Can Simulated Nature Support Mental Health? Comparing Short, Single-Doses of 360-Degree Nature Videos in Virtual Reality With the Outdoors
[READ IN FULL AT SOURCE, the CC-BY publisher version, including Tables 1 and 2, the Strengths and Limitations section and the footnote on the failed sensor] Browning, M. H. E. M., Mimnaugh, K. J., van Riper, C. J., Laurent, H. K., & LaValle, S. M. (2020). 'Can Simulated Nature Support Mental Health? Comparing Short, Single-Doses of 360-Degree Nature Videos in Virtual Reality With the Outdoors.' Frontiers in Psychology 10, 2667. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02667. AUTHOR ORDER CONFIRMED AGAINST A BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE: Browning first and corresponding, Virtual Reality and Nature Lab, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Approved by the University of Illinois Institutional Review Board, approval 17488. THE CLEANEST DIRECT COMPARISON OF A MEDIATED SUBSTITUTE WITH THE PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE, AND THE GAP IS MEASURED. Design: between-subjects, three conditions, six minutes each; outdoors in a chair in nature; indoors in the same chair in a virtual-reality headset with noise-cancelling headphones watching a 360-degree video FILMED AT THAT SAME OUTDOOR LOCATION; or indoors in the same chair facing a blank white wall. Measures: positive and negative affect, perceived restorativeness, skin conductance level. N = 82, 43 male and 39 female, mean age 20, SD 1.2; 60 per cent had never used virtual reality. Engagement with natural beauty, prior headset experience and park-visitation rates did not differ between conditions. TABLE 1, regression of post-condition positive affect, fully adjusted model, against the indoor control: VIRTUAL NATURE 0.53, 95 per cent CI 0.30 to 0.76, p < 0.001; OUTDOOR NATURE 0.79, CI 0.53 to 1.05, p < 0.001. N = 82, R-squared 0.765. THE WITHIN-CONDITION PATTERN IS SHARPER: 'The indoor control condition and the outdoor nature conditions, but not the VR nature condition, resulted in statistically significant changes in positive affect.' Outdoor rose 3.37 to 3.54, t(21) = 2.14, p = 0.044; the control FELL 3.00 to 2.42, t(29) = -4.94, p < 0.001; the virtual group did not move, t(29) = 0.28, p = 0.78. Their summary: 'Nature exposure outdoors boosted positive affect and VR preserved positive affect compared with sitting indoors with no nature exposure, which diminished positive affect.' WHERE THE GAP CLOSES: 'Outdoor nature and virtual nature were rated as equally restorative', and follow-up analysis of skin conductance 'showed no significant differences in SCL trajectories between the two nature conditions'. Negative affect fell significantly in ALL THREE conditions including the blank wall, and adding the nature conditions did not improve that model, so negative affect does not distinguish them. THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS, UNUSUALLY CANDID AND ALL TO BE CARRIED: a healthy, predominantly White and Asian student sample aged 18 to 27 with ready access to outdoor nature, and 'We cannot assume similar effects would be seen in older populations, non-healthy (i.e., clinical) populations, or individuals without ready access to outdoor nature, including people with physical limitations'; NO fourth condition showing a 360-degree video of a complex non-natural scene, which they say would have been needed 'to test whether nature or novelty was responsible for the observed effects', attributed to budget and timeline; the control group's own drop in negative affect may be an expectancy effect or relief from smartphone restriction; and a footnote records that the photoplethysmography sensor 'provided an inconsistent signal' so heart-rate variability results are not reported. THE BINDING CONSTRAINT: they measured no cognitive outcome and recommend attention-depletion and cognitive tasks precisely because they did not run them, so this paper supports no cognitive claim in either direction.
[READ IN FULL AT SOURCE, the CC-BY publisher version, including Tables 1 and 2, the Strengths and Limitations section and the footnote on the failed sensor] Browning, M. H. E. M., Mimnaugh, K. J., van Riper, C. J., Laurent, H. K., & LaValle, S. M. (2020). 'Can Simulated Nature Support Mental Health? Comparing Short, Single-Doses of 360-Degree Nature Videos in Virtual Reality With the Outdoors.' Frontiers in Psychology 10, 2667. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02667. AUTHOR ORDER CONFIRMED AGAINST A BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE: Browning first and corresponding, Virtual Reality and Nature Lab, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Approved by the University of Illinois Institutional Review Board, approval 17488. THE CLEANEST DIRECT COMPARISON OF A MEDIATED SUBSTITUTE WITH THE PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE, AND THE GAP IS MEASURED. Design: between-subjects, three conditions, six minutes each; outdoors in a chair in nature; indoors in the same chair in a virtual-reality headset with noise-cancelling headphones watching a 360-degree video FILMED AT THAT SAME OUTDOOR LOCATION; or indoors in the same chair facing a blank white wall. Measures: positive and negative affect, perceived restorativeness, skin conductance level. N = 82, 43 male and 39 female, mean age 20, SD 1.2; 60 per cent had never used virtual reality. Engagement with natural beauty, prior headset experience and park-visitation rates did not differ between conditions. TABLE 1, regression of post-condition positive affect, fully adjusted model, against the indoor control: VIRTUAL NATURE 0.53, 95 per cent CI 0.30 to 0.76, p < 0.001; OUTDOOR NATURE 0.79, CI 0.53 to 1.05, p < 0.001. N = 82, R-squared 0.765. THE WITHIN-CONDITION PATTERN IS SHARPER: 'The indoor control condition and the outdoor nature conditions, but not the VR nature condition, resulted in statistically significant changes in positive affect.' Outdoor rose 3.37 to 3.54, t(21) = 2.14, p = 0.044; the control FELL 3.00 to 2.42, t(29) = -4.94, p < 0.001; the virtual group did not move, t(29) = 0.28, p = 0.78. Their summary: 'Nature exposure outdoors boosted positive affect and VR preserved positive affect compared with sitting indoors with no nature exposure, which diminished positive affect.' WHERE THE GAP CLOSES: 'Outdoor nature and virtual nature were rated as equally restorative', and follow-up analysis of skin conductance 'showed no significant differences in SCL trajectories between the two nature conditions'. Negative affect fell significantly in ALL THREE conditions including the blank wall, and adding the nature conditions did not improve that model, so negative affect does not distinguish them. THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS, UNUSUALLY CANDID AND ALL TO BE CARRIED: a healthy, predominantly White and Asian student sample aged 18 to 27 with ready access to outdoor nature, and 'We cannot assume similar effects would be seen in older populations, non-healthy (i.e., clinical) populations, or individuals without ready access to outdoor nature, including people with physical limitations'; NO fourth condition showing a 360-degree video of a complex non-natural scene, which they say would have been needed 'to test whether nature or novelty was responsible for the observed effects', attributed to budget and timeline; the control group's own drop in negative affect may be an expectancy effect or relief from smartphone restriction; and a footnote records that the photoplethysmography sensor 'provided an inconsistent signal' so heart-rate variability results are not reported. THE BINDING CONSTRAINT: they measured no cognitive outcome and recommend attention-depletion and cognitive tasks precisely because they did not run them, so this paper supports no cognitive claim in either direction.
Written from the rEAD IN FULL AT SOURCE, the CC-BY publisher version, including Tables 1 and 2, the Strengths and Limitations section and the footnote on the failed sensor.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Browning, M. H. E. M., Mimnaugh, K. J., van Riper, C. J., Laurent, H. K., & LaValle, S. M. (2020). Can Simulated Nature Support Mental Health? Comparing Short, Single-Doses of 360-Degree Nature Videos in Virtual Reality With the Outdoors. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2667. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02667