Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

This paper reports that replacing score-based rewards with immersive environmental or musical feedback in VR neck rehabilitation exercises can lower anxiety and improve user experience without losing movement accuracy.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

VR neck rehab games that reward movement with environmental or musical feedback were preferred and rated as more relaxing than score-based games, without hurting exercise accuracy.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A competent exploratory study with genuinely new VR rehab designs, but the anxiety/UX claim is undermined by an audio confound and non-significant objective measures; read it as a design exploration, not a demonstrated benefit. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01688 v1 pith:DFMLY7RE submitted 2026-08-03 cs.HC

Beyond Score-Based Gamification: Designing Spatiotemporal and Musical Experiences for VR Neck Rehabilitation

David Perron , Pascal Spiegler , Haitham Abdel-Salam , Chanelle Montpetit , Gabriel Vigliensoni , Maryse Fortin , Yiming Xiao This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords virtual reality rehabilitationchronic neck painrange-of-motion exercisegamificationanxiety reductionmultisensory feedbackuser experienceimplicit rewards
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the usual way of motivating rehabilitation exercises in virtual reality—a running score with encouragement messages—may add evaluative stress that works against therapy. It proposes two alternatives: Spatiotemporal Progression, where completing each neck-movement segment changes the virtual island's time of day, weather, and viewpoint, and Musical Interaction, where neck movements trigger bell-like notes over AI-generated ambient music. In a within-subject study of 20 healthy adults, both experience-based designs were preferred, judged more relaxing, and rated as more likely to be used long-term than the score-based baseline, with no statistically significant loss in movement accuracy. The authors conclude that implicit, experience-based rewards are a viable alternative to performance-centric gamification in VR neck rehabilitation and should be tested in chronic neck pain patients.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that therapeutic neck movements can be coupled to multisensory experiential rewards—changing the virtual environment or layering musical notes on ambient sound—and that these implicit reward systems perform as well as explicit score feedback on movement quality while creating a calmer, more preferred experience. The authors designed a range-of-motion exercise in a tropical island VR scene with personalized calibration of six neck positions. The score-based condition displayed segment scores and encouragement text over an upbeat track; the spatiotemporal condition altered time of day, weather, and location after each segment; the musical condition played bell-like

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the implicit reward loop: the user's head-tracked movement itself produces experiential feedback—environmental/spatiotemporal transformation or musical notes—rather than awarding points after the fact. All three conditions share the same personalized range-of-motion protocol, the same tropical island environment, and the same target-tracking visual guidance; only the feedback channel differs. The score-based baseline converts angular tracking error into an explicit accumulating score with encouragement text, while the experience-based conditions suppress the live score and replace it with movement-triggered scenic or auditory events, with the final score shown o

Load-bearing premise

The three conditions are assumed to differ only in the gamification mechanic, but the score-based baseline used an upbeat music track while the experience conditions used ambient nature or alpha-wave audio, so music style, not reward type, could account for the reported anxiety and preference differences.

