» Articles » PMID: 33986337

Comparing Physiological Responses During Cognitive Tests in Virtual Environments Vs. in Identical Real-world Environments

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2021 May 14
PMID 33986337
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Immersive virtual environments (VEs) are increasingly used to evaluate human responses to design variables. VEs provide a tremendous capacity to isolate and readily adjust specific features of an architectural or product design. They also allow researchers to safely and effectively measure performance factors and physiological responses. However, the success of this form of design-testing depends on the generalizability of response measurements between VEs and real-world contexts. At the current time, there is very limited research evaluating the consistency of human response data across identical real and virtual environments. Rendering tools were used to precisely replicate a real-world classroom in virtual space. Participants were recruited and asked to complete a series of cognitive tests in the real classroom and in the virtual classroom. Physiological data were collected during these tests, including electroencephalography (EEG), electrocardiography (ECG), electrooculography (EOG), galvanic skin response (GSR), and head acceleration. Participants' accuracy on the cognitive tests did not significantly differ between the real classroom and the identical VE. However, the participants answered the tests more rapidly in the VE. No significant differences were found in eye blink rate and heart rate between the real and VR settings. Head acceleration and GSR variance were lower in the VE setting. Overall, EEG frequency band-power was not significantly altered between the real-world classroom and the VE. Analysis of EEG event-related potentials likewise indicated strong similarity between the real-world classroom and the VE, with a single exception related to executive functioning in a color-mismatch task.

Citing Articles

Brain and Subjective Responses to Indoor Environments Related to Concentration and Creativity.

Wang Z, Cho J, Hong Y Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(23).

PMID: 39686375 PMC: 11645023. DOI: 10.3390/s24237838.


Wearable Biosensor Technology in Education: A Systematic Review.

Hernandez-Mustieles M, Lima-Carmona Y, Pacheco-Ramirez M, Mendoza-Armenta A, Romero-Gomez J, Cruz-Gomez C Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(8).

PMID: 38676053 PMC: 11054421. DOI: 10.3390/s24082437.


Effects of Zinc Supplementation on Inflammatory and Cognitive Parameters in Middle-Aged Women with Overweight or Obesity.

de Vargas L, Jantsch J, Fontoura J, Dorneles G, Peres A, Guedes R Nutrients. 2023; 15(20).

PMID: 37892471 PMC: 10609714. DOI: 10.3390/nu15204396.


Using spontaneous eye blink-related brain activity to investigate cognitive load during mobile map-assisted navigation.

Cheng B, Lin E, Wunderlich A, Gramann K, Fabrikant S Front Neurosci. 2023; 17:1024583.

PMID: 36866330 PMC: 9971562. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1024583.


Health Implications of Virtual Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Transferability of Findings from Neuroarchitecture.

Valentine C Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(3).

PMID: 36768106 PMC: 9915076. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20032735.


References
1.
Acar Z, Makeig S . Neuroelectromagnetic forward head modeling toolbox. J Neurosci Methods. 2010; 190(2):258-70. PMC: 4126205. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.04.031. View

2.
Kleifges K, Bigdely-Shamlo N, Kerick S, Robbins K . BLINKER: Automated Extraction of Ocular Indices from EEG Enabling Large-Scale Analysis. Front Neurosci. 2017; 11:12. PMC: 5289990. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00012. View

3.
Carter C, Mintun M, Cohen J . Interference and facilitation effects during selective attention: an H215O PET study of Stroop task performance. Neuroimage. 1995; 2(4):264-72. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.1995.1034. View

4.
Bench C, Frith C, Grasby P, Friston K, Paulesu E, Frackowiak R . Investigations of the functional anatomy of attention using the Stroop test. Neuropsychologia. 1993; 31(9):907-22. DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(93)90147-r. View

5.
Paprocki R, Lenskiy A . What Does Eye-Blink Rate Variability Dynamics Tell Us About Cognitive Performance?. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018; 11:620. PMC: 5742176. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00620. View