| Literature DB >> 35805535 |
Zhimeng Wang1,2, Yue Li1,3, Jingchen An2, Wenyi Dong1, Hongqidi Li1, Huirui Ma1, Junhui Wang1, Jianping Wu1, Ting Jiang2, Guangxin Wang1.
Abstract
Anxiety and depression have been growing global mental health problems. The following studies explored the effect of interactive VR scenarios to find a low-cost and high-efficiency solution. Study 1 designed a 2 (anxiety and depression state) × 4 (interactive VR scenarios) experiment, the results of 20 participants showed that the designed scenarios had good restoration and presence, assisting to improve depression mood for people with mild to moderate anxiety and depression. Study 2 further investigated the intervention effects of two environment types (urban and park) and four interactive activities (automatic viewing, free-roaming, fishing, and watering plants in the park environment), based on data from a 10-minute experiment conducted by 195 participants with mild to moderate anxiety and depression. The subjective scales, EEG and EMG, and scenario experience were analyzed and the results showed that: (1) the restorative and present VR scenarios were beneficial in alleviating state anxiety and depression; (2) the restorative environment and presence were significantly and positively related to the reduction of anxiety and depression respectively, moreover, presence mediated the restorative environment on the recovery from anxiety and depression; (3) the environmental settings, the complexity of interaction, human factors, and maturity of VR devices and technology were also key factors that influenced the effects of interactive VR scenario experience and intervention. These studies revealed VR psychological intervention scenarios could be designed with comprehensive factors. Moreover, they might help pave the way for future study in exploring the physiology and psychology mode in virtual and real spaces, enhancing intervention effectiveness.Entities:
Keywords: anxiety; depression; interaction; presence; restorative environment; virtual reality
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805535 PMCID: PMC9266120 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137878
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Interactive VR Scenarios in Study 1, (a) flying a kite in the lawn area, (b) watering vegetables in the horticultural planting area, (c) fishing in the water area, and (d) feeding birds in the forest area.
Figure 2The experimental procedures in Study 1.
Figure 3The scores of the restorative environment in Study 1.
Figure 4The scores of the presence in Study 1.
Figure 5The scores of the anxiety and depression in Study 1. * p < 0.05.
The VR scenario experience in Study 1.
| Factor | Item | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Overall experience | Feelings |
The 3D models were well created. The environments were natural, quite realistic and relaxing. The experience was getting better as the scenarios progressed. I enjoyed looking at the plants and benches. Friendly interaction! I could play smoothly and have fun in these scenarios. Immersed in the virtual world and I lost my sense of time. The space was small and activities were simple. I would like more space, with feedback and variety. The model decals were not good enough. The effect would be better If scenarios became smaller and more in line with reality. |
| Interaction experience | Flying a Kite |
It’s great and full of fun. I loved being able to rock back and forth. It’s not very maneuverable. I was not sure how to fly it. The kite stuck in the treetops was quite interesting. |
| Watering |
Wow!Interesting. The plants were actually growing! I would like more interactions, rich elements and color. I could not be positioned floating on the water. | |
| Fishing |
It’s great and joyful. I put rod down and catch it, again and again. Not bad. I’ve been thinking about the species of plants. I hoped there would be a prompting sound when the plants grew. | |
| Feeding Birds |
The relative size of objects was not quite right. The lack of response after feeding birds did not make me feel good. I would like to add sounds. |
Basic participant information in Study 2.
| Total | Male | Female | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Age | Number | Age | Number | Age | |
| Group 1 | 39 | 20.23 ± 2.29 | 15 | 21.13 ± 2.53 | 24 | 19.67 ± 1.99 |
| Group 2 | 35 | 20.34 ± 2.98 | 7 | 21.14 ± 4.41 | 28 | 20.14 ± 2.58 |
| Group 3 | 36 | 19.50 ± 1.99 | 15 | 19.27 ± 2.01 | 21 | 19.67 ± 2.01 |
| Group 4 | 38 | 20.74 ± 2.52 | 20 | 20.95 ± 2.68 | 18 | 20.50 ± 2.38 |
| Group 5 | 38 | 20.61 ± 2.93 | 19 | 20.79 ± 3.43 | 19 | 20.42 ± 2.43 |
| Total | 186 | 20.29 ± 2.58 | 76 | 20.63 ± 2.94 | 110 | 20.05 ± 2.28 |
Figure 6VR scenarios in Study 2, (a) automatic viewing the urban environment, (b) automatic viewing the park environment, (c) experimental scene, (d) free-roaming in the park environment, (e) fishing in the park environment, and (f) watering in the park environment.
Figure 7The scores of restorative environment in Study 2.
Figure 8Thescores of presence in Study 2. ** p < 0.01.
Figure 9The EEG in Study 2. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Figure 10The EMG in Study 2.
