Anxiety and Presence during VR Immersion: A Comparative Study of the Reactions of Phobic and Non-phobic Participants in Therapeutic Virtual Environments Derived from Computer Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality can be used to provide phobic clients with therapeutic exposure to phobogenic stimuli. However, purpose-built therapeutic VR hardware and software can be expensive and difficult to adapt to individual client needs. In this study, inexpensive and readily adaptable PC computer games were used to provide exposure therapy to 13 phobic participants and 13 non-phobic control participants. It was found that anxiety could be induced in phobic participants by exposing them to phobogenic stimuli in therapeutic virtual environments derived from computer games (TVEDG). Assessments were made of the impact of simulator sickness and of sense of presence on the phobogenic effectiveness of TVEDGs. Participants reported low levels of simulator sickness, and the results indicate that simulator sickness had no significant impact on either anxiety or sense of presence. Group differences, correlations, and regression analyses indicate a synergistic relationship between presence and anxiety. These results do not support Slater's contention that presence and emotion are orthogonal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".