Use of immersive virtual reality to assess episodic memory: A validation study in older adults
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
Virtual reality (VR) allows for the creation of ecological environments that could be used for cognitive assessment and intervention. This study comprises two parts that describe and assess an immersive VR task, the Virtual Shop, which can be used to measure episodic memory. Part 1 addresses its applicability in healthy older adults by measuring presence, motivation, and cybersickness symptoms. Part 2 addresses its construct validity by investigating correlations between performance in the VR task and on a traditional experimental memory task, and by measuring whether the VR task is sensitive to age-related memory differences. Fifty-seven older and 20 younger adults were assessed in the Virtual Shop, in which they memorised and fetched 12 familiar items. Part 1 showed high levels of presence, higher levels of motivation for the VR than for the traditional task, and negligible cybersickness symptoms. Part 2 indicates that memory performance in the VR task is positively correlated with performance on a traditional memory task for both age groups, and age-related differences were found on the VR and traditional memory tasks. Thus, the use of VR is feasible in older adults and the Virtual Shop is a valid task to assess and train episodic memory in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it