Real and virtual forest exposure differ in their physiological, but not psychological, effects

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

As stress related to modern, urbanized lifestyles grows, interest in nature-based interventions for well-being and relaxation continues to increase. However, whether virtual nature can replicate the physiological benefits of exposure to real nature remains unclear. We compared real and virtual exposure to forest and city environments in 27 participants, measuring heart rate variability (a marker of stress and relaxation) and self-reported well-being before and after each condition. We also tested, for the first time under virtual nature exposure, the Physiological Adjustment Effect, which predicts that physiological change depends on a person's baseline level. Real forest exposure produced a more relaxed physiological profile than real city exposure across several heart rate variability markers, whereas virtual forest vs. virtual city exposure affected only one marker. When comparing real and virtual forests directly, only heart rate differed significantly. The Physiological Adjustment Effect was observed for more markers in the real condition, though this difference was not statistically confirmed. Well-being improved after both real and virtual forest exposure, with no significant difference between them. These results suggest that virtual nature exposure is not a full substitute for real nature, reproducing some, but not all, of its physiological benefits.