Understanding How Virtual Reality Can Support Mindfulness Practice: Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.2196/16106 · Paper page
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regular mindfulness practice has been demonstrated to be beneficial for mental health, but mindfulness can be challenging to adopt, with environmental and personal distractors often cited as challenges. Virtual reality (VR) may address these challenges by providing an immersive environment for practicing mindfulness and by supporting the user to orient attention to the present moment within a tailored virtual setting. However, there is currently a limited understanding of the ways in which VR can support or hinder mindfulness practice. Such an understanding is required to design effective VR apps while ensuring that VR-supported mindfulness is acceptable to end users. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how VR can support mindfulness practice and to understand user experience issues that may affect the acceptability and efficacy of VR mindfulness for users in the general population. METHODS: A sample of 37 participants from the general population trialed a VR mindfulness app in a controlled laboratory setting. The VR app presented users with an omnidirectional video of a peaceful forest environment with a guided mindfulness voiceover that was delivered by a male narrator. Scores on the State Mindfulness Scale, Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, and single-item measures of positive and negative emotion and arousal were measured pre- and post-VR for all participants. Qualitative feedback was collected through interviews with a subset of 19 participants. The interviews sought to understand the user experience of mindfulness practice in VR. RESULTS: State mindfulness (P<.001; Cohen d=1.80) and positive affect (P=.006; r=.45) significantly increased after using the VR mindfulness app. No notable changes in negative emotion, subjective arousal, or symptoms of simulator sickness were observed across the sample. Participants described the user experience as relaxing, calming, and peaceful. Participants suggested that the use of VR helped them to focus on the present moment by using visual and auditory elements of VR as attentional anchors. The sense of presence in the virtual environment (VE) was identified by participants as being helpful to practicing mindfulness. Interruptions to presence acted as distractors. Some uncomfortable experiences were discussed, primarily in relation to video fidelity and the weight of the VR headset, although these were infrequent and minor. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that an appropriately designed VR app can support mindfulness practice by enhancing state mindfulness and inducing positive affect. VR may help address the challenges of practicing mindfulness by creating a sense of presence in a tailored VE; by allowing users to attend to visual and auditory anchors of their choice; and by reducing the scope of the content in users’ mind-wandering. VR has the unique capability to combine guided mindfulness practice with tailored VEs that lend themselves to support individuals to focus attention on the present moment.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Mechanisms of mindfulness training: Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT
Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D. (2017) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.011 · Cited by 919 · see citing works
Cikajlo, I., Cizman Staba, U., Vrhovac, S., Larkin, F., & Roddy, M. (2017) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/resprot.6849 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Seabrook, E., Kelly, R., Foley, F., Theiler, S., Thomas, N., Wadley, G., & Nedeljkovic, M.
- Affiliations
- Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Seabrook, Elizabeth
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2019-09-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e16106-e16106
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7113800
- OpenAlex
- W2998309229
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 51 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 15.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- virtual reality, mindfulness practice, state mindfulness, positive affect, presence, virtual worlds, simulator sickness, user experience, mind wandering, distraction, guided meditation, mental health, attentional control, self-regulation, stress reduction
- MeSH terms
- Virtual Reality, Adult, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Mindfulness
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