Next Article in Journal
Implementation of an International Vessel Wall MR Plaque Imaging Research Network: Experience with the ChAMPION Study
Previous Article in Journal
Abstracts of the Meeting of the Austrian Stroke Society (ÖGSF) and the Swiss Stroke Society (SHG), June 14–15, 2022, Innsbruck/Austria
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
CTN
Volume 6
Issue 2
10.3390/ctn6020015
ctn-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Walls Are Closing In: Postural Responses to a Virtual Reality Claustrophobic Simulation

by
Harish Chander
1,*,
Hannah R. Freeman
1,
Christopher M. Hill
2,
Christopher R. Hudson
3,
Sachini N. K. Kodithuwakku Arachchige
1,
Alana J. Turner
1,
J. Adam Jones
4 and
Adam C. Knight
1
1
Neuromechanics Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
2
Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA
3
Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems (CAVS), Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39759, USA
4
High Fidelity Virtual Environments (Hi5) Lab, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Clin. Transl. Neurosci. 2022, 6(2), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/ctn6020015
Submission received: 3 May 2022 / Revised: 7 June 2022 / Accepted: 14 June 2022 / Published: 17 June 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Changes in the visual environment and thereby, the spatial orientation, can induce postural instability leading to falls. Virtual reality (VR) has been used to expose individuals to virtual environments (VE) that increase postural threats. Claustrophobia is an anxiety disorder categorized under situational phobias and can induce such postural threats in a VE. Purpose: The purpose of the study was to investigate if VR-generated claustrophobic simulation has any impact on postural threats that might lead to postural instability. Methods: Thirty healthy men and women (age: 20.7 ± 1.2 years; height: 166.5 ± 7.3 cm; mass: 71.7 ± 16.2 kg) were tested for postural stability while standing on a force platform, upon exposure to five different testing trials, including a normal stance (NoVR), in stationary VE (VR), and three consecutive, randomly initiated, unexpected claustrophobia trials (VR CP1, VR CP2, VR CP3). The claustrophobia trials involved all four walls closing in towards the center of the room. Center of pressure (COP)-derived postural sway variables were analyzed with a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance at an alpha level of 0.05. Results: Significant main effect differences existed in all but one dependent COP-derived postural sway variables, at p < 0.05. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni correction revealed that, predominantly, postural sway excursions were significantly lower in claustrophobia trials compared to NoVR and VR, but only accomplished with significantly increased sway velocity. Conclusion: The VR CP trials induced lower postural sway magnitude, but with increased velocity, suggesting a bracing and co-contraction strategy when exposed to virtual claustrophobic postural threats. Additionally, postural sway decreased with subsequent claustrophobia trials, suggesting potential motor learning effects. Findings from the study offer insights to postural control behavior under virtual claustrophobic simulations and can aid in VR exposure therapy for claustrophobia.

