Cited by 17Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsSocial Robot Interaction and HRISocial Skills and Education

Feasibility of a virtual reality-based interactive feedback program for modifying dysfunctional communication: a preliminary study

Open access
Kim, Junhyung, Jung, Young Hoon, Shin, Yu-Bin, Kim, Min-Kyeong, Eom, Hyojung, Kim, Eunjoo, Kim, Joohan, Kim, Jae-Jin·2020·BMC Psychology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Functional communication is vital in many areas of daily life, and modifying dysfunctional communication has been emphasized in various social areas, including family and school. The present preliminary study addressed the feasibility of a virtual reality (VR)-based interactive feedback program for the modification of dysfunctional communication. METHODS: Thirty-seven healthy young males completed psychological assessments associated with functional communication and participated in the VR-based program, consisting of the three tasks of 'exploring the communication style,' 'practicing functional communication,' and 'expressing empathy.' Behavioral parameters were recorded based on the participants' choices among available options and the visual analog scale scores that resulted in responses to questions in the tasks. RESULTS: Participants completed the program without dropping-out and reported 10.76 (SD, 9.66) in the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire and 106.97 (SD, 16.66) in the Presence Questionnaire. In exploring the communication style, there was no difference between the dysfunction level-with family and dysfunction level-with a friend, but only the dysfunction level-with family showed significant correlations with the level of communication with parents. In practicing functional communication, the communication scores with the placating, blaming, and computing styles significantly increased according to the repetition of trials. In expressing empathy, the empathetic feeling score was negatively correlated with the perspective-taking score, whereas the emotional intensity score was positively correlated with the level of differentiation of the self. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the program may have a tolerable level of cybersickness, an adequate level of presence, an improvement in the behavioral parameters that may reflect the important aspects of communication, and a proper reflection of psychological states or interpersonal characteristics. The use of this program can be an important starting point for the development of a more convenient method for delivering VR programs designed to modify dysfunctional communication, which can further increase computerized dissemination.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40359-020-00418-0

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The physiological safety of the VR-STINAT was comparable to that observed in previous studies on VR.

    “The physiological safety of the VR-STINAT was comparable to that observed in previous studies on VR (57).”

    From A virtual reality-based self-guided training on identification of negative automatic thoughts in healthy adults: a mixed-methods feasibility study (2024) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Discussion (page not provided) compares cybersickness scores for the paper’s own communication-training VR program with a previously reported VR score and describes its cybersickness as acceptable. The paper does not study VR-STINAT, so it cannot establish that program’s physiological safety. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, J., Jung, Y. H., Shin, Y.-B., Kim, M.-K., Eom, H., Kim, E., Kim, J., & Kim, J.-J.
Affiliations
Yonsei University (KR)
Venue
BMC Psychology
Published
2020-05-14
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
50-50
ISSN
2050-7283 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3024967279
Cited by
17
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • YUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015M3C7A1065053)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Education › Social Skills and Education
Keywords
virtual reality, dysfunctional communication, functional communication, empathy, communication styles, cybersickness, presence, perspective taking, self-differentiation, family communication, feasibility
MeSH terms
Virtual Reality, Adult, Communication Disorders, Emotions, Empathy, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Parents, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires

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