ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
The impact of natural and urban environmental settings on exercise and perceptual responses during virtual reality-based exercise.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. 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.
- The Effect of Using Virtual Reality on Pain, Fear, and Anxiety in School-Age Children During Venipuncture: A Randomized Controlled Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advances in Understanding the Relationship Among Brain, Physical Function, and Exercise Performance.Brain sciences · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Exercise in virtual reality (VR) is engaging and provides a positive experience, contributing to long-term adherence. Psychological responses such as flow, a state of optimal engagement, and enjoyment, may contribute to these benefits. However, it is unclear whether cycling exercise in different virtual environments influence exercise and perceptual responses. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of a natural and urban non-immersive VR environment versus no VR on exercise and perceptual responses during cycling activity. Methods: Twenty-three physically active young adults completed 10 min of self-paced indoor cycling in three randomized conditions: No VR, and VR with Nature (Nature VR) and Urban (Urban VR) scenes. Power output, speed, heart rate, and Rating of Perceived Exertion were recorded. After each condition, participants completed the Flow State Scale (FSS) and Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES). Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate exercise and perceptual responses across conditions. Statistical significance was set at Results: No significant differences were found between conditions for exercise variables. The Nature VR condition reached higher values for Action-Awareness Merging (4.19 ± 0.64), Loss of Self-Consciousness (4.46 ± 0.54), and Unambiguous Feedback (3.85 ± 0.66) compared with No VR (Action-Awareness Merging = 3.59 ± 0.90; Loss of Self-Consciousness = 3.76 ± 1.00; and Unambiguous Feedback = 3.25 ± 0.64). Both VR conditions showed significant differences in Autotelic Experience (Nature = 3.92 ± 0.61; Urban = 3.76 ± 0.59) and PACES (Nature = 30.34 ± 3.88; Urban = 29.08 ± 4.32) compared to No VR (Autotelic Experience = 3.04 ± 0.84; PACES = 25.34 ± 4.40). Discussion: Nature VR provided additional benefits on specific flow dimensions compared with No VR cycling. These findings support the use of non-immersive VR, particularly natural scenes, as a strategy to improve the exercise experience, potentially supporting exercise adherence.
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.