Cited by 151Technology Use by Older AdultsVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsAging and Gerontology Research

Older Adults’ Experiences with Audiovisual Virtual Reality: Perceived Usefulness and Other Factors Influencing Technology Acceptance

Roberts, Amy Restorick, De Schutter, Bob, Franks, Kelley, Radina, M. Elise·2019·Clinical Gerontologist

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study explores how older adults respond to audiovisual virtual reality (VR) and perceive its usefulness to their lives. METHOD: Focus groups were conducted with residents of a retirement community after they viewed two audiovisual VR simulations (n = 41). Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns in responses. RESULTS: Older adults described positive and negative emotional reactions to aspects of the VR experience, articulated content preferences, shared ideas to improve the usability of the equipment, and identified facilitators and barriers that influenced perceived usefulness. Recommendations for improving this technology include maximizing the positive aspects of VR through increasing interactivity, facilitating socializing with friends or family, and enhancing older adults' ease of use. Desired content of simulations involved travel, continuing education, reminiscence, and self-care/therapy. CONCLUSION: Virtual reality was reviewed positively, yet modifications are necessary to facilitate optimal user experience and potential benefit for this population. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: As older adults are interested in using VR, especially if poor health prevents the continuation of desirable activities or new experiences, it is important to respond to older adults' preferences and remove barriers that limit use and enjoyment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07317115.2018.1442380

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Older adults believed that the resolution of the display must be of high enough quality to ensure a positive experience.

    “Older adults believed that the resolution of the display must be of high enough quality to ensure a positive experience [50,51].”
  • Participants in 11/13 of the studies reported issues with the HMD, including that it was too heavy, caused general discomfort, caused disorientation and imbalance, and caused feelings of being trapped, confined, afraid, or anxious.

    “Participants in 11/13 of the studies reported issues with the HMD, including that it was too heavy [9,44,45,48,50]; caused general discomfort [9,15,16,44,50]; caused disorientation and imbalance [44,46]; and caused feelings of being trapped, confined [45], afraid, or anxious [16,45].”
  • Perceptions of the audiovisual quality of IVR hardware varied across studies, with 5/13 of the studies reporting some form of audiovisual issue such as volume not being at the right level or not clear enough, or sound from the physical environment negatively affecting the IVR experience.

    “Perceptions of the audiovisual quality of IVR hardware varied across studies [14,16,45,48-52]. A total of 5/13 of the studies reported some form of audiovisual issue [14,45,49-51], with feedback that the volume was not at the right level or was not clear enough [45,49-51] or that sound coming from the physical environment could negatively affect the IVR experience [45].”
  • Difficulties with the HMD being too small to wear with glasses were described.

    “Difficulties with the HMD being too small to wear with glasses were also described [14,44,46,48,50,51].”
  • Other studies found that participants reported having a positive experience with IVR from a sitting position.

    “Despite these issues, other studies found that participants reported having a positive experience with IVR from a sitting position [44,50].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, A. R., De Schutter, B., Franks, K., & Radina, M. E.
Affiliations
  • Miami University (US)
  • College of Education, Health, and Society, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA
Corresponding author
Roberts, Amy Restorick
Venue
Clinical Gerontologist
Published
2018-03-05
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
27-33
ISSN
  • 0731-7115 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2301
OpenAlex
W2792486501
Cited by
151
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3
FWCI
23.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Gerontologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
older adults, technology acceptance, perceived usefulness, retirement community residents, usability, interactivity, social interaction, reminiscence, technology adoption barriers
MeSH terms
Virtual Reality, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Computers, Computer Simulation, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Socialization, Technology, Focus Groups, Pleasure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review