Virtual reality exposure with vibrotactile stimulation for the treatment of fear of flying: A pilot study
Background and objectivesVirtual reality (VR) interventions are becoming more prevalent in treating fear of flying (FoF). Since multisensory stimulation can enhance the sense of presence in a virtual environment, the present study compared virtual reality exposure with and without vibrotactile cues...
| Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Status: | Published version |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | Universidad de Barcelona |
| Repository: | Dipòsit Digital de la UB |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:diposit.ub.edu:2445/219776 |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/219776 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | Mètodes de simulació Realitat virtual Por a volar Simulation methods Virtual reality Fear of flying |
| Summary: | Background and objectivesVirtual reality (VR) interventions are becoming more prevalent in treating fear of flying (FoF). Since multisensory stimulation can enhance the sense of presence in a virtual environment, the present study compared virtual reality exposure with and without vibrotactile cues to determine its contribution to the realism of the virtual experience.Methods. A repeated measures design was used. Thirty-one participants were exposed to two experimental conditions with a minimum of a one-week interval between them: one in which participants were exposed to the virtual environment with vibrotactile cues (smart chair, SC), and another in which participants were exposed to the virtual environment without vibrotactile cues (ordinary chair, OC). The administration order of both conditions was counterbalanced to avoid possible order effects. Results. Participants felt higher levels of sense of presence when using the SC than the OC. However, the addition of vibrotactile stimulation partially influenced experienced anxiety. Some personality traits were also associated with participants’ sense of presence and anxiety responses during the exposure. Limitations. The sample size was smaller than required. Moreover, only self-reported measures were used. Finally, a roller coaster instead of an airplane scenario was used for the exposure, which might not have been suitable enough for provoking anxiety in participants with FoF. Conclusions. Vibrotactile cues enhanced the sense of presence. However, the addition of vibrotactile stimulation did not have a consistent effect on anxiety experienced during exposure. Therefore, the benefits of incorporating vibrotactile cues in virtual reality environments for exposure therapy are not clear. |
|---|