ArticleJournal of neuropsychology2026
Immersive virtual reality assessments of working memory and psychomotor skills: A comparison between immersive and non-immersive assessments.
Article in Journal of neuropsychology, 2026. 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.
- Naturalistic actions modulate Working Memory prioritization in immersive virtual reality.Scientific reports · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveImmersive virtual reality (VR) enhances ecological validity and facilitates intuitive and ergonomic hand interactions for performing neuropsychological assessments. However, its comparability to traditional computerized methods remains unclear. This study investigates the convergent validity, user experience and usability of VR-based versus PC-based assessments of short-term and working memory, as well as psychomotor skills, while also examining how demographic and IT-related skills influence performance in both modalities.
methodsSixty-six participants performed the Digit Span Task (DST), Corsi Block Task (CBT) and Deary-Liewald Reaction Time Task (DLRTT) in both VR- and PC-based formats. Participants' experience in using computers and smartphones, and playing videogames, was considered. User experience and system usability of the formats were also evaluated.
resultsWhile performance on DST was similar across modalities, PC assessments enabled better performance on CBT and faster reaction times in DLRTT. Significant correlations between VR and PC versions supported convergent validity. Regression analyses revealed that performance on PC versions was influenced by computing and gaming experience, whereas performance on VR versions was largely independent of these factors, except for gaming experience predicting performance on CBT backward recall. Moreover, VR assessments received higher ratings for user experience and usability than PC-based assessments.
conclusionImmersive VR assessments provide an engaging alternative to traditional computerized methods, with minimal reliance on prior IT experience and demographic factors. This resilience to individual differences suggests that VR may offer a more equitable and accessible platform for automated cognitive assessment. Future research should explore the long-term reliability of VR-based assessments.
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.