1. Introduction

The postural control system is responsible for maintaining the body in an upright position against gravity to maintain postural stability, which is defined as the ability to maintain the body center of gravity (COG) within the base of support (BOS) [1,2,3,4]. Postural control is a complex dynamic central and peripheral sensorimotor process that helps maintain postural equilibrium, not only in static, but also during dynamic tasks [2]. The postural control system is also responsible for maintaining specific postures (both static and dynamic), allowing for efficient voluntary movement to occur, and responding to postural perturbations to recover from postural perturbations [4]. The sensory systems responsible for maintaining postural stability include the visual, the vestibular, and the somatosensory/proprioceptive systems [2]. In any instances where there is a dysfunction of these sensory systems or problems with the availability of precise sensory feedback from these systems, such as in clinical populations, there is a reduced ability of the postural control system and its functions, leading to loss of equilibrium and failure to recover from the loss of equilibrium, resulting in falls and fall-related injuries.
Visual stimuli present in the environment alter the human body’s ability to maintain upright standing [5]. Inputs into the visual system provide information regarding the environmental features with respect to the human body. The integration of environmental and intrinsic spatial cues (i.e., proprioception) facilitates the development of a bodily spatial orientation to the surrounding environment [6]. Manipulating visual environments to increase perceived postural threat increases anxiety levels [7,8,9]. Feelings of anxiety and associated disorders are linked to greater postural instability [10,11,12,13]. Redfern, Furman, and Jacob [14] found increased COP postural sway in persons with generalized anxiety and agoraphobia in response to changes in visual flow. The changes in postural control dynamics resulted from a bias toward visual input, in turn, leading to poor balance when the visual information was misleading [14]. Changing the visual environment, thusly spatial orientation, renders greater postural instability and increases the risk of a fall [15].
Clinical conditions, such as motion sickness and acrophobia (fear of heights), have already been reported to have postural disequilibrium, due to the sensory conflict between the visual, somatosensory, and vestibular senses [16]. While previous research on anxiety disorders, such as acrophobia and postural stability, exists [16,17,18], more research is warranted on other anxiety disorders that induce motion sickness and postural instability, such as Claustrophobia. Claustrophobia is an anxiety disorder categorized under situational phobias and is characterized by the fear of enclosed spaces and physically restrictive situations [19,20]. Similar to both agoraphobia and acrophobia (i.e., fear of heights), claustrophobia is described as a distortion in the relationship between the body and surrounding environment (i.e., spatial orientation) [14,20]. Two major components of claustrophobia have been suggested that include the fear of suffocating and fear of restriction or confinement [21]. Symptoms include a subjective feeling of being trapped, being suffocated, and fear of encountering such confinement and suffocation among individuals with claustrophobia [22].
Multiple methods exist to assess the influence of visual environment on postural control. A classic example is the 1974 Lee and Aronson’s [23], “moving room paradigm”, in which young individuals were asked to stand facing toward a wall that, unknowingly to the participant, would move toward them along the anterior-posterior axis [23]. As a result, incongruent visual information detected in relation to the body’s spatial orientation results in postural instability [7,23]. More recently, visual manipulations in experimental and clinical settings use virtual reality (VR) to alter immersive virtual environments (VE) for rehabilitation [24]. VR has also been used to expose individuals to VE that can induce postural threats, such as simulated vertical heights [8,9,25,26,27] and rotating the visual field on the pitch, yaw, and roll principle axes [26,28], that alter center of pressure (COP) dynamics and bodily kinematics and thereby, the overall postural stability. Moreover, VR is identified as a great alternative to expose individuals to different environments they otherwise avoid due to fear [8,29].
VR has become a popular modality to assess anxiety-related changes to upright standing. For example, exposure to virtual heights increases physical anxiety levels and COP postural sway velocities [8,30]. Recent studies utilized VR to simulate claustrophobic environments to explore the potential therapeutic applications for persons with claustrophobia [29,31,32,33]. VR has also been used successfully as a rehabilitation and intervention tool for Acrophobia through the virtual reality exposure therapy (VERT) [34]. VR is currently even used as a treatment for phobias, including claustrophobia, which is known as VR exposure therapy [29]. However, these previous studies have not evaluated postural control dynamics of virtual claustrophobic environments. Taking inspiration from the classical “moving room paradigm” [23] and the proposed “virtual moving room paradigm” [24], more recently, the current researchers investigated the impact of unexpected and expected moving of a front wall in a virtual room on postural control dynamics [7]. The authors reported that postural sway increased during unexpected virtual perturbations and decreased during expected virtual perturbations, due to compensatory and anticipatory postural responses, respectively [7]. However, in that study, only the front facing wall of the virtual room moved forward while the right, left, and back walls remained static. While this was sufficient to elicit significant changes in postural stability, this was not a simulation of claustrophobia. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the changes in postural control dynamics using COP-derived postural sway variables upon exposure to virtual moving claustrophobic environments that involved unexpected closing in of the four walls of a virtual room. It was hypothesized that the participants would have greater postural decrements upon being subjected to the claustrophobic trials compared to the NoVR and VR conditions, and those decrements would be decreased over the three consecutive claustrophobic trials.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 30 healthy collegiate students (age: 21 ± 1 years; height: 166.5 ± 7.3 cm; mass: 71.7 ± 16.2 kg; 25 women—age: 20 ± 0.8 years; height: 164.3 ± 5.3 cm; mass: 68.4 ± 14.9 kg and 5 men—age: 22 ± 2 years; height: 177.3 ± 6.8 cm; mass: 88.1 ± 13.5 kg) completed the study. Sample size was chosen based on past research assessing postural stability and using VR, with 20–22 healthy participants [7,9,35], and all participants were recruited using the University IRB-approved protocol of using flyers, word of mouth, as well as verbal and email announcements. The inclusion criteria consisted of a physically active status based on the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) criteria for physical activity, which included a minimum of 3–5 days of aerobic exercise per week and 2 days of resistance training per week for at least the past 3 months [36]. The exclusion criteria consisted of the presence of any claustrophobia or anxiety-related disorders as well as any recent visual, vestibular, neurological, or musculoskeletal disorders [37] or a score of >5 on the simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ) [38] between pre-and post-VE exposure. It is well documented in the literature that postural stability is impacted by age, presence of any musculoskeletal or neurological conditions, or even fatigue in healthy individuals [2,39,40]. This experiment was proposed as a proof of concept to assess and study the postural responses due to both compensatory (feedback) and anticipatory (feedforward) mechanisms when exposed to a virtual closing-in of the walls on healthy young adults before being tested in claustrophobic individuals, to make sure the clinical populations do not have any adverse effects. Hence, a young healthy population was used for this study. All participants read and signed their own consent to participate in the study, which was approved by the Mississippi State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Protocol #21-033 with date of approval on 10 March 2021). All COVID-19 safety protocols prescribed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the University were followed, including face masks, frequent hand sanitization, and social/physical distancing.

2.2. Instrumentation

Static postural stability was measured with a BTrackS™ (Balance Tracking Systems, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). BTrackS™ balance plate was validated against the force platform, which is considered the gold standard in assessing postural stability [41]. Required VEs were developed with Unity 3D and were delivered via an HTC Vive Pro™ (HTC America, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA) HMD (Figure 1). A lobby environment and a closed-room environment were the two VEs used in the study. The BTrackS™ (Balance Tracking Systems, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) software performed an automatic self-calibration of its sensors at the beginning of each testing session, and a sampling rate of 25 Hz was set. The VR system was calibrated using the hand-held sensors to ensure the VEs were oriented in the correct direction and with the correct dimensions and boundaries of the room.

