Within-subjects experiment demonstrates that gamifying virtual reality nature boosts cognitive performance but reduces relaxation, highlighting a tradeoff between engagement and restorative benefits.
Studies have shown that simulated nature in virtual reality (VR) can achieve restorative effects similar to real nature. To avert boredom and enhance existing virtual nature experience, researchers are exploring the potential of incorporating interactive and gamified elements to promote engagement and effectiveness. While relaxation games have restorative potential, prior studies did not consider how a gamified objective can affect mental load and whether it would interfere with “soft fascination”, which is the key mechanism of nature restoration according to the attention restoration theory. This study investigated the impact of including a gamified objective on VR nature experiences with respect to both psychological and cognitive restorative outcomes and user preference. We conducted a two-session within-subjects experiment comparing two conditions with similar nature environment and identical interaction features. In the hard fascination condition (HF), participants were instructed to find and take pictures of target objects; in the soft fascination condition (SF) they were instructed to freely explore and take pictures of whatever they liked. The quantitative results showed that incorporating goal-directed gamified tasks in VR nature experience could enhance cognitive performance but reduce relaxation benefits. The qualitative findings from semi-structured interviews triangulated the quantitative results and revealed additional benefits of gamification, such as directing user attention and promoting long-term engagement. The findings suggest that gamifying a VR nature experience introduces a tradeoff between relaxation and other benefits, such as engagement and cognitive performance. As such, gamification may be most appropriate in contexts where these alternative benefits are prioritized over relaxation alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: