ArticleVirtual reality2026
The effect of virtual reality modality level of immersion and locomotion on Spatial learning and gaze measures.
Article in Virtual reality, 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.
- Functional sufficiency in VR: achieving non-corporeal embodiment.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The widespread adoption of head-mounted display (HMD) virtual reality (VR) systems has emerged in various fields, including spatial learning research. This study investigated the effects of VR modality level of immersion, locomotion interface, and proprioception on spatial learning and physiological measures using eye-tracking (ET) in VR. We translated the classic T-maze task from Barnes et al. (Can J Psychol 34:29-39, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0081022) to humans for the first time, comparing three VR modalities: 3D HMD VR with physical walking, 3D HMD VR with controller-based movement, and 2D desktop VR. Eighty-eight participants were recruited, and recruitment was stopped once 75 valid participants were obtained (25 per experimental condition) in the powered sample, as preregistered. Results of generalized mixed linear models with binomial distribution to assess learning outcomes revealed that human participants employed a mixture of cue, place, and response strategies when navigating the virtual T-maze, mirroring rodent behavior. In both samples, mixed linear models showed no significant differences between the two HMD VR conditions in learning performance, nor consistent ones in strategy choices. However, 2D desktop navigation was associated with slower initial learning, though this discrepancy diminished in subsequent sessions. These results were supported by spatial presence, immersion, and naturalness reports. Gaze measures showed that participants who physically walked devoted more visual attention to environmental cues compared to controller users. Predictive models for identifying spatial learning strategies based on ET and behavioral measures demonstrated significant accuracy in permutation tests in some models, particularly in the VR walking condition and second session. Our findings enhance the understanding of spatial learning strategies and the effects of VR modality on cognition and gaze behavior. This work demonstrates the potential of integrated ET data and holds implications for early detection and personalized rehabilitation of neurodegenerative conditions related to spatial cognition. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10055-025-01297-9.
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.