2.3. Experimental Procedures

All testing was performed in the University’s Neuromechanics Laboratory. Upon arriving at the laboratory, all participants completed a physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q) [42] to detect any existing risk factors, and an SSQ [38] to detect existing simulator sickness, as the presence of any musculoskeletal or neurological complications and adverse reaction to virtual simulation can negatively impact participant involvement and findings. Any participant with risk factors detected in the PAR-Q and/or SSQ score > 5 was excluded from the study [9,43]. One participant was excluded after VE exposure due to a score of >5 on the SSQ. After collecting anthropological data (age, height, and mass), participants completed a familiarization session. Initial familiarization was done with the BTrackS™; then, participants were provided the VR headset and provided the instruction to stand as erect and as still as possible looking straight and not talking during testing. Participants were first exposed to a lobby area VE (Figure 1), which was used to familiarize them with VE as well as to practice their ability to use their gaze to complete given tasks, such as looking around the virtual room and to look at red squares until they disappeared. During each VR task, corresponding instructions appeared on the screen and additional verbal commands were given. Immediately following familiarization, the participants completed a second round of SSQ to assess their experience with VR exposure, and if the SSQ score was >5, data collection was withheld, and the participant was excluded.
Participants were given a 10 min break between familiarization and the initiation of testing. Participants completed an SSQ before beginning any testing trials [37]. Three 20 s trials of baseline bilateral static postural stability were recorded in the eyes-open condition with quiet standing, arms by side, eyes fixed at a specific point, and without the VR headset (NoVR). Participants were then provided with the VR headset and completed three 20 s baseline trials with their eyes open with quiet standing and arms by side with the headset on in the lobby environment (VR) (Figure 2A). Testing trials with eyes open were then initiated and participants were first exposed to the lobby area VE, which was used as a transitionary environment before moving onto the testing VE. Transitioning to the testing VE was accomplished by participants using their gaze to make a box disappear, which was practiced during familiarization. Once the box in the lobby environment disappeared, participants were exposed to the new testing VE, which involved a closed-room VE (Figure 2B–D). Participants were advised to stand as erect as possible without moving and to look straight at the front wall of the room. Participants then completed three 10 s trials of an unexpected moving room in which all four walls appeared to close in on the participant (VR CP1, VR CP2, VR CP3). The walls were preset to move at 1 m/s velocity for all participants to standardize the protocol. The same investigator moved the room at a random time within a 10 s time window to minimize anticipation by participants. The initiation of the moving room was based on a random time decided by the same investigator, which resulted in all four walls closing in on the participant without any prior warning. Figure 2B demonstrates the starting position of the walls during the VR CP trials, with Figure 2C demonstrating the mid-point of the walls moving in, and Figure 2D demonstrates the final position of the closed-in walls. Thus, Figure 2B–D demonstrate the dynamic movement of the four walls closing in. Upon completion of the three trials, participants were provided with a final round of SSQ, and a Levels of Anxiety Questionnaire adapted from Bruce and Reenbrecht [31], which included two questions; (1) “on a scale of 0–10, how anxious were you, with zero being no anxiety at all and, 10 being unbearable anxiety”, and (2) “on a scale of 0–10, how claustrophobic did you feel, with zero being no claustrophobia at all, and 10 being unbearable claustrophobia”. With all participants being healthy young adults with no history of any clinical conditions including claustrophobia or anxiety disorders, and with multiple SSQ that were required to be completed, only questions specific to this study was used for anxiety-related questionnaire. Completion of these questions marked the end of the study. The entire protocol was done in the barefoot condition based on the BtrackS™ manufacturer recommendations and due to its future potential rehabilitation and disability applications.

2.4. Data Analyses

The BTrackS™ explore balance software was used to analyze the postural sway variables. COP excursions were used to analyze postural stability/postural control dynamics. Medial-lateral excursion, anterior-posterior excursion, 95% ellipsoid area, average sway velocity, medial-lateral root mean square (RMS-ML), and anterior-posterior root mean (RMS-AP) were calculated and considered the outcome variables of interest. Average COP sway excursions in the medial-lateral (ML) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions were calculated from subtracting the minimum COP data from the maximum COP data in the ML and AP directions. The average COP sway velocity was calculated by dividing the total length of the COP path by the trial duration. The 95% ellipsoid area (95% EA) (cm2) represented an area of the ellipsoid based on the COP shifts, such that 95% of the data was within the ellipsoid and 5% was outside it. RMS-ML and RMS-AP were calculated by taking the square root of the mean squared ML and AP COP data. Furthermore, sway variables of higher magnitude represented decreased balance and postural stability [44]. Additionally, participants’ responses to the final SSQ were calculated and an SSQ score > 5 after VE exposure would have resulted in exclusion from data analyses.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

The COP-derived postural-sway-dependent variables were analyzed with a one-way 1 × 5 (NoVR × VR × VR CP1 × VR CP2 × VR CP3) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant main effects were further analyzed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons using a Bonferroni correction factor [45]. All analyses were conducted on SPSS v27 (IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA) [46] at an alpha level of 0.05.

3. Results

Results for each dependent postural sway variable with F-statistic, p value, and partial eta squared effect sizes are reported in Table 1. Main effect significances were followed by pairwise comparisons reported as differences between testing conditions (Table 1 and Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6). The repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant main effect differences in all dependent COP-derived postural sway variables, except for AP RMS. Significant main effect differences existed in all but one dependent COP-derived postural sway variable, at p < 0.05. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni correction revealed that, predominantly, postural sway excursions were significantly lower in claustrophobia trials compared to NoVR and VR, but only accomplished with significantly increased sway velocity. Results from the levels of anxiety questionnaire revealed that 23 out of the 30 participants had anxiety greater than zero (max: 10; min: 1; average: 2.4; mean ± standard deviation: 2.4/10 ± 2.358 and standard error: 0.430) and that 22 out of the 30 participants had a sense of claustrophobia greater than zero (max: 6; min: 1; average: 2.7; mean ± standard deviation: 2.7/10 ± 2.239 and standard error: 0.409). None of the SSQ results were >5, which enabled all participants to be included in the analysis.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to evaluate postural control dynamics upon exposure to a virtual moving claustrophobic environment, “walls closing in”.

