| Literature DB >> 23398927 |
Federica Pallavicini1, Pietro Cipresso, Simona Raspelli, Alessandra Grassi, Silvia Serino, Cinzia Vigna, Stefano Triberti, Marco Villamira, Andrea Gaggioli, Giuseppe Riva.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several research studies investigating the effectiveness of the different treatments have demonstrated that exposure-based therapies are more suitable and effective than others for the treatment of anxiety disorders. Traditionally, exposure may be achieved in two manners: in vivo, with direct contact to the stimulus, or by imagery, in the person's imagination. However, despite its effectiveness, both types of exposure present some limitations that supported the use of Virtual Reality (VR). But is VR always an effective stressor? Are the technological breakdowns that may appear during such an experience a possible risk for its effectiveness?Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23398927 PMCID: PMC3608149 DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-13-52
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Figure 1Screenshot from VR condition. Figure illustrates virtual environment representing an academic oral examination in a classroom.
Figure 2Time scheduled of the experiment.
Mean and Standard deviation of anxiety scores assessed trough the PMQ Questionnaire before and after all the four conditions
| 2.65 (1.16) | 3.78 (1.88) | |
| 2.41 (1.18) | 4.27 (1.83) | |
| 2.51 (1.3) | 4.76 (1.94) | |
| 2.49 (1.23) | 4.35 (1.94) | |
Mean and Standard deviation of relax scores assessed trough the PMQ Questionnaire before and after all the four conditions
| 4.16 (1.14) | 2.84 (1.6) | |
| 4.14 (1.25) | 3 (1.87) | |
| 4.24 (1.34) | 2.43 (1.53) | |
| 4.14 (1.22) | 3.03 (1.6) | |
Mean and Standard Deviation of main difference in anxiety and relax scores (score at the baseline minus score after condition)
| | |||||||
| -1.02 (.325) | -2.28 (.322) | -1.64 (.37) | -1.82 (.32) | 4.59 | .525 | .000*** | |
| 1.07 (2.03) | 1.89 (1.41) | 1.12 (1.52) | 1.28 (1.94) | 2.82 | .069 | .042* | |
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
SUS total score after each condition
| 12.1 (4.03) | 12.4 (4.15) | 12.3 (4.35) | 12.1 (3.75) | .084 | .969 |
ANOVA did not reveal a significative main effect of condition.
Differences in main effects for HF, EMG_RMS and RSP_Rate
| Virtual Reality | Audio | 5.554 | 1.916 | .041* | |
| | | Video | 5.477 | 1.719 | .020* |
| | | Text | 3.745 | 2.338 | .714 |
| Virtual Reality | Audio | -5.489 | 1.092 | .001*** | |
| | | Video | -3.61 | 1.133 | .020* |
| | | Text | -4.898 | 1.032 | .001*** |
| Virtual Reality | Audio | -3.626 | .604 | .001*** | |
| | | Video | -2.22 | .460 | .001*** |
| Text | -2.808 | .585 | .001*** |
This table reports the comparison between Virtual Reality and the other stimuli (Audio, Video, Text), showing statistical significant differences for all the three measures. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
Figure 3A comparison within conditions with significance level showed accordingly. HF, EMG_RMS and RSP. Rate graphics per each condition, showing deviation from baseline. The arrow (Stress zone) indicates the sense of the variation to indicate an increasing in stress in that direction. It is clear from Figure 3 that Virtual Reality condition differs from other conditions in the direction quality, confirming that technological breakdowns significantly reduce the possibility of Virtual Reality of eliciting emotions related to complex real-life stressors, besides the stressful script used.