MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384827433 · doi:10.3389/frvir.2023.1209535

Designing virtual reality exposure scenarios to treat anxiety in people with epilepsy: Phase 2 of the AnxEpiVR clinical trial

2023· article· en· W4384827433 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha Lewis-Fung, Danielle Tchao, Hannah Gabrielle Gray, Emma Nguyen, Susanna Pardini, Laurence R. Harris, Dale Calabia, Lora Appel

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Virtual Reality · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto East General HospitalCarleton UniversityYork UniversityUniversity Health Network
FundersYork University
KeywordsAnxietyEpilepsyIctalFidelityVirtual Reality Exposure TherapyPhase (matter)PsychologyVirtual realityProduct (mathematics)Exposure therapyApplied psychologyMedicineComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Anxiety in people with epilepsy (PwE) is characterized by distinct features related to having the condition and thus requires tailored treatment. Although virtual reality (VR) exposure therapy is widely-used to treat a number of anxiety disorders, its use has not yet been explored in people with epilepsy. The AnxEpiVR study is a three-phase pilot trial that represents the first effort to design and evaluate the feasibility of VR exposure therapy to treat epilepsy-specific interictal anxiety. This paper describes the results of the design phase (Phase 2) where we created a minimum viable product of VR exposure scenarios to be tested with PwE in Phase 3. Methods: Phase 2 employed participatory design methods and hybrid (online and in-person) focus groups involving people with lived experience (n = 5) to design the VR exposure therapy program. 360-degree video was chosen as the medium and scenes were filmed using the Ricoh Theta Z1 360-degree camera. Results: Our minimum viable product includes three exposure scenarios: (A) Social Scene—Dinner Party, (B) Public Setting—Subway, and (C) Public Setting—Shopping Mall. Each scenario contains seven 5-minute scenes of varying intensity, from which a subset may be chosen and ordered to create a customized hierarchy based on appropriateness to the individual’s specific fears. Our collaborators with lived experience who tested the product considered the exposure therapy program to 1) be safe for PwE, 2) have a high level of fidelity and 3) be appropriate for treating a broad range of fears related to epilepsy/seizures. Discussion: We were able to show that 360-degree videos are capable of achieving a realistic, immersive experience for the user without requiring extensive technical training for the designer. Strengths and limitations using 360-degree video for designing exposure scenarios for PwE are described, along with future directions for testing and refining the product.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Virtual RealitySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207