4.1. Findings

Findings revealed that exposure to a virtual claustrophobic postural perturbation (walls moving closer) altered COP postural sway variables. Specifically, medial-lateral RMS sway, medial-lateral excursion, and 95% ellipsoid sway area significantly decreased when exposed to the virtual postural perturbation due to the claustrophobic simulation, compared to static standing in a real/non-virtual environment (No VR), suggesting that the CP trials, especially when the walls were moving in without any warning, significantly influenced the individuals to assume a braced stiff posture, minimizing the postural sway excursions. However, contrastingly, a significant increase in postural sway velocity was seen in all virtual claustrophobia trials (VR CP1, VR CP2, and VR CP3) compared to real/non-virtual (NoVR) and non-perturbed virtual environment (VR), suggesting that even if the overall COP excursion magnitude was lower in CP trials, individuals swayed faster within the lowered excursions. This finding implies a bracing strategy manifested by co-contraction of lower-extremity agonist-antagonist muscle pairs, when the walls were closing in. Finally, significant differences were evident between the three consecutive but randomly initiated CP trials, with the postural sway variables decreasing over the course of the three CP trials, thus, suggesting improved postural control dynamics due to potential motor learning effects from one trial to the next. All changes to these postural sway parameters indicate the exposure to virtual claustrophobic environments alter the postural control dynamics during quiet standing and provide a better understating of how the human body maintains postural stability under claustrophobic conditions.
Additionally, in the current findings, medial-lateral postural sway was significantly greater in NoVR compared to VR. The higher postural sway values in NoVR compared to VR were contrary to our original hypothesis and our previous study, which suggested negative impacts on postural stability or increased postural sway when exposed to VEs and the HMD, as prior research has reported such decrements in postural stability in VR-generated VEs compared to real environments due to the distorted visual feedback from the VE and changes in the visual field due to immersive VR [2,8,9]. However, this was only significant in ML RMS and ML excursion, as other variables, even though greater for sway velocity, and 95% EA, were not significant. The current study’s findings in the eyes-open condition could be better understood by examining the concept of external and internal attentional focus as well as the more recent understanding of VR exposure. Although the instructions provided to the participants were the same for all tasks, which was to stand as erect as possible while looking straight at the wall in front of them, the VE was more controlled and less cluttered compared to the real lab environment. More specifically, during eyes open with VR, the participants might have externally focused on the center point of the controlled VE, which can contribute to better postural stability [47], whereas during eyes open with no VR, the participants were in an open real environment, where they may have focused not exactly on the center of the front wall. This may have contributed to the greater postural sway in the VR environment with no visual virtual perturbations of the walls closing in, as in the CP trials.
Increases in COP sway velocity are a marker of postural instability [48,49]. Exposure to the claustrophobic perturbation resulted in increased sway velocity compared to conditions with no perturbations. Pairing these results with the decrease in displacement suggests a faster postural control response was utilized to maintain upright standing. These findings are reflective of increased co-contraction of the distal muscles surrounding the ankle joint. Warnica and colleagues [50] found that as the co-contraction index of the ankle musculature increased, COP velocity increased in parallel, suggesting increased rigidity around the ankle, creating higher sway velocities in response to balance perturbations [7,50]. Postural sway differences between NoVR, VR, and CP trials were more pronounced in sway velocity, ML RMS, and 95% EA, compared to AP RMS. Findings from our previous study, which included only the front wall moving in the virtual room, demonstrated significant differences in the anterior-posterior directions compared to medial-lateral [7], suggesting that the direction of visual virtual perturbations influenced the postural sway directions. In the current study, all four walls of the room moved in together, also eliciting a medial-lateral postural response.
After the initial exposure to the virtual claustrophobic perturbation, sway parameters decreased over the course of the three CP trials. This is indicative of a learning effect after exposure to the virtual perturbations. Anticipating postural disruptions adjusts bodily responses to perturbations, thus, minimizing negative consequences associated with balance loss [51]. In this study, decreases in sway parameters indicate a shift toward a more efficient feedforward response to counteract the claustrophobic balance perturbation. Prior to the oncoming perturbation, the COM moves in the direction of perturbation, which arranges the lower-extremity body segments in a mechanical advantageous position to maintain upright posture. Therefore, with repeated perturbations, the displacement of the COM is smaller, resulting in lower COP displacements and better body balance [51]. Moreover, this shift suggests the occurrence of sensory reweighting, with less reliance on visual input, and potentially more reliance on somatosensory/proprioceptive systems to maintain balance [52]. More recently, standing balance control and postural stability were also proposed to be reconfigured based on exposure to anxiety-inducing VEs (high-altitude) [27], thus, providing support to the changes in postural stability from the current findings when exposed to anxiety-inducing VEs.
In the current study, none of the participants experienced simulation sickness during testing, as evident from the pre- and post-VR exposure SSQ scores. However, very mild anxiety (mean ± standard deviation: 2.4/10 ± 2.358 and standard error: 0.430) and very mild claustrophobia (mean ± standard deviation: 2.7/10 ± 2.239 and standard error: 0.409) were experienced by participants. These subjective scores are similar to those reported by Bruce and Reenbrecht [31] under different claustrophobic VEs, therefore, suggesting that the current experiment of “walls closing in” in a virtual room can provide a VE that is capable of inducing anxiety and claustrophobia.
Finally, findings from the study need to be interpreted with caution. This study was conducted as a proof of concept on young healthy individuals with no history of claustrophobia. Hence, observed results may be different when individuals with anxiety disorders, such as claustrophobia, are enrolled. The current study had 30 participants, with an uneven split of gender (predominantly females). This was due to recruitment and participation issues that existed during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, based on previous research, there is sufficient evidence that static postural stability does not significantly differ between men and women, especially among healthy young adults, with gender differences seen only in elderly populations [53,54,55].

