How virtual reality is changing brain-training technology

Integrating virtual reality into brain-training therapies can make the experience more enjoyable and engaging for users. A recent review published in the journal Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback examined how immersive digital environments influence a person’s ability to control their own brain activity. The findings suggest that virtual reality holds promise for improving these therapies, but researchers still need better study designs to confirm the exact benefits.

Neurofeedback is a technique where individuals learn to alter their brain waves by watching them in real time. During a typical session, sensors are placed on a person’s scalp to record electrical activity in the brain. This method is known as electroencephalography, or EEG. The system processes these electrical signals instantly and provides visual or auditory cues to the user.

Specific brain wave patterns correspond to different mental states. For example, a relaxed yet focused state produces a specific frequency rhythm in the brain. If a person’s goal is to increase their focus, the software will reward them when their brain waves hit that target frequency. In traditional setups, this reward is often a simple two-dimensional graphic on a computer monitor, like a bar graph that grows taller or a moving line.

In recent years, software developers have begun replacing these simple graphics with virtual reality environments. Instead of watching a bar graph, a user wearing a headset might make a virtual flower bloom or a digital spaceship accelerate simply by changing their mental state. Psychologists Silvia Erika Kober, Guilherme Wood, and Lisa Maria Berger at the University of Graz in Austria conducted a comprehensive review to evaluate how these immersive environments compare to standard methods.

The researchers searched academic databases for studies that combined EEG-based neurofeedback with virtual reality. After filtering out papers that lacked sufficient experimental details, they identified 31 relevant studies to analyze. The selected research varied wildly in methodology, with participant numbers ranging from single case studies to 100 individuals. Many of the reviewed papers relied on small study samples of fewer than 50 participants.

Free daily newsletter

The applications tested in these studies covered a wide range of scenarios and populations. Some studies involved healthy individuals, while others focused on clinical patients treating chronic pain, migraines, or the aftermath of a stroke. The virtual feedback scenarios were equally diverse. Participants in various studies were asked to navigate a ball through a forest, interact with virtual animals, or change the lighting in a digital auditorium using only their brain waves.

By analyzing these 31 papers, the research team found that users generally preferred virtual reality feedback over traditional two-dimensional screens. Participants often reported higher levels of enjoyment, interest, and perceived competence when interacting with three-dimensional virtual worlds. For therapeutic regimens that require dozens of sessions over several months, this boost in motivation could help keep patients engaged with their treatment.

However, when looking at whether virtual reality actually improved a person’s ability to control their brain waves, the results were mixed. Some studies found that users reached their target brain wave states faster in virtual reality. Other studies found no difference in brain wave control between the immersive and traditional formats.

Beyond basic training, virtual reality might help users apply their new mental skills in daily life. A major goal of neurofeedback is for patients, like children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, to learn how to focus without needing a computer screen to guide them. Virtual reality allows developers to build realistic simulations, such as a busy virtual classroom, where users can practice regulating their brain activity in a distracting environment.

Despite these potential benefits, the review highlighted several factors that complicate the use of virtual reality. Headsets often differ from computer screens in brightness, field of view, and visual complexity. Changes in screen brightness alone can alter specific brain wave frequencies, making it difficult to tell if a user is successfully relaxing or just reacting to the light emitting from the lenses.

The researchers also noted that virtual environments can be too visually stimulating. While a visually rich, multi-sensory virtual world is entertaining, it can cause cognitive overload. If a virtual environment demands too much attention, the user might become distracted from the primary goal of regulating their mental state, causing their performance to drop.

The transition to virtual reality introduces physical side effects that do not typically occur with traditional computer monitors. Cybersickness, a type of motion sickness caused by virtual environments, can induce nausea, dizziness, and eye strain. The review indicated that women tend to experience these symptoms more frequently and severely than men, which could negatively affect their neurofeedback performance.

Age also plays a role in how users respond to immersive technology. Older individuals, who may be less familiar with virtual reality interfaces, sometimes reported higher levels of fear and anxiety during the sessions. The authors emphasized that virtual reality feedback may not be suitable for everyone, particularly individuals prone to motion sickness or those easily overwhelmed by sensory input.

A major limitation across the reviewed literature is the lack of proper control groups. Many studies only tested a single virtual reality condition without comparing it to a traditional screen or a fake feedback scenario. Without these baseline comparisons, it is hard to isolate the specific effects of the brain training from the sheer excitement of using a novel technology.

The rapid commercialization of both headsets and brain-reading devices raises additional ethical concerns. The authors warn about “neuroenchantment,” a phenomenon where people blindly trust the capabilities of neurotechnology simply because it seems futuristic. This blind trust can make consumers vulnerable to misleading advertising from companies selling home-based brain training systems for self-improvement or entertainment.

As private companies develop consumer-friendly devices capable of recording neural activity, users face new risks regarding data privacy. Over half of the consumer neurotechnology companies recently assessed in a separate industry report allow the sharing of brain data with third parties. As brain-computer interfaces become more accessible, the authors advise that future research must pair rigorous experimental design with strict data protection standards.

The study, “Controlling Virtual Reality With Brain Signals: State of the Art of Using VR-Based Feedback in Neurofeedback Applications,” was authored by Silvia Erika Kober, Guilherme Wood, and Lisa Maria Berger.