ArticlePloS one2026
Physiological sensing systems and AI-based signal analysis in immersive virtual reality learning and training: A scoping review.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review examined research on physiological sensing systems and AI-based signal analysis in immersive virtual reality (IVR) learning. It compared studies in terms of physiological modalities, HMD integration, calibration and synchronization, artifact management, feature engineering and representation learning, fusion strategies, validation design, and deployment readiness. We searched for studies published between 2016 and 2026 and included 19 empirical studies. In the 19 included studies, eye-tracking data (ETD, 13/19) and central nervous system signals (CNS, 11/19) were the most frequently reported modalities. CNS + ETD was the most frequently reported dual-modality configuration. Peripheral physiological signals (PPS, 3/19) were less frequently represented, and studies using electrodermal activity (EDA) were especially limited within the included corpus. The included studies covered the main stages of acquisition, preprocessing, feature engineering and representation learning, fusion, and analysis and modeling. Their targets included cognitive states, affective states, performance, attributes, and response patterns. Within this corpus, early fusion and traditional machine learning were frequently reported approaches. Reporting on sample-level processing, label construction, and train-test boundaries was incomplete in several studies. As a result, the interpretation and generalizability of reported findings depend on the specific study context. Overall, the included studies collectively outline an initial technical pathway, but evidence for reproducible, verifiable, and deployment-oriented real-time closed-loop IVR physiological sensing systems remained limited.
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.