Dataset Information

In Vivo versus Augmented Reality Exposure in the Treatment of Small Animal Phobia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: Although in vivo exposure is the treatment of choice for specific phobias, some acceptability problems have been associated with it. Virtual Reality exposure has been shown to be as effective as in vivo exposure, and it is widely accepted for the treatment of specific phobias, but only preliminary data are available in the literature about the efficacy of Augmented Reality. The purpose of the present study was to examine the efficacy and acceptance of two treatment conditions for specific phobias in which the exposure component was applied in different ways: In vivo exposure (N = 31) versus an Augmented Reality system (N = 32) in a randomized controlled trial. "One-session treatment" guidelines were followed. Participants in the Augmented Reality condition significantly improved on all the outcome measures at post-treatment and follow-ups. When the two treatment conditions were compared, some differences were found at post-treatment, favoring the participants who received in vivo exposure. However, these differences disappeared at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Regarding participants' expectations and satisfaction with the treatment, very positive ratings were reported in both conditions. In addition, participants from in vivo exposure condition considered the treatment more useful for their problem whereas participants from Augmented Reality exposure considered the treatment less aversive. Results obtained in this study indicate that Augmented Reality exposure is an effective treatment for specific phobias and well accepted by the participants.

SUBMITTER: Botella C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4757089 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

In Vivo versus Augmented Reality Exposure in the Treatment of Small Animal Phobia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Botella Cristina C Pérez-Ara M Ángeles MÁ Bretón-López Juana J Quero Soledad S García-Palacios Azucena A Baños Rosa María RM

PloS one 20160217 2

Although in vivo exposure is the treatment of choice for specific phobias, some acceptability problems have been associated with it. Virtual Reality exposure has been shown to be as effective as in vivo exposure, and it is widely accepted for the treatment of specific phobias, but only preliminary data are available in the literature about the efficacy of Augmented Reality. The purpose of the present study was to examine the efficacy and acceptance of two treatment conditions for specific phobia ...[more]

PMID: 26886423

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Convincing evidence on Virtual Reality (VR) exposure for phobic anxiety disorders has been reported, however, the benchmark and golden standard for phobia treatment is in vivo exposure. For direct treatment comparisons, the control of confounding variables is essential. Therefore, the comparison of VR and in vivo exposure in studies applying an equivalent amount of exposure in both treatments is necessary. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of reports published until June 2019. Inclusion criteria covered the diagnosis of Specific Phobia, Social Phobia, or Agoraphobia, and a randomized-controlled design with an equivalent amount of exposure in VR and in vivo. We qualitatively reviewed participants' characteristics, materials, and the treatment procedures of all included studies. For quantitative synthesis, we calculated Hedges' g effect sizes for the treatment effects of VR exposure, in vivo exposure, and the comparison of VR to in vivo exposure in all studies and separately for studies on each diagnosis. Results: Nine studies (n = 371) were included, four on Specific Phobia, three on Social Phobia, and two on Agoraphobia. VR and in vivo exposure both showed large, significant effect sizes. The comparison of VR to in vivo exposure revealed a small, but non-significant effect size favoring in vivo (g = -0.20). Specifically, effect sizes for Specific Phobia (g = -0.15) and Agoraphobia (g = -0.01) were non-significant, only for Social Phobia we found a significant effect size favoring in vivo (g = -0.50). Except for Agoraphobia, effect sizes varied across studies from favoring VR to favoring in vivo exposure. Conclusions: We found no evidence that VR exposure is significantly less efficacious than in vivo exposure in Specific Phobia and Agoraphobia. The wide range of study specific effect sizes, especially in Social Phobia, indicates a high potential of VR, but also points to the need for a deeper investigation and empirical examination of relevant working mechanisms. In Social Phobia, a combination of VR exposure with cognitive interventions and the realization of virtual social interactions targeting central fears might be advantageous. Considering the advantages of VR exposure, its dissemination should be emphasized. Improvements in technology and procedures might even yield superior effects in the future.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Traditional one-session exposure therapy (OST) in which a patient is gradually exposed to feared stimuli for up to 3 h in a one-session format has been found effective for the treatment of specific phobias. However, many individuals with specific phobia are reluctant to seek help, and access to care is lacking due to logistic challenges of accessing, collecting, storing, and/or maintaining stimuli. Virtual reality (VR) exposure therapy may improve upon existing techniques by facilitating access, decreasing cost, and increasing acceptability and effectiveness. The aim of this study is to compare traditional OST with in vivo spiders and a human therapist with a newly developed single-session gamified VR exposure therapy application with modern VR hardware, virtual spiders, and a virtual therapist. METHODS/DESIGN:Participants with specific phobia to spiders (N = 100) will be recruited from the general public, screened, and randomized to either VR exposure therapy (n = 50) or traditional OST (n = 50). A behavioral approach test using in vivo spiders will serve as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures will include spider phobia questionnaires and self-reported anxiety, depression, and quality of life. Outcomes will be assessed using a non-inferiority design at baseline and at 1, 12, and 52 weeks after treatment. DISCUSSION:VR exposure therapy has previously been evaluated as a treatment for specific phobias, but there has been a lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials. A new generation of modern, consumer-ready VR devices is being released that are advancing existing technology and have the potential to improve clinical availability and treatment effectiveness. The VR medium is also particularly suitable for taking advantage of recent phobia treatment research emphasizing engagement and new learning, as opposed to physiological habituation. This study compares a market-ready, gamified VR spider phobia exposure application, delivered using consumer VR hardware, with the current gold standard treatment. Implications are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02533310. Registered on 25 August 2015.