4.2. Virtual Reality Environment

The generation of highly photorealistic, real-time virtual environments is challenging. The immersiveness and realism in the VE used in the study may be interpreted as low. However, one can observe a marked increase in environment quality over the history of VE research [56,57]. Given the state of VE research and practice, the graphical quality of the scenes viewed in this study is consistent with contemporary work. Research has been conducted investigating whether graphical quality influences how observers perceive virtual spaces. Varying levels of quality, ranging from monochromatic wireframes to photographic panoramas, found negligible effects of graphical quality [56]. Jones et al. 2013 compared geometrically identical environments viewed in headsets with differing resolutions and found that spatial perception was not affected by graphical resolution [58]. Generally, it is considered that as long as conflicting graphical spatial cues are avoided, the overall graphical quality has seemly small effects on how observers perceive a space. The current findings align with more recent literature, supporting the use of VR to safely induce mobility-related anxiety and potential habituation to anxiety-inducing VEs [13].

4.3. Limitations

Limitations in the current study include the testing of healthy college-aged individuals, the lack of other biomechanical assessments, such as the use of 3D motion capture to assess whole body and COM kinematics, the use of electromyography to assess lower-extremity postural muscle responses, the use of electroencephalography to assess cognitive measures, and the use of physiological assessments, such as heart rate responses. Finally, the sample of participants in the study included an uneven split in gender, with predominantly more females, for which the rationale was discussed earlier.

4.4. Future Work

Thus, future studies should investigate the impact of virtual claustrophobic simulations using comprehensive biomechanical, cognitive, and physiological measures and with learning and retention trials. Testing is imperative among all individuals, especially with different age groups, such as young, middle aged, and elderly, and clinical populations with specific claustrophobic or other anxiety disorders. Future studies should also attempt to create high immersiveness and realism with the VE.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, virtual claustrophobic simulations involving “the walls closing in”, altered postural control responses in a group of young healthy adults. Specifically, these “wall moving” perturbations induced significantly decreased postural sway excursions, but significantly faster postural sway velocities, indicating a postural bracing strategy when exposed to virtual claustrophobic simulations. Additionally, these types of perturbations are susceptible to learning effects, which could serve as the basis for future interventions for those with claustrophobia. Findings from the study offer insights to postural control behavior under virtual claustrophobic simulations and can potentially aid in VR exposure therapy for individuals with claustrophobia as well as alternative postural control training through the induction of virtual-visual postural perturbations and postural threats.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.C. and H.R.F.; methodology, H.C. and H.R.F.; software, C.M.H.; validation, H.C., H.R.F. and C.M.H.; formal analysis, H.C.; investigation, H.C., H.R.F., J.A.J., A.C.K., S.N.K.K.A. and A.J.T.; resources, H.C. and C.R.H.; software, C.R.H.; data curation, H.C., H.R.F. and C.M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, H.C.; writing—review and editing, H.R.F., J.A.J., A.C.K., S.N.K.K.A., A.J.T. and J.A.J.; supervision, H.C.; project administration, H.C. and H.R.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the approved protocol by the Institutional Review Board of Mississippi State University (IRB Protocol #21-033 with date of approval on 10 March 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

VRVirtual Reality
VEVirtual Environment
CPClaustrophobia
COPCenter of Pressure
COMCenter of Mass
No VRReal Environment (not virtual)
VR CPVirtual Reality Claustrophobia Environment
VR CP1, VR CP2, VR CP3Virtual Reality Claustrophobia Trials 1, 2, 3
SSQSimulator Sickness Questionnaire
PAR-QPhysical Activity Readiness Questionnaire
MLMedial-lateral
APAnterior-posterior
RMSRoot Mean Square
95% EA95% Ellipsoid Area
CDCCenter for Disease Control
IRBInstitutional Review Board

