Virtual reality as a tool to explore multisensory processing before and after engagement in physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This pilot study employed a non-randomized control trial design to explore the impact of physical activity within a virtual reality (VR) environment on multisensory processing among community-dwelling older adults. Methods The investigation compared both chronic (over 6 weeks) and acute effects of VR-based physical activity to a reading control group. The evaluation metrics for multisensory processing included audiovisual response time (RT), simultaneity judgments (SJ), sound-induced flash illusion (SIFI), and temporal order judgments (TOJ). A total of 13 older adults were provided with VR headsets featuring custom-designed games, while another 14 older adults were assigned to a reading-based control group. Results Results indicated that acute engagement in physical activity led to higher accuracy in the SIFI task (experimental group: 85.6%; control group: 78.2%; p = 0.037). Additionally, both chronic and acute physical activity resulted in quicker response times (chronic: experimental group = 336.92; control group = 381.31; p = 0.012; acute: experimental group = 333.38; control group = 383.09; p = 0.006). Although the reading group showed a non-significant trend for greater improvement in mean RT, covariate analyses revealed that this discrepancy was due to the older age of the reading group. Discussion The findings suggest that immersive VR has potential utility for enhancing multisensory processing in older adults. However, future studies must rigorously control for participant variables like age and sex to ensure more accurate comparisons between experimental and control conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".