There are major concerns about the suitability of immersive virtual reality (VR) systems (i.e., head-mounted display; HMD) to be implemented in research and clinical settings, because of the presence of nausea, dizziness, disorientation, fatigue, and instability (i.e., VR induced symptoms and effects; VRISE). Research suggests that the duration of a VR session modulates the presence and intensity of VRISE, but there are no suggestions regarding the appropriate maximum duration of VR sessions. The implementation of high-end VR HMDs in conjunction with ergonomic VR software seems to mitigate the presence of VRISE substantially. However, a brief tool does not currently exist to appraise and report both the quality of software features and VRISE intensity quantitatively. The Virtual Reality Neuroscience Questionnaire (VRNQ) was developed to assess the quality of VR software in terms of user experience, game mechanics, in-game assistance, and VRISE. Forty participants aged between 28 and 43 years were recruited (18 gamers and 22 non-gamers) for the study. They participated in 3 different VR sessions until they felt weary or discomfort and subsequently filled in the VRNQ. Our results demonstrated that VRNQ is a valid tool for assessing VR software as it has good convergent, discriminant, and construct validity. The maximum duration of VR sessions should be between 55 and 70 min when the VR software meets or exceeds the parsimonious cut-offs of the VRNQ and the users are familiarized with the VR system. Also, the gaming experience does not seem to affect how long VR sessions should last. Also, while the quality of VR software substantially modulates the maximum duration of VR sessions, age and education do not. Finally, deeper immersion, better quality of graphics and sound, and more helpful in-game instructions and prompts were found to reduce VRISE intensity. The VRNQ facilitates the brief assessment and reporting of the quality of VR software features and/or the intensity of VRISE, while its minimum and parsimonious cut-offs may appraise the suitability of VR software for implementation in research and clinical settings. The findings of this study contribute to the establishment of rigorous VR methods that are crucial for the viability of immersive VR as a research and clinical tool in cognitive neuroscience and neuropsychology.

Cybersickness is a drawback of virtual reality (VR), which also affects the cognitive and motor skills of users. The Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) and its variant, the Virtual Reality Sickness Questionnaire (VRSQ), are two tools that measure cybersickness. However, both tools suffer from important limitations which raise concerns about their suitability. Two versions of the Cybersickness in VR Questionnaire (CSQ-VR), a paper-and-pencil and a 3D–VR version, were developed. The validation of the CSQ-VR and a comparison against the SSQ and the VRSQ were performed. Thirty-nine participants were exposed to three rides with linear and angular accelerations in VR. Assessments of cognitive and psychomotor skills were performed at baseline and after each ride. The validity of both versions of the CSQ-VR was confirmed. Notably, CSQ-VR demonstrated substantially better internal consistency than both SSQ and VRSQ. Additionally, CSQ-VR scores had significantly better psychometric properties in detecting a temporary decline in performance due to cybersickness. Pupil size was a significant predictor of cybersickness intensity. In conclusion, the CSQ-VR is a valid assessment of cybersickness with superior psychometric properties to SSQ and VRSQ. The CSQ-VR enables the assessment of cybersickness during VR exposure, and it benefits from examining pupil size, a biomarker of cybersickness.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) emerges as a promising research and clinical tool. However, several studies suggest that VR induced adverse symptoms and effects (VRISE) may undermine the health and safety standards, and the reliability of the scientific results. In the current literature review, the technical reasons for the adverse symptomatology are investigated to provide suggestions and technological knowledge for the implementation of VR head-mounted display (HMD) systems in cognitive neuroscience. The technological systematic literature indicated features pertinent to display, sound, motion tracking, navigation, ergonomic interactions, user experience, and computer hardware that should be considered by the researchers. Subsequently, a meta-analysis of 44 neuroscientific or neuropsychological studies involving VR HMD systems was performed. The meta-analysis of the VR studies demonstrated that new generation HMDs induced significantly less VRISE and marginally fewer dropouts. Importantly, the commercial versions of the new generation HMDs with ergonomic interactions had zero incidents of adverse symptomatology and dropouts. HMDs equivalent to or greater than the commercial versions of contemporary HMDs accompanied with ergonomic interactions are suitable for implementation in cognitive neuroscience. In conclusion, researchers' technological competency, along with meticulous methods and reports pertinent to software, hardware, and VRISE, are paramount to ensure the health and safety standards and the reliability of neuroscientific results.