What would settle it

A replication that holds the audio track identical across all three conditions—or swaps the upbeat track into the experience-based conditions—and re-measures SUDS, heart rate, and tonic electrodermal activity would settle whether the reward mechanism or the music caused the observed differences.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • VR rehabilitation designers can drop persistent score displays without sacrificing measured movement accuracy, freeing visual and auditory channels for emotion regulation.
  • Anxiety reduction and engagement become first-class design goals alongside biomechanical performance, which may improve adherence in chronic neck pain therapy.
  • The success of the two experience-based prototypes supports a follow-up trial with chronic neck pain patients; if replicated, experience-based rewards could be used in home-based VR rehabilitation.
  • Delaying performance feedback until the end of the exercise (as in the spatiotemporal condition) appears viable, suggesting continuous score display is not necessary for accurate movement.
  • Combining spatiotemporal and musical feedback may add anxiety-reduction benefits, but the possible drowsiness and cognitive load would need dedicated testing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The comparison is partly confounded by audio style: the score-based baseline uses an upbeat track while the experience-based conditions use ambient nature sound or alpha-wave music, so the cleanest test of the paper's claim would hold music constant across conditions.
  • If the anxiety-reduction effect is driven mainly by the absence of an evaluative score rather than by the multisensory rewards themselves, a neutral no-score condition with a matched soundscape should produce similar benefits.
  • For patients with kinesiophobia, the spatiotemporal progression could double as graded exposure—the environment visibly moves forward as the patient holds a movement—which the paper does not develop as a therapeutic direction.
  • The small but significant higher fixation error in musical interaction hints that relaxation can tip into drowsiness; adding an alertness measure, such as EEG or reaction-time probes, would test whether the relaxing reward needs a minimum-arousal floor to preserve precision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This exploratory user study compares two experience-oriented VR neck range-of-motion (ROM) exercise designs—Spatiotemporal Progression and Musical Interaction—against a conventional score-based gamification baseline. Twenty non-patient participants completed all three game conditions in randomized order. The authors measure subjective distress (SUDS), physiological arousal (heart rate, tonic EDA), kinematic accuracy, SUS/usability, eleven custom UX Likert items, preference rankings, and freeform comments. They report no statistically significant differences in the primary anxiety outcomes (SUDS, HR, tonic EDA) across conditions; three UX items favored the spatiotemporal condition over the score baseline; preference rankings strongly favored the experience-based designs; and overall exercise performance scores were comparable. The paper concludes that immersive environmental and musical feedback may reduce anxiety and improve user experience without compromising exercise performance, and positions this as an alternative to performance-centric gamification for VR rehabilitation.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the study would make a useful contribution to VR rehabilitation design by showing that implicit, experience-based rewards can maintain movement quality while improving emotional engagement. The work is novel in applying spatiotemporal environmental progression and generative-AI-driven music to a therapist-designed neck ROM exercise, and it benefits from a randomized within-subjects design, personalized calibration, multi-modal measurement, and transparent reporting of limitations. However, the evidence supporting the anxiety/UX claim is currently weakened by a confound in the baseline audio condition and by uncorrected multiple comparisons. The abstract's statement that the experience-based designs 'show better potential to reduce anxiety and improve user experience' overstates what the objective measures and the corrected analysis support. The performance-equivalence result (H2) is the most defensible contribution as reported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.5.1 vs. §3.5.2–3.5.3] The baseline score-based condition is not matched to the experience-based conditions in auditory content. Section 3.5.1 states that 'to keep the user engaged in the score-based paradigm, we used the royalty-free track Funky Dude from a free Unity store asset as background music, which is blended with the natural sounds of the environment.' In contrast, the spatiotemporal condition uses the island ambience without this added track, and the musical condition uses AI-generated 'zen, deep focus, meditation, alpha wave' ambient music. Because H1 and H3 compare anxiety and UX against the score baseline, this confound means that the significant UX differences and preference rankings cannot be attributed to the reward mechanism (score vs. implicit) rather than to musical style/valence. The freeform results strengthen this concern: 2/15 participants described the score-condition audio as unpleasa
  2. [§6.1, §7.2] The UX analysis performs 11 Friedman tests without family-wise correction, and the authors acknowledge this in §7.2. With 11 tests and α=0.05, the expected number of false positives under the global null is about 0.55, so three significant results at p<0.05 is not strong evidence of a systematic effect. The significant post-hoc contrasts (Q2, Q6, Q10) all compare Spatiotemporal Progression to Score-based gamification; Musical Interaction does not reach significance on any of these items. Since these uncorrected UX items are a primary pillar of the H3 claim, the abstract and conclusion should either report family-wise corrected values, apply a false-discovery-rate correction, or explicitly label these as exploratory trends rather than as support for the broad claim that experience-based designs improve UX.
  3. [§6.2, Table 1, Fig. 4C] The primary anxiety outcomes—SUDS shifts, heart-rate shifts, and tonic EDA shifts—show no statistically significant differences across conditions (p=0.11, p=0.830, p=0.132 respectively). The anxiety-reduction claim therefore rests on preference rankings and non-significant descriptive trends, the very measures most susceptible to the audio confound noted above. The abstract's phrase 'show better potential to reduce anxiety' should be materially weakened, for example to 'non-significant trends and user preferences suggest a possible advantage, but objective measures did not distinguish the paradigms.' As written, the abstract implies a stronger empirical basis than the data provide.
  4. [§6.3, Table 3] While final performance scores did not differ significantly, Table 3 shows a statistically significant difference in fixation-phase angular error (χ²=10.30, p=0.006), with Musical Interaction exhibiting a larger median error (0.50°) than Score-based (0.37°). The paper's claim of 'little to no impact on successful performance' should acknowledge this significant error increase, even though final aggregate scores were similar. The discussion does mention the effect and attributes it to drowsiness, but the abstract's blanket claim is stronger than the data warrant.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§7.1.1] The text refers to 'Table 5.2' when reporting physiological results; this should be 'Table 1'.
  2. [§3.5.2] The text says 'see Fig. 1B' for the spatiotemporal progression paradigm, but Fig. 1B is the score-based design; the correct reference is Fig. 1C.
  3. [§5.2] The methods state that medians of pre–post differences are evaluated, but Table 1 reports mean±SD. Please clarify which statistics are reported or reconcile the description.
  4. [§3.5.3] Minor typo: 'emtion regulation' should be 'emotion regulation'.
  5. [§3.4.2] The scoring exponent of 8 in Eqs. (1)–(2) is described as empirically determined; a brief note on how this value was selected and whether the main results are robust to reasonable alternatives would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Fig. 3] The figure caption and the text are inconsistent about the number of subpanels: the caption lists B–E, but the text refers to 'Fig. 3B-3C' when discussing preferences. Please align the citation with the actual panels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: an empirical user study whose claims rest on comparisons with data, not on definitions, fitted parameters, or self-citations.

