Visualization, Self-Efficacy, and Locus of Control in a Virtual Reality Biofeedback Video Game for Anxiety Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study aimed to identify specific feedback mechanics and psychological processes that may contribute to positive outcomes in biofeedback applications for anxiety regulation. Specifically, using a dismantling study design, the unique impact of visualizations that directly mirror users' breathing was examined in relation to anxiety regulation as well as locus of control and self-efficacy. Following an anxiety induction, participants (N = 67) were randomly assigned to play one of two variations of a biofeedback video game. In both versions, players' in-game movement was contingent on their breathing; however, the experimental condition additionally included visualizations that directly mirrored players' breathing. Changes in self-reported state anxiety and physiological arousal were measured as well as the level of internal control and self-efficacy participants experienced while playing the game. Results showed that all participants were able to effectively reduce their anxiety and arousal, but no condition differences were found. Implementing mirroring visualizations did not contribute to individuals' ability to self-regulate nor their self-efficacy or locus of control above and beyond receiving feedback based on their in-game movement. Overall, individuals who experienced higher self-efficacy and a stronger internal locus of control were better able to regulate their anxiety, but no clear links were found with changes in self-reported physiological arousal. In light of these results, we recommend the continued exploration of the role of specific design choices and intervention components as well as underlying mechanisms of change in biofeedback interventions, especially pertaining to how individuals perceive themselves and their ability to change.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".