Psychophysiological effects of traditional cycling, virtual reality-enhanced cycling, and passive virtual reality exposure in young adults: A controlled within-subject study.

Both cycling conditions (traditional and VR-enhanced) significantly increased heart rate compared to rest, with no significant difference between the two cycling conditions.

• Traditional cycling increased HR by approximately 33 bpm compared to rest (p < .001)
• VR-enhanced cycling increased HR by approximately 35 bpm compared to rest (p < .001)
• No significant differences in HR were found between VR cycling and traditional cycling
• VR-noEx did not significantly alter HR relative to rest
• Study involved 60 healthy university students aged 18 years or older in a randomized, counterbalanced within-subject design

Both cycling conditions significantly increased systolic blood pressure compared to rest, with no significant difference between the two cycling conditions.

• Traditional cycling increased SBP by approximately 14 mmHg compared to rest (p < .001)
• VR-enhanced cycling increased SBP by approximately 17 mmHg compared to rest (p < .001)
• No significant differences in SBP were found between VR cycling and traditional cycling
• VR-noEx did not significantly alter blood pressure relative to rest

Both cycling conditions significantly increased respiratory rate compared to rest, with no significant difference between the two cycling conditions.

• Traditional cycling increased RR by approximately 5.8 breaths/min compared to rest (p < .001)
• VR-enhanced cycling increased RR by approximately 6.5 breaths/min compared to rest (p < .001)
• No significant differences in RR were found between VR cycling and traditional cycling

VR-enhanced cycling produced higher self-efficacy and enjoyment than both traditional cycling and passive VR exposure.

• VR cycling produced higher self-efficacy scores than other conditions (p < .05)
• VR cycling produced higher enjoyment scores than other conditions (p < .05)
• Effect sizes for these psychological differences were described as 'small-to-moderate' (Cohen's d)
• Analyses were conducted using repeated-measures ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni corrections

Passive VR exposure without exercise (VR-noEx) did not produce significant changes in physiological parameters compared to rest.

• VR-noEx did not significantly alter HR relative to rest
• VR-noEx did not significantly alter blood pressure (SBP or DBP) relative to rest
• The VR-noEx condition involved 10 minutes of VR exposure with no physical exercise
• This condition served as a control to isolate the independent effects of VR from those of exercise

The study used a randomized, counterbalanced within-subject design with three 10-minute exercise/exposure conditions separated by 10-minute seated rest periods.

• 60 healthy university students aged 18 years or older participated
• Three conditions were: (1) traditional cycling, (2) cycling with VR, and (3) VR-noEx (VR with no exercise)
• Each session lasted 10 minutes with 10-minute seated rest between conditions
• Outcome measures included self-efficacy, enjoyment, perceived exertion, HR, SBP, DBP, and RR