full rationale

This paper is a controlled user study, not a derivation. The only constructed quantity, the performance score (Eqs. 1-3), is a measurement instrument and the baseline's scoring mechanic; the exponent 8 is set by hand before data collection and is not fit to the study outcomes, so it does not encode H1-H3. H2 is assessed by comparing kinematics with the same score/error metrics across all three conditions, not by reading the result off the score definition. H1 and H3 are evaluated through SUDS, physiological data, SUS/UX questionnaires, preference rankings, and freeform comments; these measures are not defined in terms of the condition labels, so the hypotheses are not true by construction. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the cited design principles (SRT, Attentional Gate, Embodied Cognition, music emotion theory) are external foundational work, and no uniqueness theorem or prior-work ansatz is used to force the design. The study's main weakness, as flagged in the full text, is internal validity rather than circularity: Section 3.5.1 adds an upbeat track 'Funky Dude' to the score-based condition while Section 3.5.3 uses AI-generated alpha-wave ambient music, so observed H1/H3 differences might be attributable to music style rather than to the reward mechanism. The authors also acknowledge in Section 7.2 that no family-wise correction was applied to the UX items, further limiting strong conclusions. These are legitimate empirical limitations and confounds, but they do not make the central claim reduce to its own inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical study, so the main assumptions are about measurement validity, sample generalizability, and the equivalence of the three experimental conditions. The only hand-fitted number is the scoring exponent, which does not directly determine the anxiety claim. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Scoring exponent for performance score = 8
    In Eq. (1) and (2), the exponent 8 is described as 'empirically determined' to set error tolerance. It affects the performance score used in the score-based gamification baseline and as an outcome measure, although head-tracking angular error is also reported.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption SUDS, heart rate, and tonic EDA are valid measures of anxiety during VR exercise
    The study uses these instruments to test H1 (Section 5.1-5.2). Their validity in this context is assumed from prior literature.
  • domain assumption Non-patient participants' responses can inform design for chronic neck pain patients
    The study recruits only healthy adults and states in Section 7.2 that insights are limited to non-patients, but the central recommendation targets a patient population.
  • ad hoc to paper The three game paradigms are matched in all aspects except the gamification mechanic
    Section 3.5 states 'for a fair comparison, all games adopted the same virtual environment', yet the score-based condition uses a different background music track, violating this assumption.
  • domain assumption Theoretical frameworks (SRT, Attentional Gate Model, Embodied Cognition, Auditory-Motor Integration, Music Emotion Theory) justify the causal link from design features to anxiety reduction
    Invoked in Section 3.5.2-3.5.3 to motivate the designs.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Score-Based Gamification: Designing Spatiotemporal and Musical Experiences for VR Neck Rehabilitation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DFMLY7RE

