4.7 Article

Mixed-reality-based human-animal interaction can relieve mental stress

期刊

FRONTIERS IN VETERINARY SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1102937

关键词

human-animal interaction; mixed reality; virtual animal; mental healthcare; stress relief

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interacting with animals has healing benefits for humans, but physical interaction is limited due to COVID-19 and safety concerns. As an alternative, we created mixed-reality human-animal interaction content and experimentally verified its effectiveness in reducing mental stress.
IntroductionInteracting with animals has been demonstrated to possess the healing benefits to humans. However, there are limitations in physical interaction due to COVID-19 and safety issues. Therefore, as an alternative, we created mixed-reality (MR)-based human-animal interaction (HAI) content and experimentally verified its effect on mental stress reduction. MethodsWe created three types of interactive content: observing the movement of a non-reactive virtual cat, interacting with a virtual cat whose responses can be seen, and interacting with a virtual cat whose responses can be both seen and heard. The experiment was performed by 30 healthy young women, and a mental arithmetic task was used to induce mild mental stress before experiencing each content. During the experiment, the subject's electrocardiogram was continuously recorded, and the psychological state was evaluated through a questionnaire. ResultsThe results showed that MR-based virtual cat content significantly reduces mental stress and induces positive emotions after stressful situations. In particular, when the virtual cat provided audiovisual feedback, the activation amount of the parasympathetic nervous system and the increase of positive emotions were the greatest. DiscussionBased on this encouraging research result, this method should be further investigated to see if it can replace real HAI for human mental health management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据