ReviewNeuropsychology review2026
Exploring Cognitive Functions Through Virtual Reality: a Systematic Review of Ecologically Valid Assessments.
Review in Neuropsychology review, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This PRISMA‑guided systematic review synthesized evidence on the psychometric properties of immersive head‑mounted display (HMD) virtual reality (VR) tools developed for the ecological assessment of cognition across different developmental stages. The review targeted studies evaluating attention, inhibitory control, memory, and executive functions; published between January 1, 2021, and March 13, 2025, across PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science. Twenty‑one studies met the inclusion criteria. Convergent validity emerged as the most frequently reported property, appearing in 14 studies (67%) and showing predominantly low‑to‑moderate correlation coefficients (r = .29-0.66). Construct validity was reported less often (3 of 21; 14%) explaining 62%-80.18% of the variance, while test‑retest reliability data were available in only two studies (9.5%), showing overall significant correlation coefficients (r = .18-0.85). Discriminant validity (7 of 21; 33%) was adequate in 5 studies but limited in 2, which reported moderate cross-construct correlations. Predictive validity was assessed in five studies (24%), mainly for psychopathology‑related applications, though most relied on single‑rater parent questionnaires without behavioral or longitudinal validation, with evidence ranging from strong classifier performance (AUC = 0.92) to moderate predictive correlations (r = .38-0.43) and variable diagnostic classification rates. Child and adolescent investigations (9 of 21 studies) consistently demonstrated smaller sample sizes and less comprehensive validation protocols than adult‑focused research. Despite these heterogeneities, findings suggest that HMD‑VR environments can elicit more ecologically relevant cognitive behaviors and may capture performance features difficult to assess with traditional tools. However, the current evidence base is limited by methodological variability, restricted age diversity, and underreporting of core psychometric indices. Future research should adopt standardized validation protocols, include representative developmental samples, and integrate multi‑informant and longitudinal approaches to verify the ecological validity and clinical generalizability of HMD‑VR assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573669What 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.