Trial reportPloS one2026
Psychophysiological effects of traditional cycling, virtual reality-enhanced cycling, and passive virtual reality exposure in young adults: A controlled within-subject study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual reality (VR) offers a promising tool to enhance engagement in physical activity, but the independent and combined effects of VR on physiological and psychological responses remain underexplored in young adults.
aimTo compare acute psychophysiological responses to traditional cycling, VR-enhanced cycling, and passive VR exposure (VR-noEx) in healthy young adults.
methodsIn this randomized, counterbalanced within-subject study, 60 healthy university students aged 18 years or older completed three 10-minute sessions with 10-minute seated rest between conditions: (1) traditional cycling, (2) cycling with VR, and (3) VR-noEx (VR with no exercise). Outcome measures included self-efficacy, enjoyment, perceived exertion, heart rate (HR), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), and respiratory rate (RR). Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni corrections, and effect sizes were calculated (Cohen's d).
resultsBoth cycling conditions significantly increased HR (33-35 bpm), SBP (14-17 mmHg), and RR (5.8-6.5 breaths/min) compared to rest (all p < .001), with no significant differences between VR cycling and traditional cycling. VR-noEx did not significantly alter HR or BP relative to rest. VR cycling produced higher self-efficacy and enjoyment than other conditions (p < .05), with small-to-moderate effects and comparable cardiovascular activation.
conclusionVR-enhanced cycling improves self-efficacy and enjoyment without reducing cardiovascular activation, whereas passive VR alone does not confer exercise benefits, suggesting VR-assisted exercise enhances positive psychological responses relevant to physical activity engagement.
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.