@misc{pith2026260801688,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Score-Based Gamification: Designing Spatiotemporal and Musical Experiences for VR Neck Rehabilitation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DFMLY7RE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01688}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Pain-related anxiety and fear of movement are major barriers to adherence and therapeutic outcomes in rehabilitation exercises for chronic neck pain. Virtual reality enables the design of immersive experiences that can transform repetitive therapeutic movements into engaging and emotionally supportive interactions. In this exploratory work, we investigate how experience-oriented gamification can reduce anxiety and improve user experience during VR-based neck range-of-motion exercises. We introduce two novel interaction paradigms that embed therapeutic neck movements within multisensory VR experiences. The first paradigm, Spatiotemporal Progression, couples head-tracked trajectories with environmental progression in a tropical island setting, where movement segments dynamically transform time of day, weather, and spatial location as experiential rewards. The second paradigm, Musical Interaction, maps movement segments to meditative music notes layered with relaxing ambient soundscapes. We evaluate these designs against a conventional score-based gamification baseline in a controlled user study with 20 non-patient participants. We assess usability and user experience through subjective measures, exercise performance with motion tracking, and anxiety modulation using the Subjective Units of Distress Scale, heart rate, and skin conductance. Our findings suggest that, in comparison with traditional score-based gamification design, immersive environmental and musical feedback show better potential to reduce anxiety and improve user experience, with little to no impact on successful performance of the exercise. Our preliminary results highlight the potential value of experience-based interaction design for VR rehabilitation, suggesting an alternative to performance-centric gamification that prioritizes emotional engagement without compromising therapeutic efficacy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01688 by Chanelle Montpetit, David Perron, Gabriel Vigliensoni, Haitham Abdel-Salam, Maryse Fortin, Pascal Spiegler, Yiming Xiao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Demonstration of different game designs for the neck range-of-motion (ROM) exercise. A. Illustration of the ROM exercise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Common visual elements across all exercise games. A. Visual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: User experience (UX) question results. A. Boxplots of 11 UX questions with statistically significant pair-wise differences marked with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A and B. Heart rate and Tonic EDA shifts during the last minute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Kinematic accuracy with mean±std annotated. Left: average angular error in the moving and fixation phases; Right: Mean angular error shift from Iteration 1 to Iteration 2 (“Iter 2 - Iter 1"). performed well, with the reference of 238 as the maximum score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Asiri, R

    F. Asiri, R. S. Reddy, J. S. Tedla, M. A. ALMohiza, M. S. Alshahrani, S. C. Govindappa et al. Kinesiophobia and its correlations with pain, pro- prioception, and functional performance among individuals with chronic neck pain.PloS one, 16(7):e0254262, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    T. W. Barreto and J. H. Svec. Chronic neck pain: Nonpharmacologic treatment.Am Fam Physician, 100(3):180–182, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    L. F. Barrett, B. Mesquita, K. N. Ochsner, and J. J. Gross. The experience of emotion.Annu. Rev. Psychol., 58(1):373–403, 2007. 8

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    L. W. Barsalou. Grounded cognition.Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59(1):617–645,

    work page

  5. [5]

    G. N. Bratman, J. P. Hamilton, K. S. Hahn, G. C. Daily, and J. J. Gross. Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 112(28):8567– 8572, 2015. 3, 4

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    quick and dirty

    J. Brooke. Sus: A "quick and dirty" usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, and I. L. McClelland, eds.,Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 189–194. Taylor and Francis, 1996. 5

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    M. Chiu, E. Tochilnikova, and C. Harteveld. From novelty to clinical practice: Exploring vr exergames with physical therapists.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 8(CHI PLAY), art. no. 303, 29 pp., Oct. 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    G. . N. P. Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of neck pain, 1990-2020, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2021.Lancet Rheumatol, 6(3):e142–e155,

    work page 1990

  9. [9]

