PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

439

Title *

Evaluation of spatial learning and wayfinding in a complex maze using immersive virtual reality. A registered reportuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Eudave L., Martínez M., Valencia M., Roth D.Please use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

Objectives: Mazes have traditionally been used as tools for evaluating spatial learning and navigational abilities in humans. They have been also utilized in sleep and dream research, as wayfinding is a common dream theme and participants undergoing experiments in the laboratory often dream about it. One such maze is the virtual maze task (VMT) created by Wamsley et al. (2010) to study the impact of sleep and dreaming in learning. Despite positive results found in several of those studies (dreaming of the VMT improves task performance), others failed to replicate these findings, possibly due to intrinsic methodological difficulties such as low task incorporation in dreams and the presence of cybersickness symptoms during task execution. It is possible that by using an adequately designed immersive virtual reality experience, which allows for a more naturalistic, stimulating and engaging simulation, these handicaps can be overcome. This Registered Report therefore aims to reproduce the original VMT version and compare it with an immersive virtual reality (iVR) adapted version using several wayfinding performance dependent measures. Methods: In this within-subjects study, a sample of 62 participants carried out both versions (Desktop vs. iVR) of the VMT task (pseudo-randomly allocated, counterbalanced), where we measured performance and path variables. They then completed self-report measures of cybersickness symptoms, sense of presence during the task and a test for the assessment of perspective taking. Results: [TBD]. Conclusions: [TBD].

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

virtual reality, navigation, spatial learning, maze, cybersickness

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Life Sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2023-03-31 17:21:20

Recommender

Robert McIntosh

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY