No abstract

Stereoscopic 3D gives the viewer the same shape, size, perspective and depth they would experience viewing the real world and could mimic the perceptual threat cues present in real life. This is the first study to investigate whether an immersive stereoscopic 3D video exposure-based treatment would be effective in reducing fear of spiders. Participants with a fear of spiders (N = 77) watched two psychoeducational videos with facts about spiders and phobias. They were then randomized to a treatment condition that watched a single session of a stereoscopic 3D immersive video exposure-based treatment (six 5-min exposures) delivered through a virtual reality headset or a psychoeducation only control condition that watched a 30-min neutral video (2D documentary) presented on a computer monitor. Assessments of spider fear (Fear of Spiders Questionnaire [FSQ], Behavioral Approach Task [BAT], & subjective ratings of fear) were completed pre- and post-treatment. Consistent with prediction, the stereoscopic 3D video condition outperformed the control condition in reducing fear of spiders showing a large between-group effect size on the FSQ (Cohen's d = 0.85) and a medium between-group effect size on the BAT (Cohen's d = 0.47). This provides initial support for stereoscopic 3D video in treating phobias.

No abstract

Objectives: Nonpharmacologic pain management strategies are needed because of the growing opioid epidemic. While studies have examined the efficacy of virtual reality (VR) for pain reduction, there is little research in adult inpatient settings, and no studies comparing the relative efficacy of standard animated computer-generated imagery (CGI) VR to Video Capture VR (360 degrees 3D/stereoscopic Video Capture VR). Here, we report on a randomized controlled trial of the relative efficacy of standard CGI VR versus Video Capture VR (matched for content) and also compared the overall efficacy of VR to a waitlist control group.Materials and Methods: Participants (N = 103 hospitalized inpatients reporting pain) were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: (1) waitlist control, (2) CGI VR, or (3) Video Capture VR. The VR and waitlist conditions were 10 minutes in length. Outcomes were assessed pretreatment, post-treatment, and after a brief follow-up.Results: Consistent with hypotheses, both VR conditions reduced pain significantly more relative to the waitlist control condition (d = 1.60, P < 0.001) and pain reductions were largely maintained at the brief follow-up assessment. Both VR conditions reduced pain by ∼50% and led to improvements in mood, anxiety, and relaxation. Contrary to prediction, the Video Capture VR condition was not significantly more effective at reducing pain relative to the CGI VR condition (d = 0.25, P = 0.216). However, as expected, patients randomized to the Video Capture VR rated their experience as more positive and realistic (d = 0.78, P = 0.002).Discussion: Video Capture VR was as effective as CGI VR for pain reduction and was rated as more realistic.

No abstract