ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Evaluating the Viability of Virtual Reality for Children's Food Choice Research: Comparative Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Virtual reality (VR) systems offer promising potential as a controlled platform to investigate human behaviors specifically related to food choices. Yet, little is known about its viability for conducting food choice studies with children, thus limiting the development of public health research. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the viability of VR technology for understanding children's food choices, focusing specifically on perceptual differences between VR and real-life (RL) settings. We examined how children perceive and interact with food portion sizes and container sizes in VR as compared with an equivalent RL scenario. Methods: A within-subject, mixed methods study was conducted with 437 children aged 5-12 years at a science museum. Participants engaged in a standardized food selection task for a simulated breakfast scenario, choosing portions of cereal and milk in 2 conditions: a head-mounted VR environment and a corresponding RL physical setup. Children's food selection behaviors were quantitatively compared across 3 independent variables: condition (VR vs RL), food healthiness (healthy vs unhealthy options), and container size (small, medium, and large). Qualitative and quantitative data were collected via postsession questionnaires assessing presence, embodiment, and simulator sickness, alongside detailed interaction logs from the VR environment. Data analysis used statistical comparisons and thematic analysis. Results: The findings revealed both behavioral consistency and significant perceptual differences between the VR and RL conditions. A behavioral similarity was identified, as children served significantly larger portions of unhealthy food compared with healthy food in both conditions. Crucially, a difference was observed in size perception: children struggled to accurately match the size of bowls and glasses between the VR and RL conditions. Furthermore, while children reported low feelings of presence and embodiment within the VR scenario, they demonstrated a high degree of control and engagement in the virtual task. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that current state-of-the-art VR technology presents limitations in its viability for conducting food choice studies with children, particularly concerning accurate size and volume perception. Based on the findings, we provide 4 practical recommendations to guide the future development of immersive food environments, thereby supporting more reliable and ecologically valid food choice research with young 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.