This scoping review examines the broad applications, risks, and ethical challenges associated with Extended Reality (XR) technologies, including Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR), within the context of Metaverse. XR is revolutionizing fields such as immersive learning in education, medical and professional training, neuropsychological assessment, therapeutic interventions, arts, entertainment, retail, e-commerce, remote work, sports, architecture, urban planning, and cultural heritage preservation. The integration of multimodal technologies—haptics, eye-, face-, and body tracking, and brain–computer interfaces—enhances user engagement and interactivity, playing a key role in shaping the immersive experiences in the Metaverse. However, XR’s expansion raises serious concerns, including data privacy risks, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, cybersickness, addiction, dissociation, harassment, bullying, and misinformation. These psychological, social, and security challenges are further complicated by intense advertising, manipulation of public opinion, and social inequality, which could disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals and social groups. This review emphasizes the urgent need for robust ethical frameworks and regulatory guidelines to address these risks while promoting equitable access, privacy, autonomy, and mental well-being. As XR technologies increasingly integrate with artificial intelligence, responsible governance is essential to ensure the safe and beneficial development of the Metaverse and the broader application of XR in enhancing human development.

Objective: The assessment of cognitive functions such as prospective memory, episodic memory, attention, and executive functions benefits from an ecologically valid approach to better understand how performance outcomes generalize to everyday life. Immersive virtual reality (VR) is considered capable of simulating real-life situations to enhance ecological validity. The present study attempted to validate the Virtual Reality Everyday Assessment Lab (VR-EAL), an immersive VR neuropsychological battery, against an extensive paper-and-pencil neuropsychological battery.Methods: Forty-one participants (21 females) were recruited: 18 gamers and 23 non-gamers who attended both an immersive VR and a paper-and-pencil testing session. Bayesian Pearson’s correlation analyses were conducted to assess construct and convergent validity of the VR-EAL. Bayesian t-tests were performed to compare VR and paper-and-pencil testing in terms of administration time, similarity to real-life tasks (i.e., ecological validity), and pleasantness.Results: VR-EAL scores were significantly correlated with their equivalent scores on the paper-and-pencil tests. The participants’ reports indicated that the VR-EAL tasks were significantly more ecologically valid and pleasant than the paper-and-pencil neuropsychological battery. The VR-EAL battery also had a shorter administration time.Conclusion: The VR-EAL appears as an effective neuropsychological tool for the assessment of everyday cognitive functions, which has enhanced ecological validity, a highly pleasant testing experience, and does not induce cybersickness.

Haptic feedback is critical in a broad range of human-machine/computer-interaction applications. However, the high cost and low portability/wearability of haptic devices remain unresolved issues, severely limiting the adoption of this otherwise promising technology. Electrotactile interfaces have the advantage of being more portable and wearable due to their reduced actuators’ size, as well as their lower power consumption and manufacturing cost. The applications of electrotactile feedback have been explored in human-computer interaction and human-machine-interaction for facilitating hand-based interactions in applications such as prosthetics, virtual reality, robotic teleoperation, surface haptics, portable devices, and rehabilitation. This paper presents a technological overview of electrotactile feedback, as well a systematic review and meta-analysis of its applications for hand-based interactions. We discuss the different electrotactile systems according to the type of application. We also discuss over a quantitative congregation of the findings, to offer a high-level overview into the state-of-art and suggest future directions. Electrotactile feedback systems showed increased portability/wearability, and they were successful in rendering and/or augmenting most tactile sensations, eliciting perceptual processes, and improving performance in many scenarios. However, knowledge gaps (e.g., embodiment), technical (e.g., recurrent calibration, electrodes’ durability) and methodological (e.g., sample size) drawbacks were detected, which should be addressed in future studies.