Figure 11The scores of anxiety and depression in Study 2. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
The Pearson correlation analysis of variables in Study 2.
| RES | PQ |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PQ | 0.422 ** | ||||
|
| −0.240 ** | −0.238 ** | |||
|
| −0.172 * | −0.259 ** | 0.185 * | ||
|
| 0.011 | 0.046 | −0.104 | 0.015 | |
|
| 0.103 | 0.143 | −0.162 | −0.144 | 0.100 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
The VR scenario experience in Study 2.
| Selective Coding | Axial Coding | Open Coding | Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good | Presence | Reality | 1. The roads were realistic when turning. |
| 2. The city scenario settings were realistic, such as roads, trees, light and shadow, and buildings. | |||
| 3. The park scenarios were realistic, the fish were swimming in the water while fishing, the sky was clear, the flowers in bloom were beautiful, and the birds are cute. | |||
| 4. I felt as if I was living in a farmhouse. | |||
| Absence of time | 1. It went by too quickly to feel like the experience had lasted 10 minutes at all. | ||
| 2. Although it turned out to be only a few minutes ago, I felt like a long time had passed. | |||
| Enjoyment | Comfortable and relaxed | 1. I felt at peace inside after the experiment. | |
| 2. The VR space was much larger than the laboratory. It had a wide open view with a sense of relaxation. | |||
| 3. The city was wide open, quiet, without clattery. | |||
| 4. The park was very quiet and comfortable, like a small farmhouse or a garden. | |||
| 5. I couldn’t take my eyes off. I was so relaxed and I love the house, the farmland, the swing, the rainbow, the sky with clouds, the lake. | |||
| 6. Walking on the lake was very relaxing. | |||
| Novelty and interesting | 1. I seldomly had chance to experience these scenarios for a long time. | ||
| 2. The scenarios were fresh and wonderful, such as the chairs, the hut, the vegetable. The fishing was quite interesting and I kept watching. | |||
| 3. I was curious about what was inside the hut, eager to get in and have a look around, and thought that someone would come out and talk to me. | |||
| 4. The scenarios were varied in every place I went. | |||
| Satisfaction | 1. It was a very pleasant experience. | ||
| 2. This was a wonderful design. | |||
| 3. I loved the scenarios and the natural settings. | |||
| 4. They were abundant environments. | |||
| 5. It was quite enjoyable to see the flowers at close range. | |||
| Sublimation | Attachment | 1. They were like the environment in my hometown and I was homesick. | |
| 2. The sky was just like the sky back home. I liked it very much. | |||
| Contemplation | 1. I thought about many things in these scenarios. | ||
| 2. The virtual reality experience arising my awareness of appreciating real life and the importance of human initiative. | |||
| Bad | Setting | Small space layout | The scenario became small and monotonous as time went by. |
| Discomfort brightness | 1. The light was bright, even somewhat dazzling in the park. | ||
| 2. The trees and grass were shooking and I felt uncomfortable. | |||
| Inappropriate color | 1. Uncomfortable feeling caused by high colour saturation. | ||
| 2. The red color of the flowers near the fork in the road was inappropriate, and the color of the trees was strange, but the color of shrubs was nice. | |||
| 3. I liked the green scenarios very much, however there was too much red in the road, interspersion might make sense better. | |||
| Lack of livings | 1. I could not bear it if I were left alone in such a city with no people for a few hours. | ||
| 2. I expected to see more cars, people, and small animals in the city. | |||
| Rough model | 1. The thin leaves were poorly three-dimensional and shook unnaturally. | ||
| 2. The rough, sharp, and angular mapping made the scenarios unrealistic. | |||
| Inaccuracy height | 1. My viewpoint in virtual reality had gotten higher, and it was a little scary. | ||
| 2. The height was unrealistic in the horticultural planting area. | |||
| 3. There existed positioning problems, the height of the viewpoint changed frequently during fishing. | |||
| Inconsistency with reality | It scared me to see something that doesn’t match reality., e.g., the leaf did not correspond to cognitive experience, I felt out of control. | ||
| Unclear positioning | 1. I looked around and did not know where I fit in. | ||
| 2. There were trees all along the way and obscured my eyesight, I had no idea on how to get to the next location. | |||
| Models penetration worries | I worried about bumping into leaves and stones. | ||
| Interaction | Less interaction and freedom | 1. The city scenario was not interactive, I felt like I was watching a film and had no control over the scenarios. | |
| 2. The park scenario could be richer. I wanted to have in-depth interactions, such as sitting in a chair, picking flowers and vegetables. | |||
| 3. The range of movement was limited. | |||
| 4. I could only walk along the road, rather than entered the house. | |||
| 5. I looked like an old man in a wheelchair while viewing the park automatically. | |||
| 6. Some places could not be crossed. | |||
| Lack of sound | 1. It was boring without sound. | ||
| 2. The scenario experience would be better with sound. | |||
| Complicated activities | 1. I had to make efforts to learn interactions. | ||
| 2. Fishing activity was difficult and tiring. | |||
| Inappropriate speed | 1. Moving from side to side was faster than moving backwards and forwards. | ||
| 2. Handle-operated movement was fast and I got stuck when walking to intersections. | |||
| 3. I turned right unnaturally while I tried watering vegetables. | |||
| 4. Speed was too slow in some places such as forests. | |||
| Equipment | Technical bugs | 1. I suddenly failed to pick up a water bottle when watering. | |
| 2. The fishing rod dropped into the lake when I tried to pick it up. | |||
| 3. The screen suddenly went black when I enjoyed VR. | |||
| 4. It felt like VR technology was not well-developed yet. | |||
| Motion sickness | 1. Motion sickness occured at the end of the experience. | ||
| 2. I felt a little dizzy due to the high speed. | |||
| Low resolution | 1. The mountains could not be seen in the distance. | ||
| 2. Some elements only appeared while getting close. |