Project description:BackgroundSeptic shock is a low-frequency but high-stakes condition in children requiring prompt resuscitation, which makes it an important target for simulation-based education.ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to design and implement an augmented reality app (PediSepsisAR) for septic shock simulation, test the feasibility of measuring the timing and volume of fluid administration during septic shock simulation with and without PediSepsisAR, and describe PediSepsisAR as an educational tool. We hypothesized that we could feasibly measure our desired data during the simulation in 90% of the participants in each group. With regard to using PediSepsisAR as an educational tool, we hypothesized that the PediSepsisAR group would report that it enhanced their awareness of simulated patient blood flow and would more rapidly verbalize recognition of abnormal patient status and desired management steps.MethodsWe performed a randomized controlled feasibility trial with a convenience sample of pediatric care providers at a large tertiary care pediatric center. Participants completed a prestudy questionnaire and were randomized to either the PediSepsisAR or control (traditional simulation) arms. We measured the participants' time to administer 20, 40, and 60 cc/kg of intravenous fluids during a septic shock simulation using each modality. In addition, facilitators timed how long participants took to verbalize they had recognized tachycardia, hypotension, or septic shock and desired to initiate the sepsis pathway and administer antibiotics. Participants in the PediSepsisAR arm completed a poststudy questionnaire. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and a Wilcoxon rank-sum test to compare the median time with event variables between groups.ResultsWe enrolled 50 participants (n=25 in each arm). The timing and volume of fluid administration were captured in all the participants in each group. There was no statistically significant difference regarding time to administration of intravenous fluids between the two groups. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding time to verbalized recognition of patient status or desired management steps. Most participants in the PediSepsisAR group reported that PediSepsisAR enhanced their awareness of the patient's perfusion.ConclusionsWe developed an augmented reality app for use in pediatric septic shock simulations and demonstrated the feasibility of measuring the volume and timing of fluid administration during simulation using this modality. In addition, our findings suggest that PediSepsisAR may enhance participants' awareness of abnormal perfusion.

