3.9 Article

Relaxation with Immersive Natural Scenes Presented Using Virtual Reality

期刊

AEROSPACE MEDICINE AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE
卷 88, 期 6, 页码 520-526

出版社

AEROSPACE MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.3357/AMHP.4747.2017

关键词

virtual reality; attention restoration theory; isolated confined environments

资金

  1. National Space Biomedical Research Institute [NBPF03801, NCC 9-58]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION: Virtual reality (VR) can provide exposure to nature for those living in isolated confined environments. We evaluated VR-presented natural settings for reducing stress and improving mood. METHODS: There were 18 participants (9 men, 9 women), ages 32 +/- 12 yr, who viewed three 15-min 360 degrees scenes (an indoor control, rural Ireland, and remote beaches). Subjects were mentally stressed with arithmetic before scenes. Electrodermal activity (EDA) and heart rate variability measured psycho-physiological arousal.The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and the 15-question Modified Reality Judgment and Presence Questionnaire (MRJPQ) measured mood and scene quality. RESULTS: Reductions in EDA from baseline were greater at the end of the natural scenes compared to the control scene (-0.59, -0.52, and 0.32 mu S, respectively). The natural scenes reduced negative affect from baseline (Delta = 1.2 and Delta = 1.1 points), but the control scene did not (Delta = 0.4 points). MRJPQ scores for the control scene were lower than both natural scenes (4.9, 6.7, and 6.5 points, respectively). Within the two natural scenes, the preferred scene reduced negative affect (Delta = 2.4 points) more than the second choice scene (Delta = 1.8 points) and scored higher on the MRJPQ (6.8 vs. 6.4 points). DISCUSSION: Natural scene VR provided relaxation both objectively and subjectively, and scene preference had a significant effect on mood and perception of scene quality. VR may enable relaxation for people living in isolated confined environments, particularly when matched to personal preferences.

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

3.9
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