Eating Behavior and Satiety With Virtual Reality Meals Compared With Real Meals: Randomized Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eating disorders and obesity are serious health problems with poor treatment outcomes and high relapse rates despite well-established treatments. Several studies have suggested that virtual reality technology could enhance the current treatment outcomes and could be used as an adjunctive tool in their treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the differences between eating virtual and real-life meals and test the hypothesis that eating a virtual meal can reduce hunger among healthy women. METHODS: The study included 20 healthy women and used a randomized crossover design. The participants were asked to eat 1 introduction meal, 2 real meals, and 2 virtual meals, all containing real or virtual meatballs and potatoes. The real meals were eaten on a plate that had been placed on a scale that communicated with analytical software on a computer. The virtual meals were eaten in a room where participants were seated on a real chair in front of a real table and fitted with the virtual reality equipment. The eating behavior for both the real and virtual meals was filmed. Hunger was measured before and after the meals using questionnaires. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in hunger from baseline to after the real meal (mean difference=61.8, P<.001) but no significant change in hunger from before to after the virtual meal (mean difference=6.9, P=.10). There was no significant difference in food intake between the virtual and real meals (mean difference=36.8, P=.07). Meal duration was significantly shorter in the virtual meal (mean difference=-5.4, P<.001), which led to a higher eating rate (mean difference=82.9, P<.001). Some participants took bites and chewed during the virtual meal, but the number of bites and chews was lower than in the real meal. The meal duration was reduced from the first virtual meal to the second virtual meal, but no significant difference was observed between the 2 real meals. CONCLUSIONS: Eating a virtual meal does not appear to significantly reduce hunger in healthy individuals. Also, this methodology does not significantly result in eating behaviors identical to real-life conditions but does evoke chewing and bite behavior in certain individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05734209, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05734209.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".