Project description:BackgroundAdvantages of mobile Augmented Reality (mAR) application-based learning versus textbook-based learning were already shown in a previous study. However, it was unclear whether the augmented reality (AR) component was responsible for the success of the self-developed app or whether this was attributable to the novelty of using mobile technology for learning.ObjectiveThe study's aim was to test the hypothesis whether there is no difference in learning success between learners who employed the mobile AR component and those who learned without it to determine possible effects of mAR. Also, we were interested in potential emotional effects of using this technology.MethodsForty-four medical students (male: 25, female: 19, mean age: 22.25 years, standard deviation [SD]: 3.33 years) participated in this study. Baseline emotional status was evaluated using the Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire. Dermatological knowledge was ascertained using a single choice (SC) test (10 questions). The students were randomly assigned to learn 45 min with either a mobile learning method with mAR (group A) or without AR (group B). Afterwards, both groups were again asked to complete the previous questionnaires. AttrakDiff 2 questionnaires were used to evaluate the perceived usability as well as pragmatic and hedonic qualities. For capturing longer term effects, after 14 days, all participants were again asked to complete the SC questionnaire. All evaluations were anonymous, and descriptive statistics were calculated. For hypothesis testing, an unpaired signed-rank test was applied.ResultsFor the SC tests, there were only minor differences, with both groups gaining knowledge (average improvement group A: 3.59 [SD 1.48]; group B: 3.86 [SD 1.51]). Differences between both groups were statistically insignificant (exact Mann Whitney U, U=173.5; P=.10; r=.247). However, in the follow-up SC test after 14 days, group A had retained more knowledge (average decrease of the number of correct answers group A: 0.33 [SD 1.62]; group B: 1.14 [SD 1.30]). For both groups, descriptively, there were only small variations regarding emotional involvement, and learning experiences also differed little, with both groups rating the app similar for its stimulating effect.ConclusionsWe were unable to show significant effects for mAR on the immediate learning success of the mobile learning setting. However, the similar level of stimulation being noted for both groups is inconsistent with the previous assumption of the success of mAR-based approach being solely attributable to the excitement of using mobile technology, independent of mAR; the mAR group showed some indications for a better long-term retention of knowledge. Further studies are needed to examine this aspect.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): 00012980; http://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do? navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00012980 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/ 6tCWoM2Jb).

Project description:Extinction learning is assumed to represent a core mechanism underlying exposure therapy. Empirical evaluations of this assumption, however, are largely lacking. The current study investigated whether neural activations and self-report outcomes during extinction learning and extinction recall could specifically predict exposure therapy response in specific phobia. In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, individuals with spider phobia (N?=?45; female/male?=?41/4) were on group basis randomly allocated to exposure therapy (n?=?25; female/male?=?24/1) or progressive muscle relaxation (PMR; n?=?20; female/male?=?17/3). Intervention effects were measured with the Fears of Spiders questionnaire. Participants also underwent a three-day fear conditioning, extinction learning, and extinction recall paradigm during functional magnetic resonance imaging at baseline. Extinction outcomes were self-reported fear and threat expectancy, and neural responses during conditioned stimulus processing and during extinction-related prediction errors (US omissions) in regions of interest (ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and nucleus accumbens). Results showed that exposure therapy resulted in stronger symptom reductions than PMR (Cohen's d?=?0.90). Exposure therapy response was specifically predicted by prediction-error related vmPFC activation during early extinction. There were also indications vmPFC activations during conditioned safety stimulus processing at early extinction predicted therapy outcome. Neural activations during extinction recall and self-report data did however not predict therapy outcome. These findings indicate that exposure therapy may rely on neural extinction learning processes. Prediction errors are thought to drive the extinction learning process, and prediction error-related vmPFC activation specifically predicted therapy outcome. The extent to which vmPFC processes safety signals may additionally be predictive of exposure therapy response, but the specificity is less clear.

Dataset Information

In Vivo versus Augmented Reality Exposure in the Treatment of Small Animal Phobia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

In Vivo versus Augmented Reality Exposure in the Treatment of Small Animal Phobia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets