Dataset Information

Changes in Brain Activation through Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy with Exposure to Virtual Reality: A Neuroimaging Study of Specific Phobia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) with exposure is the treatment of choice for specific phobia. Virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) has shown benefits for the treatment and prevention of the return of fear in specific phobias by addressing the therapeutic limitations of exposure to real images.

Method

Thirty-one participants with specific phobias to small animals were included: 14 were treated with CBT + VRET (intervention group), and 17 were treated with CBT + exposure to real images (active control group). Participants' scores in anxiety and phobia levels were measured at baseline, post-treatment, and 3-month follow-up, and brain activation was measured through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) baseline and post-treatment.

Results

Both groups showed a significant decrease in anxiety and phobia scores after the therapy and were maintained until follow-up. There were no significant differences between both groups. Overall, fMRI tests showed a significant decrease in brain activity after treatment in some structures (e.g., prefrontal and frontal cortex) and other structures (e.g., precuneus) showed an increasing activity after therapy. However, structures such as the amygdala remained active in both groups.

Conclusions

The efficacy of CBT + VRET was observed in the significant decrease in anxiety responses. However, the results of brain activity observed suggest that there was still a fear response in the brain, despite the significant decrease in subjective anxiety levels.

SUBMITTER: Alvarez-Perez Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8397119 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is a global problem with an increasing incidence and prevalence. There has additionally been an increase in depression due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Behavioral activation is considered an evidence-based treatment for MDD. However, there are many barriers that could hinder one's ability to engage in behavioral activation, with COVID-19 "shelter-in-place" and social distancing orders being current and large impediments. Virtual reality (VR) has been successfully used to help treat a variety of mental health conditions, but it has not yet been used as a method of administering behavioral activation to a clinical population. Using VR to engage in behavioral activation could eliminate barriers that pandemic precautions place and help decrease symptoms of depression that are especially exacerbated in these times.ObjectiveThe following case report examines the feasibility, acceptability, and tolerability of VR behavioral activation for an adult with MDD during a global pandemic. This participant was part of a larger pilot study, and the case serves as a description of the VR intervention.MethodsThe participant engaged in a weekly 50-minute psychotherapy Zoom session for 4 weeks, in which a modified behavioral activation protocol was administered using a VR headset to simulate activities. Data on mood ratings, homework compliance, and headset use were obtained from the headset. Acceptability, tolerability, and depression symptoms were obtained using self-report rating scales.ResultsThe intervention was feasible, acceptable, and tolerable, as reported by this participant. The participant's depressive symptoms decreased by five-points on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 over a month, with a beginning score of 10 (moderate depression) and a final score of 5 (mild depression).ConclusionsThe implications of these findings for future research are discussed.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04268316; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268316.

Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is a global crisis with increasing incidence and prevalence. There are many established evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) for depression, but numerous barriers still exist; most notably, access and dissemination. Virtual reality (VR) may offer some solutions to existing constraints of EBPs for MDD.ObjectiveWe aimed to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and tolerability of using VR as a method of delivering behavioral activation (BA) for adults diagnosed with MDD during a global pandemic and to explore for signs of clinical efficacy by comparing VR-enhanced BA (VR BA) to a standard BA treatment and a treatment as usual control group for individuals diagnosed with MDD.MethodsA feasibility trial using a 3-armed, unblinded, randomized controlled pilot design was conducted. The study took place remotely via Zoom telehealth visits between April 8, 2020, and January 15, 2021. This study used a 3-week, 4-session protocol in which VR BA participants used a VR headset to complete their BA homework. Feasibility was measured using dropout rates, serious adverse events, completion of homework, an adapted telepresence scale, the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, the Brief Agitation Measure, and an adapted Technology Acceptance Model. Efficacy was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9.ResultsOf the 35 participants assessed for eligibility, 13 (37%) were randomized into VR BA (n=5, 38%), traditional BA (n=4, 31%), or a treatment as usual control (n=4, 31%). The mean age of the 13 participants (5/13, 38% male; 7/13, 54% female; and 1/13, 8% nonbinary or third gender) was 35.4 (SD 12.3) years. This study demonstrated VR BA feasibility in participants with MDD through documented high levels of acceptability and tolerability while engaging in VR-induced pleasurable activities in conjunction with a brief BA protocol. No adverse events were reported. This study also illustrated that VR BA may have potential clinical utility for treating MDD, as the average VR BA participant's clinical severity decreased by 5.67 points, signifying a clinically meaningful change in severity from a moderate to a mild level of depression as per the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score.ConclusionsThe findings of this study demonstrate that VR BA is safe and feasible to explore for the treatment of MDD. This study documented evidence that VR BA may be efficacious and justifies further examination in an adequately powered randomized controlled trial. This pilot study highlights the potential utility that VR technology may offer patients with MDD, especially those who have difficulty accessing real-world pleasant activities. In addition, for those having difficulty accessing care, VR BA could be adapted as a first step to help people improve their mood and increase their motivation while waiting to connect with a health care professional for other EBPs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04268316; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268316.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/24331.