    Elbinoune, B

    I. Elbinoune, B. Amine, S. Shyen, S. Gueddari, R. Abouqal, and N. Hajjaj- Hassouni. Chronic neck pain and anxiety-depression: prevalence and associated risk factors.The Pan African Medical Journal, 24:89, 2016. 1

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Y . Gao, Z. Chen, S. Chen, S. Wang, and J. Lin. Risk factors for neck pain in college students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC Public Health, 23(1):1502, Aug. 2023. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16212-7 1

    work page doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16212-7 2023

  11. [11]

    J. A. Grahn and M. Brett. Rhythm and beat perception in motor areas of the brain.Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 19(5):893–906, 2007. 2, 4

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    Q. Guo, L. Zhang, L. L. Han, C. Gui, G. Chen, C. Ling et al. Effects of virtual reality therapy combined with conventional rehabilitation on pain, kinematic function, and disability in patients with chronic neck pain: Randomized controlled trial.JMIR Serious Games, 12:e42829, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    J. Hao, Z. He, Z. Chen, and A. Remis. Virtual reality training versus conventional rehabilitation for chronic neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PM&R, 16(10):1143–1153, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Himler, G

    P. Himler, G. T. Lee, D. I. Rhon, J. L. Young, C. E. Cook, and C. Rent- meester. Understanding barriers to adherence to home exercise programs in patients with musculoskeletal neck pain.Musculoskelet Sci Pract, 63:102722, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Hoffmann, C

    A. Hoffmann, C. A. Christmann, and G. Bleser. Gamification in stress management apps: a critical app review.JMIR serious games, 5(2):e7216,

    work page

  16. [16]

    Hosseini-Toudeshky, S

    H. Hosseini-Toudeshky, S. Seidnitzer, S. Bickelhaupt, R. Harmouche, and M. Kersten-Oertel. Evaluating the impact of immersiveness in virtual reality simulations on anxiety reduction for mri procedures: A preliminary study. In2025 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 613–622. IEEE, 2025. 2

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Hsieh, J.-Y

    C.-H. Hsieh, J.-Y . Yang, C.-W. Huang, and W. C. B. Chin. The effect of water sound level in virtual reality: A study of restorative benefits in young adults through immersive natural environments.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 88:102012, 2023. 2, 3

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    P. N. Juslin and J. Sloboda.Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications. Oxford University Press, 2011. 2, 4

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    Kazeminasab, S

    S. Kazeminasab, S. A. Nejadghaderi, P. Amiri, H. Pourfathi, M. Araj- Khodaei, M. J. M. Sullman et al. Neck pain: global epidemiology, trends and risk factors.BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 23(1):26, January 2022. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05157-y 1

    work page doi:10.1186/s12891-022-05157-y 2022

  20. [20]

    K. Kim, H. Kim, Y . Choi, J. Nam, and J. Lee. Designing vr music game for stress reduction. In2025 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 678–685. IEEE, 2025. 2

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    S. Koelsch. Brain correlates of music-evoked emotions.Nature reviews neuroscience, 15(3):170–180, 2014. 2

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    Lecamwasam, S

    K. Lecamwasam, S. Gutierrez Arango, N. Singh, N. Elhaouij, M. Addae, and R. Picard. Investigating the physiological and psychological effect of an interactive musical interface for stress and anxiety reduction. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–9, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    S. M. Montgomery, N. Nair, P. Chen, and S. Dikker. Introducing EmotiBit, an open-source multi-modal sensor for measuring research-grade physio- logical signals.Science Talks, 6:100181, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.sctalk.2023 .100181 2

    work page doi:10.1016/j.sctalk.2023 2023

  24. [24]

    S. M. Montgomery, N. Nair, P. Chen, and S. Dikker. Validating EmotiBit, an open-source multi-modal sensor for capturing research-grade phys- iological signals from anywhere on the body.Measurement: Sensors, 32:101075, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.measen.2024.101075 5

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    C. B. Murray, R. de la Vega, L. K. Murphy, S. Kashikar-Zuck, and T. M. Palermo. The prevalence of chronic pain in young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pain, 163(9):e972–e984, 2022. 1, 8

