MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413826166 · doi:10.1016/j.pecinn.2025.100424

Nonverbal behavior in prognostic communication: A pilot experiment in virtual reality

2025· article· en· W4413826166 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePEC Innovation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFondation Actuarielle du CanadaBentley UniversityDana-Farber Cancer Institute
KeywordsNonverbal communicationVirtual realityHuman–computer interactionComputer sciencePsychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Clinicians' nonverbal behaviors contribute to patients' responses to prognosis communication, yet little empirical evidence supports precise nonverbal behaviors and the mechanisms by which they contribute to perceptions of high-quality communication. Virtual reality (VR) is a promising tool for researching communication, allowing researchers to manipulate nonverbal behaviors in controlled simulation and examine outcomes. Objectives: The goal of this pilot study was to assess whether manipulated changes in avatar doctors' nonverbal behaviors could lead to measurable differences of participant feelings, reactions, or sense of immersion in a VR scenario of prognosis communication. Methods: In this pilot experiment, university student participants were randomized to a short prognosis communication simulation in immersive VR representing one of five nonverbal conditions: No nonverbals, Smile only, Nod only, Lean only, All nonverbals. Outcomes included cognitive (e.g., cognitive load, recall), socioemotional (e.g., emotional valence, satisfaction, anxiety), and immersion and presence. Results: Our sample comprised 229 participants. Pilot experimental findings suggest that some participant responses differed as a result of the manipulation of nonverbal behaviors. However, results did not point to the presence or absence of a particular nonverbal behavior as driving reactions to prognostic communication. Conclusions: VR can allow for experimental manipulation of nonverbal behavior. There is need for further development to optimally conduct sensitive and ecologically valid communication simulations for research, and for research into discrete nonverbal behaviors to improve serious illness communication training and practice. Innovation: VR experimental simulations are a promising tool for building the evidence base of nonverbal behavior in serious illness communication.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.342 · 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