Display options
Cite
Ventura S, Brivio E, Riva G, et al. Immersive Versus Non-immersive Experience: Exploring the Feasibility of Memory Assessment Through 360° Technology. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2509doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02509.
Ventura, S., Brivio, E., Riva, G., & Baños, R. M. (2019). Immersive Versus Non-immersive Experience: Exploring the Feasibility of Memory Assessment Through 360° Technology. Frontiers in psychology, 102509. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02509
Ventura, Sara, et al. "Immersive Versus Non-immersive Experience: Exploring the Feasibility of Memory Assessment Through 360° Technology." Frontiers in psychology vol. 10 (2019): 2509. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02509
Ventura S, Brivio E, Riva G, Baños RM. Immersive Versus Non-immersive Experience: Exploring the Feasibility of Memory Assessment Through 360° Technology. Front Psychol. 2019 Nov 14;10:2509. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02509. eCollection 2019. PMID: 31798492; PMCID: PMC6868024.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2019 Nov 14;10:2509. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02509. eCollection 2019.

Immersive Versus Non-immersive Experience: Exploring the Feasibility of Memory Assessment Through 360° Technology.

Frontiers in psychology

Sara Ventura, Eleonora Brivio, Giuseppe Riva, Rosa M Baños

Affiliations

  1. Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatments, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
  2. Department of Psychology, Centro Studi e Ricerche di Psicologia della Comunicazione, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy.
  3. Applied Technology for Neuro-Psychology Laboratory, Auxologico Institute, Milan, Italy.
  4. CIBERObn Ciber Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition, Madrid, Spain.

PMID: 31798492 PMCID: PMC6868024 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02509

Abstract

Episodic memory is essential to effectively perform a number of daily activities, as it enables individuals to consciously recall experiences within their spatial and temporal environments. Virtual Reality (VR) serves as an efficacious instrument to assess cognitive functions like attention and memory. Previous studies have adopted computer-simulated VR to assess memory, which realized greater benefits compared to traditional procedures (paper and pencil). One of the most recent trends of immersive VR experiences is the 360° technology. In order to evaluate its capabilities, this study aims to compare memory performance through two tasks: immersive task and non-immersive task. These tasks differ based on the participant's view of the 360° picture: (1) head-mounted display (HMD) for immersive task and (2) tablet for non-immersive task. This study seeks to compare how memory is facilitated in both the 360° immersive picture as well as the non-immersive 360° picture. A repeated measure design was carried out in a sample of 42 participants, randomized into two groups of 21. Group 1 first observed Picture A (immersive) followed by Picture B (non-immersive) while Group 2 began with Picture B and then looked at Picture A. Each 360° picture contains specific items with some items appearing in both. Memory evaluation is assessed immediately after the exposure (recall task), then again after a 10-min delay (recognition task). Results reveal that Group 1, which began with the immersive task, demonstrated stronger memory performance in the long term as compared to Group 2, which began with the non-immersive task. Preliminary data ultimately supports the efficacy of the 360° technology in evaluating cognitive function.

Copyright © 2019 Ventura, Brivio, Riva and Baños.

Keywords: 360° camera; case-comparison; episodic memory; memory assessment; panorama technology

References

  1. Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 22;7(1):16000 - PubMed
  2. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008 Feb;11(1):17-25 - PubMed
  3. Int J Psychophysiol. 2012 Mar;83(3):365-74 - PubMed
  4. J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;59(4):1227-1235 - PubMed
  5. Span J Psychol. 2012 Jul;15(2):768-76 - PubMed
  6. Exp Psychol. 2011;59(2):99-108 - PubMed
  7. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Dec 11;9:660 - PubMed
  8. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999 Aug;31(3):531-52 - PubMed
  9. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010 Nov;12(11):1068-79 - PubMed
  10. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov;97(45):e13007 - PubMed
  11. Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Feb;39(4):385-388 - PubMed
  12. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2019 Jan;22(1):76-81 - PubMed
  13. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004 Nov 09;4:26 - PubMed
  14. Front Psychol. 2018 Oct 02;9:1878 - PubMed
  15. Br J Psychol. 2016 Feb;107(1):72-94 - PubMed
  16. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2013;35(2):113-23 - PubMed
  17. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:1-29 - PubMed
  18. Curr Biol. 2016 Sep 26;26(18):2463-2468 - PubMed
  19. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016 May 04;3(1):e5 - PubMed
  20. Neuropsychol Rev. 2006 Mar;16(1):17-42 - PubMed
  21. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91 - PubMed
  22. Clin Neuropsychol. 2016 Feb;30(2):165-84 - PubMed
  23. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2019 Jan;22(1):69-75 - PubMed
  24. Sci Rep. 2017 Apr 27;7(1):1218 - PubMed
  25. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Nov 2;13(1):96 - PubMed
  26. Conscious Cogn. 2017 Aug;53:194-202 - PubMed
  27. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1989 Dec;11(6):855-70 - PubMed

Publication Types