References

  1. Winter, D.A. Human balance and posture control during standing and walking. Gait Posture 1995, 3, 193–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Horak, F.B. Postural orientation and equilibrium: What do we need to know about neural control of balance to prevent falls? Age Ageing 2006, 35, ii7–ii11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Pollock, A.S.; Durward, B.R.; Rowe, P.J.; Paul, J.P. What is balance? Clin. Rehab. 2000, 14, 402–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Massion, J. Postural control system. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 1994, 4, 877–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Assländer, L.; Hettich, G.; Mergner, T. Visual contribution to human standing balance during support surface tilts. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2015, 41, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Brink, D.V.D.; Janzen, G. Visual spatial cue use for guiding orientation in two-to-three-year-old children. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4, 904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Chander, H.; Arachchige, S.N.K.K.; Hill, C.M.; Turner, A.J.; Deb, S.; Shojaei, A.; Hudson, C.; Knight, A.C.; Carruth, D.W. Virtual-Reality-Induced Visual Perturbations Impact Postural Control System Behavior. Behav. Sci. 2019, 9, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Cleworth, T.W.; Horslen, B.; Carpenter, M.G. Influence of real and virtual heights on standing balance. Gait Posture 2012, 36, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chander, H.; Shojaei, A.; Deb, S.; Arachchige, S.N.K.K.; Hudson, C.; Knight, A.C.; Carruth, D.W. Impact of Virtual Reality—Generated Construction Environments at Different Heights on Postural Stability and Fall Risk. Work. Health Saf. 2020, 69, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jacob, R.G.; Redfern, M.S.; Furman, J.M. Space and motion discomfort and abnormal balance control in patients with anxiety disorders. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2008, 80, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Balaban, C.D.; Jacob, R.G.; Furman, J.M. Neurologic bases for comorbidity of balance disorders, anxiety disorders and migraine: Neurotherapeutic implications. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2011, 11, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Balaban, C.D.; Furman, J.M.; Staab, J.P. Threat Assessment and Locomotion: Clinical Applications of an Integrated Model of Anxiety and Postural Control. Skull Base 2013, 33, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Raffegeau, T.E.; Fawver, B.; Clark, M.; Engel, B.T.; Young, W.R.; Williams, A.M.; Lohse, K.R.; Fino, P.C. The feasibility of using virtual reality to induce mobility-related anxiety during turning. Gait Posture 2020, 77, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Redfern, M.S.; Furman, J.M.; Jacob, R.G. Visually induced postural sway in anxiety disorders. J. Anxiety Disord. 2007, 21, 704–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Nagano, A.; Yoshioka, S.; Hay, D.C.; Himeno, R.; Fukashiro, S. Influence of vision and static stretch of the calf muscles on postural sway during quiet standing. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2006, 25, 422–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Coelho, C.; Balaban, C. Visuo-vestibular contributions to anxiety and fear. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2015, 48, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boffino, C.C.; Sá, C.; Gorenstein, C.; Brown, R.G.; Basile, L.F.H.; Ramos, R.T. Fear of heights: Cognitive performance and postural control. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2008, 259, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Coelho, C.M.; Wallis, G. Deconstructing acrophobia: Physiological and psychological precursors to developing a fear of heights. Depression Anxiety 2010, 27, 864–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1978; p. 405. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lourenco, S.F.; Longo, M.; Pathman, T. Near space and its relation to claustrophobic fear. Cognition 2011, 119, 448–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rachman, P.; Taylor, P. Analyses of claustrophobia. J. Anxiety Disord. 1993, 7, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Radomsky, A.; Rachman, S.; Thordarson, D.S.; McIsaac, H.K.; Teachman, B.A. The Claustrophobia Questionnaire. J. Anxiety Disord. 2001, 15, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lee, D.N.; Aronson, E. Visual proprioceptive control of standing in human infants. Percept. Psychophys. 1974, 15, 529–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chander, H.; Arachchige, S.N.K.; Turner, A.J.; Knight, A.C. Is it me or the room moving? Recreating the classical “moving room” experiment with virtual reality for postural control adaptation. Adapt. Behav. 2020, 30, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Eseinfeld, S.; Bergström, I.; Epomes, A.; Palacios, J.A.; Evico, F.; Slater, M.; Sanchez-Vives, M. Influence of Music on Anxiety Induced by Fear of Heights in Virtual Reality. Front. Psychol. 2016, 6, 1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Peterson, S.M.; Furuichi, E.; Ferris, D.P. Effects of virtual reality high heights exposure during beam-walking on physiological stress and cognitive loading. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0200306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Raffegeau, T.E.; Fawver, B.; Young, W.R.; Williams, A.M.; Lohse, K.R.; Fino, P.C. The direction of postural threat alters balance control when standing at virtual elevation. Exp. Brain Res. 2020, 238, 2653–2663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chiarovano, E.; Wang, W.; Rogers, S.J.; MacDougall, H.; Curthoys, I.S.; De Waele, C. Balance in Virtual Reality: Effect of Age and Bilateral Vestibular Loss. Front. Neurol. 2017, 8, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Vard, A.; Rahani, V.K.; Najafi, M. Claustrophobia game: Design and development of a new virtual reality game for treatment of claustrophobia. J. Med. Signals Sens. 2018, 8, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Wuehr, M.; Breitkopf, K.; Decker, J.; Ibarra, G.; Huppert, D.; Brandt, T. Fear of heights in virtual reality saturates 20 to 40 m above ground. J. Neurol. 