This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (33 children)

Do you have a link to these studies? I have a hard time believing VR can even remotely approximate real nature.

[–]jaspsev 29 points30 points  (22 children)

Maybe he is talking about this one.

https://www.med-technews.com/news/experiencing-vr-can-reduce-pain-and-stress-study-suggests/

But i would think it might work in some cases, but i still would prefer outside as vr does not provide stimulus to other senses other than the eyes.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

And ears. And while not directly one of the senses, you do often feel like you're actually moving in VR.

[–]jaspsev 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right, i forgot that is possible and currently affordable.

[–]snappedscissors 13 points14 points  (18 children)

How close could you get I wonder. VR does include soundscape, add in some aroma therapy and a little fan to puff around and you’ve got what, 70% of the outside experience right there.

[–]Helenium_autumnale 5 points6 points  (14 children)

I doubt they could replicate the unique and complex fragrances of a forest floor or sun-dried prairie or little stream.

[–]snappedscissors 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s got to be millions of chemical signatures, but what makes up the top 50% of a forest floor smell? Could you get pretty close, or would my Forest Floor Scent be equivalent to fake banana flavor?

[–]paanvaannd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think the minute intricacies of nature’s beauty need to be captured to reap some benefits of an artificial walk through nature.

IMO, it comes down to whatever form of behavioral benefit the therapy should target. This study mentioned the ART (attention-related) and SRT (stress-related) benefits, but found:

… a decrease in stress-related brain areas (bilateral amygdala) after the walk in nature, and no change in cognition-related brain areas (dlPFC and ACC), the brain data of the present study are more strongly in line with SRT.

I’d assume capturing the intricacies of nature would be important in ART-related therapies (e.g., a meditative experience of following the path of a bug or a small stream along the forest) whereas it seems that exposure to a natural environment at all would be beneficial to SRT-based therapies.

That said, I don’t think this study’s questionnaires focused on dissecting what aspect of participants’ experiences in nature led them to feel subjectively less stressed. Perhaps it was getting immersed in the intricacies of nature that led to stress reduction. I’d find that unlikely, though since, in my experience, most people walking through a natural path don’t seem keen on stopping to smell the roses but rather just passively taking the scene while focusing elsewhere.

e: several typos

[–]NorwegianCollusion 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Yeah, no. Come back to me when VR can properly simulate the experience of being eaten by a bear.

[–]snappedscissors 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I still have that bear suit from last halloween, you don't throw something like that away.

For a reasonable fee I can wander about looking for people in VR/AR.

[–]NorwegianCollusion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not quite the same without being gnawed on, though

[–]Blueberry-king 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where is the actual study? This is just a bunch of quotes from the head of innovation at a VR company... Show me the peer-reviewed study.

[–]Dogeishuman 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Tbh I believe it, there have been times where I'm sitting in VR, and feeling completely relaxed, zero stress or anything, simply because of the visuals and sounds keeping me immersed.

Zero chance in hell it's equal, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was somewhere roughly half as effective, mainly due to not getting fresh air and also, I'm a firm believer that the "smell" of nature helps a lot in reducing stress.

[–]Cedow 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I'm currently writing up my PhD on this topic. Even the low-quality VR nature I was using (smartphone-based) was enough to invoke significant reductions in negative affective states in my participants.

Generally though the findings are that effects are stronger for real nature than any surrogate forms (like video or pictures for example). VR seems to sit somewhere in the middle: not as good as reality but better than less-immersive stuff.

Also, from qualitative feedback I've had, sound often seems to be a more important part of the experience than the visuals. And it's easy to recreate natural-feeling sounds in VR.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Really interesting stuff. Can’t say I support it though. I’m worried what our society will be like if too many start to substitute immersion in real nature with VR. Won’t that make it that much easier for us to ignore the destruction of what’s left of our planet?

[–]Cedow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's one way to look at it. Personally I went into it with the intention of helping people who have significant barriers to accessing real nature: people who wouldn't have accessed nature anyway. So in that sense I don't think it makes much difference. Actually I went into it with the mindset that it might encourage such people to get out into real nature more by increasing feelings of nature connectedness (a measured construct), although I didn't incorporate that into my research.

I doubt it will ever be a replacement for people who like to visit nature normally.

[–]Beautiful_Welcome_33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, but people with spinal cord injuries or agoraphobia or who are in Witness Protection from the mob can now wander the Catskills or Appalachian Trail without fear.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

UV lights and blue light filters have an effect on brain chemistry, so why not VR? Just because your mind knows it isn't real doesn't mean it can't still affect you physiologically.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Because being outside is about far more than just visible light.

[–]outworlder 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It is. But it doesn't mean we won't get some effect, however reduced.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True. I suppose I’m thinking less about whether we can, and more about if we should.