ArticleInternational journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP
Impact of CAVE automatic virtual environment (CAVE) on user experience and health outcomes: A systematic review.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many virtual reality systems, including the fully immersive Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE), have been developed over the years. Although CAVE has been used primarily in domains such as research, training, and visualisation, its application in therapeutic interventions has also been explored. However, the extent to which specific characteristics of CAVE shape user experience and contribute to measurable health outcomes, including motor function, psychological well-being, and cognitive performance, in neurological, developmental and psychiatric conditions requires further review. Objective: This review aims to identify CAVE's characteristics and to synthesise the user experience and health outcomes reported for interventions delivered through these systems in neurological, developmental, and psychiatric conditions. Method: Eligible studies were sourced across six electronic databases, grey literature, trial registries, and hand-searching from 2014 to October 2024. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were eligible. Because of substantial heterogeneity in populations, system configurations, intervention content, and outcome measures, meta-analysis was not appropriate and a narrative synthesis was conducted. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Quality appraisal was conducted using Cochrane's Risk of Bias (RoB) tool and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies. Results: Fifteen studies (552 participants) were analysed, and most were appraised as moderate quality. Interventions were delivered through CAVE systems for diverse age groups, including children aged 6 months to 14 years, adults aged 18 and older, and older adults over 60. Interventions delivered through CAVE were associated with improvements in gait and balance in most studies, whereas findings for psychological well-being and cognitive function were drawn from a small number of small, heterogeneous studies and were inconsistent. Where user experience was assessed (four studies), participants generally described the environment as enjoyable and reported few side effects such as cybersickness, although one study rated presence and involvement lower than with a head-mounted display (HMD). Conclusion: Interventions delivered through CAVE systems have demonstrated preliminary evidence of improving clinical outcomes in users with neurological, developmental, and psychiatric conditions. However, the current evidence base is small, heterogeneous in system configuration and intervention content, and largely of moderate quality. Compared to HMDs, CAVE systems may offer a less isolating experience due to their open, projection-based design. However, evidence on relative immersion is mixed. The risk of cybersickness appeared low across most included studies, though this varied by system design and participant population
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.