2019, 266, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bruce, M.; Regenbrecht, H. A Virtual Reality Claustrophobia Therapy System—Implementation and Test. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, Lafayette, LA, USA, 14–18 March 2009; pp. 179–182. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tsai, C.-F.; Yeh, S.-C.; Huang, Y.; Wu, Z.; Cui, J.; Zheng, L. The Effect of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality on Inducing Anxiety for Exposure Therapy: A Comparison Using Heart Rate Variability. J. Heal. Eng. 2018, 2018, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Yeh, S.-C.; Li, Y.-Y.; Zhou, C.; Chiu, P.-H.; Chen, J.-W. Effects of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality on Induced Anxiety. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2018, 26, 1345–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Coelho, C.M.; Waters, A.; Hine, T.J.; Wallis, G. The use of virtual reality in acrophobia research and treatment. J. Anxiety Disord. 2009, 23, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. DeBusk, H.; Hill, C.M.; Chander, H.; Knight, A.C.; Babski-Reeves, K. Influence of military workload and footwear on static and dynamic balance performance. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 64, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-1-4698-2666-0. [Google Scholar]
  37. Nandi, T.; Lewthwaite, R.; Fisher, B.E.; Salem, G.J. Balance confidence scale: Preliminary validity, reliability, and relation to neural excitability in young adults. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019, 43, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kim, H.K.; Park, J.; Choi, Y.; Choe, M. Virtual reality sickness questionnaire (VRSQ): Motion sickness measurement index in a virtual reality environment. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 69, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Horak, F.B.; Henry, S.M.; Shumway-Cook, A. Postural Perturbations: New Insights for Treatment of Balance Disorders. Phys. Ther. 1997, 77, 517–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Horak, F.B.; Shupert, C.L.; Mirka, A. Components of postural dyscontrol in the elderly: A review. Neurobiol. Aging 1989, 10, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. O’Connor, S.M.; Baweja, H.S.; Goble, D.J. Validating the BTrackS Balance Plate as a low cost alternative for the measurement of sway-induced center of pressure. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 4142–4145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shephard, R.J. PAR-Q, Canadian Home Fitness Test and Exercise Screening Alternatives. Sports Med. 1988, 5, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Deb, S.; Carruth, D.W.; Sween, R.; Strawderman, L.; Garrison, T.M. Efficacy of virtual reality in pedestrian safety research. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 65, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Duarte, M.; Freitas, S.M.S.F. Revision of posturography based on force plate for balance evaluation. Rev. Bras. Fisioter. 2010, 14, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Armstrong, R.A. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2014, 34, 502–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows; Version 27.0.; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wulf, G.; Weigelt, M.; Poulter, D.; McNevin, N. Attentional Focus on Suprapostural Tasks Affects Balance Learning. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect. A 2003, 56, 1191–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pline, K.M.; Madigan, M.L.; Nussbaum, M.A. Influence of fatigue time and level on increases in postural sway. Ergonomics 2006, 49, 1639–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Overstall, P.W.; Exton-Smith, A.N.; Imms, F.J.; Johnson, A.L. Falls in the elderly related to postural imbalance. BMJ 1977, 1, 261–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Warnica, M.J.; Weaver, T.B.; Prentice, S.D.; Laing, A.C. The influence of ankle muscle activation on postural sway during quiet stance. Gait Posture 2014, 39, 1115–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Santos, M.J.; Kanekar, N.; Aruin, A.S. The role of anticipatory postural adjustments in compensatory control of posture: 2. Biomechanical analysis. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2010, 20, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Assländer, L.; Peterka, R.J. Sensory reweighting dynamics in human postural control. J. Neurophysiol. 2014, 111, 1852–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Hageman, P.; Leibowitz, J.M.; Blanke, D. Age and gender effects on postural control measures. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 1995, 76, 961–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wolfson, L.; Whipple, R.; Derby, C.A.; Amerman, P.; Nashner, L. Gender Differences in the Balance of Healthy Elderly as Demonstrated by Dynamic Posturography. J. Gerontol. 1994, 49, M160–M167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kollegger, H.; Baumgartner, C.; Wöber, C.; Oder, W.; Deecke, L. Spontaneous Body Sway as a Function of Sex, Age, and Vision: Posturographic Study in 30 Healthy Adults. Eur. Neurol. 1992, 32, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Thompson, W.B.; Willemsen, P.; Gooch, A.A.; Creem-Regehr, S.H.; Loomis, J.M.; Beall, A.C. Does the Quality of the Computer Graphics Matter when Judging Distances in Visually Immersive Environments? Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 2004, 13, 560–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jones, J.A.; Swan, J.E.; Singh, G.; Ellis, S.R. Peripheral Visual Information and Its Effect on Distance Judgments in Virtual and Augmented Environments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3–7 August 2011; pp. 29–36. [Google Scholar]
  58. Jones, J.A.; Swan, J.E., II; Bolas, M. Peripheral Stimulation and its Effect on Perceived Spatial Scale in Virtual Environments. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2013, 19, 701–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ctn 06 00015 g001 550
Figure 1. Participant performing the virtual reality (VR) claustrophobia trials using the HTC Vive Pro™ standing on a BTrackS™ balance force platform.