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    E. Orr, T. Arbel, M. Levy, Y . Sela, O. Weissberger, O. Liran et al. Virtual reality in the management of patients with low back and neck pain: a retrospective analysis of 82 people treated solely in the metaverse.Arch Physiother, 13(1):11, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Riches, P

    S. Riches, P. Jeyarajaguru, L. Taylor, C. Fialho, J. Little, L. Ahmed et al. Virtual reality relaxation for people with mental health conditions: a systematic review.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 58(7):989–1007, 2023. 2, 7

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    J. Sauro. Measuring usability with the system usability scale (sus). 2011. 5

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    Savoric, S

    T. Savoric, S. Aziz, R. R. Ling, K. Antlej, S. Arnab, and A. Subramaniam. Systematic review: The impact of virtual reality interventions on stress and anxiety in intensive care units.Journal of critical care, 90:155164,

    work page

  30. [30]

    Skier´s, Y

    K. Skier´s, Y . S. Pai, M. Nakagawa, K. Minamizawa, and G. Barbareschi. Portable silent room: Exploring vr design for anxiety and emotion reg- ulation for neurodivergent women and non-binary individuals.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2025. 2

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Steilen, R

    D. Steilen, R. Hauser, B. Woldin, and S. Sawyer. Chronic neck pain: making the connection between capsular ligament laxity and cervical instability.Open Orthop J, 8:326–45, 2014. 1

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    R. S. Ulrich, R. F. Simons, B. D. Losito, E. Fiorito, M. A. Miles, and M. Zelson. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environ- ments.Journal of environmental psychology, 11(3):201–230, 1991. 2, 4

    work page 1991

  33. [33]

    J. W. Vlaeyen, G. Crombez, and S. J. Linton. The fear-avoidance model of pain.Pain, 157(8):1588–1589, 2016. 2

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    F. Wang, H. Lu, Y . Cao, D. Li, L. Cao, H. Zhang et al. Global, regional, and national burden of neck pain among adolescents and young adults, 1990–2021, and projection to 2035: A trend and cross-country inequality study.Journal of Pain Research, p. 581177, 2026. 1

    work page 1990

  35. [35]

    Weber, C

    H. Weber, C. Barr, C. Gough, and M. Van den Berg. How commercially available virtual reality–based interventions are delivered and reported in gait, posture, and balance rehabilitation: a systematic review.Physical therapy, 100(10):1805–1815, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Wolpe.The practice of behavior therapy

    J. Wolpe.The practice of behavior therapy. Pergamon press, 1990. 5

    work page 1990

  37. [37]

    J. Xu, A. Khanotia, S. Juni, J. Ku, H. Sami, V . Lin et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality–based well-being interventions for stress reduction in young adults: systematic review.JMIR mental health, 11(1):e52186, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Yang and D

    H. Yang and D. Li. Understanding the dark side of gamification health management: A stress perspective.Information Processing & Manage- ment, 58(5):102649, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Yang, S.-H

    Q.-H. Yang, S.-H. Du, L. Tang, Y .-H. Zhang, and X.-Q. Wang. Analgesic effects and neural oscillatory mechanisms of music-synchronized virtual reality intervention.Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 22(1):202, 2025. 2

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    G. Ye, R. G. Koh, K. Jaiswal, H. Soomal, and D. Kumbhare. The use of virtual reality in the rehabilitation of chronic nonspecific neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Clinical journal of pain, 39(9):491–500, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Zakay, R

    D. Zakay, R. A. Block, et al. An attentional-gate model of prospective time estimation.Time and the dynamic control of behavior, 5:167–178,

    work page

  42. [42]

    Zhang, B

    C. Zhang, B. Yu, Y . Wang, M. Yuan, W. Wang, S. Je et al. Asafeplace: User-led personalization of vr relaxation via an art therapy activity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01579, 2026. 2

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Zhang, X

    H. Zhang, X. Li, X. Zhou, and X. Fu. Vr calm plus: Coupling a squeezable tangible interaction with immersive vr for stress regulation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.05093, 2026. 2

    work page arXiv 2026

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.