptable parameters; the IPQ mean scores reached marginally acceptable scores in all subscales, excepting for the Involvement subscale, which achieved non-acceptable parameters. The SSQ indicated the presence of negligible symptoms related to the VR exposure. Regarding performance, participants achieved 83.3% hits. A substantial accuracy rate was met in contempt, admiration, happiness, surprise, and compassion. Significant positive correlations were observed between VR-Tóol hits and TECA's Perspective taking (PT) score (Spearman's rho = 0.500, p < .001) and Total score (Spearman's rho = 0.398, p = .007). In conclusion, VR-Tóol exhibits favorable usability and sense of presence properties, negligible cybersickness symptoms, and an overall positive experience. We found evidence of the relationship between ER and empathy. This work elucidates the potential utility of VR-Tóol for ER assessment.
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.