Figure 1. Participant performing the virtual reality (VR) claustrophobia trials using the HTC Vive Pro™ standing on a BTrackS™ balance force platform.
Ctn 06 00015 g001
Ctn 06 00015 g002 550
Figure 2. Top level of each figure illustrates the researcher view and bottom level illustrates the participants’ point of view. (A) Lobby environment before the start of claustrophobia testing; (B) claustrophobia testing environment, start of the trial; (C) mid-point of claustrophobia testing (walls closing in); (D) completed claustrophobia testing (walls fully closed in).
Figure 2. Top level of each figure illustrates the researcher view and bottom level illustrates the participants’ point of view. (A) Lobby environment before the start of claustrophobia testing; (B) claustrophobia testing environment, start of the trial; (C) mid-point of claustrophobia testing (walls closing in); (D) completed claustrophobia testing (walls fully closed in).
Ctn 06 00015 g002
Ctn 06 00015 g003 550
Figure 3. Sway velocity (cm/s) during upright bilateral stance with no virtual reality (NoVR), with virtual reality (VR), first trial in virtual environment with room walls closing in (VR CP1), second trial (VR CP2), and third trial (VR CP3). # represents main effect significance and * represent post-hoc pairwise comparison significance. Bars represent standard errors. ** implies significant difference from first two conditions.
Figure 3. Sway velocity (cm/s) during upright bilateral stance with no virtual reality (NoVR), with virtual reality (VR), first trial in virtual environment with room walls closing in (VR CP1), second trial (VR CP2), and third trial (VR CP3). # represents main effect significance and * represent post-hoc pairwise comparison significance. Bars represent standard errors. ** implies significant difference from first two conditions.
Ctn 06 00015 g003
Ctn 06 00015 g004 550
Figure 4. Medial lateral root mean square (ML RMS) sway (cm) during upright bilateral stance with no virtual reality (NoVR), with virtual reality (VR), first trial in virtual environment with room walls closing in (VR CP1), second trial (VR CP2), and third trial (VR CP3). # represents main effect significance and * represents post-hoc pairwise comparison significance. Bars represent standard errors.
Figure 4. Medial lateral root mean square (ML RMS) sway (cm) during upright bilateral stance with no virtual reality (NoVR), with virtual reality (VR), first trial in virtual environment with room walls closing in (VR CP1), second trial (VR CP2), and third trial (VR CP3). # represents main effect significance and * represents post-hoc pairwise comparison significance. Bars represent standard errors.
Ctn 06 00015 g004
Ctn 06 00015 g005 550
Figure 5. Anterior posterior root mean square (AP RMS) sway (cm) during upright bilateral stance with no virtual reality (NoVR), with virtual reality (VR), first trial in virtual environment with room walls closing in (VR CP1), second trial (VR CP2), and third trial (VR CP3).
Figure 5. Anterior posterior root mean square (AP RMS) sway (cm) during upright bilateral stance with no virtual reality (NoVR), with virtual reality (VR), first trial in virtual environment with room walls closing in (VR CP1), second trial (VR CP2), and third trial (VR CP3).
Ctn 06 00015 g005
Ctn 06 00015 g006 550
Figure 6. 95% ellipsoid area (EA) (cm2) during upright bilateral stance with no virtual reality (NoVR), with virtual reality (VR), first trial in virtual environment with room walls closing in (VR CP1), second trial (VR CP2), and third trial (VR CP3). # represents main effect significance and * represents post-hoc pairwise comparison significance. Bars represent standard errors.
Figure 6. 95% ellipsoid area (EA) (cm2) during upright bilateral stance with no virtual reality (NoVR), with virtual reality (VR), first trial in virtual environment with room walls closing in (VR CP1), second trial (VR CP2), and third trial (VR CP3). # represents main effect significance and * represents post-hoc pairwise comparison significance. Bars represent standard errors.
Ctn 06 00015 g006
Table
Table 1. Repeated measures ANOVA results for main effects and pairwise comparisons at p < 0.05.
Table 1. Repeated measures ANOVA results for main effects and pairwise comparisons at p < 0.05.
Dependent VariablesMain EffectsPairwise Comparisons
Sway Velocity (cm/s)F (4,116) = 14.911, p < 0.001, ƞp2 = 0.340NoVR & VR < CP1 & CP2; CP1 > CP3
ML RMS Sway (cm)F (4,116) = 5.980, p < 0.001, ƞp2 = 0.171NoVR > VR & CP2, CP3
AP RMS Sway (cm)F (4,116) = 0.727, p = 0.576, ƞp2 = 0.024No significant main effect
95% EA (cm.cm)F (4,116) = 3.095, p = 0.018, ƞp2 = 0.094NoVR > CP3
ML Sway Excursion (cm)F (4,116) = 5.415, p < 0.001, ƞp2 = 0.157NoVR > VR, CP2 & CP3
AP Sway Excursion (cm)F (4,116) = 5.415, p < 0.001, ƞp2 = 0.157No significant pairwise comparisons
ML—Medial lateral, AP—Anterior posterior, RMS—Root mean square, EA—Ellipsoid area, No VR—upright bilateral stance with no virtual reality, VR—with virtual reality in a virtual environment, VR CP1—first trial in virtual environment with room walls closing in, VR CP2—second trial and VR CP3—third trial in the same virtual environments.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chander, H.; Freeman, H.R.; Hill, C.M.; Hudson, C.R.; Kodithuwakku Arachchige, S.N.K.; Turner, A.J.; Jones, J.A.; Knight, A.C. The Walls Are Closing In: Postural Responses to a Virtual Reality Claustrophobic Simulation. Clin. Transl. Neurosci. 2022, 6, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ctn6020015

AMA Style

Chander H, Freeman HR, Hill CM, Hudson CR, Kodithuwakku Arachchige SNK, Turner AJ, Jones JA, Knight AC. The Walls Are Closing In: Postural Responses to a Virtual Reality Claustrophobic Simulation. Clinical and Translational Neuroscience. 2022; 6(2):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ctn6020015

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chander, Harish, Hannah R. Freeman, Christopher M. Hill, Christopher R. Hudson, Sachini N. K. Kodithuwakku Arachchige, Alana J. Turner, J. Adam Jones, and Adam C. Knight. 2022. "The Walls Are Closing In: Postural Responses to a Virtual Reality Claustrophobic Simulation" Clinical and Translational Neuroscience 6, no. 2: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ctn6020015

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop