Effects of Virtual Reality Pilates Training on Duration of Posture Maintenance and Flow in Young, Healthy Individuals: Randomized Crossover Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study explored the use of virtual reality (VR) technology to enhance the effectiveness and duration of low-intensity movements and postures in Pilates-derived exercises. We postulate that by leveraging the flow state in VR, individuals can engage in these exercises for longer periods while maintaining a high level of flow. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare differences in posture maintenance and flow between VR Pilates training and conventional Pilates training, and the correlation between the 2 factors. Methods The 18 participants in each group received either VR training or conventional training and were switched to the other training type after a 2-day wash-out period. Each group performed Pilates movements in a VR environment and a conventional environment, divided into 4 types. After training sessions, participants were evaluated for flow using a self-report questionnaire. In addition, a sports video analysis program was used to measure the duration of posture maintenance in 2 video-recorded sessions. Repeated-measures ANOVA and correlation analysis were performed on the measured duration of posture maintenance and flow scores. In all cases, the statistical significance level was set at P<.05. Results Results for the duration of posture maintenance verification by type showed that simple behavior (F1,16=17.631; P<.001), upper body–arm coordination behavior (F1,16=6.083; P=.04), upper body–leg coordination behavior (F1,16=8.359; P<.001), and whole-body coordination behavior (F1,16=8.426; P<.001) all showed an interaction effect at P<.05. Flow (F1,16=15.250; P<.001) also showed an interaction effect. In addition, significant correlations were determined between duration of all types of posture maintenance and flow in the VR training group at P<.05. Conclusions Our results indicate that VR Pilates training may be more useful than conventional Pilates training in improving the duration of posture maintenance and that it promotes a significantly higher degree of flow when compared with conventional Pilates training.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".