Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Virtual Reality Exposure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have assessed virtual reality exposures efficacy, but very few examined its treatment processes. The addition of objective measures of arousal and information processing mechanisms would be a valuable contribution in order to provide a more complete and detailed picture. The goal of this study was to better document the cognitive mechanisms associated with therapeutic change after an in virtuo exposure treatment. Twenty-eight adults suffering from arachnophobia were assessed and received an exposure-based treatment using virtual reality. General outcome and specific processes measures included a battery of standardized questionnaires, a pictorial emotional Stroop task, a Behavioral Avoidance Test, and a measure of participants' cardiac response while they looked at a live tarantula. The analyses showed that changes in perceived self-efficacy and dysfunctional beliefs were the best predictors of change in general outcome and cardiac response; change in dysfunctional beliefs were the best predictor of change in behavioral avoidance. These innovative results provide a very detailed and organized picture of the complex cognitive mechanisms involved in therapeutic change following in virtuo exposure for arachnophobia.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it