ArticleInternational journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP
Investigating the acceptability and validity of a novel VR paradigm that simulates auditory hallucinations.
Article in International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a growing use of Virtual Reality (VR) technologies in psychosis research and intervention. Validated VR simulations of psychotic-like experience have the potential to allow controlled manipulation of stimuli, reproducibility, and to isolate mechanisms of change in an ethical research framework. Although initial developments appear to be safe, qualitative reporting of participants' experiences of VR simulated psychotic-like experiences is lacking. This paper proposes and demonstrates an ethically grounded framework for evaluating the acceptability and validity of an immersive VR experience that simulates auditory hallucinations (VR-sAH) based upon the prototypical content of auditory hallucinations described by people with lived experience. Sixty-eight non-clinical participants undertook an experimental trial involving VR-sAH. Validity of the VR-sAH was assessed by combined assessment of qualitative reports and psychophysiological responses. Non-acceptability was operationalised as drop-outs, indications of distress during the experiment, and self-reported Subjective Units of Distress post-experiment. Following the experiment, a subset of participants (n = 29) undertook semi-structured interviews guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results indicated that the VR-sAH produced a believable and affectively salient analogue of auditory hallucinatory experiences. Statistically significant reductions in heart rate variability validated participants' self-reported embodied immersion in the VR-sAH. Semi-structured interviews and quantitative acceptability criteria indicated that the VR-sAH was an acceptable research tool. However, this sentiment was subject to important caveats to consider: including participants with psychosis and other mental health issues, and the importance of integrity and transparency on the part of the researcher team. Although VR-sAHs do not replicate the full phenomenology of clinical auditory hallucinations, they may provide ethically manageable and experimentally controllable analogues of perceptual and cognitive processes relevant to psychosis research, particularly during early-stage development in non-clinical populations.
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.