Powers, M. B., and P. M. G. Emmelkamp. "Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Anxiety Disorders: A Meta-Analysis." Journal of anxiety disorders 22.3 (2008): 561-9. Web. 24 Feb. 2018

From Digital Culture & Society

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] "Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Anxiety Disorders: A Meta-Analysis."

The subject of mental health is often discussed in a more political or philosophical setting. Over the years as technology has advanced, the progress of social activity increased along with it. With the increase in social media, the awareness of mental health has become more popular. That seemed to be as far as mental health and technology have interconnected. However, recent years has evolved into finding more ways to use technology to help those with mental disorders. The focus of finding treatments involves virtual reality or VR. When VR came into the public media it was a new level of gaming. It did not reach the hype of its release for gaming, but researchers and developers saw how it’s interface could provide a solution for treatment of mental health disorders. Simulations were developed for specific types of mental disorders to use for exposure therapy. The simulations allow the person to become more comfortable with their fears, so they can eventually overcome them in reality.


An article written by Mark Powers and Paul Emmelkamp discussed the effectiveness of VR over regular exposure therapy. In the article, “Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Anxiety Disorders: A Meta-Analysis”, they compare different studies of VR exposure therapy to test its effectiveness. For the research, they conducted five hypotheses. The first being that VR would outperform exposure therapy. The second hypothesis was the size of the group tested would impact the results of the experience. The third was Vivo treatment would be just as effective as VR. The forth was the presence of a dose-relationship pertaining to VR, and the fifth was the publication year would have no effect on the testing. Most of their hypothesis was correct except for the second one as the size of the group did not directly impact the experiment outcome. VR proved to be a bit superior to regular exposure therapy for a few key reasons. It was more accepted by the patients, cost-effective and customizable. The article displays a lot of the advantages of VR and goes into detail about its effectiveness.


The article is written very well and explains in detail using equations to support their statements. It can summarize other articles produced about VR and compare their information with other sources. It can save the reader time from reading many articles, but it can also add more information if the reader did want to read the other sources. The article was rather short but incorporated a lot of information. It did not seem to drag on and repeat itself instead it kept it short and displayed the information needed. The article was broken up into sections very nicely, so it is easy to find information about the reading and look back to for wanted information. The headlines and sectioning make it very well organized and flow together cohesively. The reading is written in language that most readers would be able to understand and comprehend, however, there are also many elements that make it harder to read for the average person.


Unfortunately, there seems to be more weakness with the article than expected. The reading uses equations to show their theoretical math behind the research. The equations are very hard to understand and seem a bit out of place for a topic regarding VR and mental health. The comparisons made should be in a percentage to show the effectiveness of what they discussed. If the equations were explained a bit more clearly it would enhance the reading. The language is simple, but the math involved makes it very hard for an average reader to understand. The equations feel out of place because most people who study in the VR or mental health field would not benefit from such mathematical focus. The focus would be on the emotional part of the progress. The article would benefit from incorporating the emotional aspect of the disorders and explain why VR worked better for certain disorders than others. The data used does make it unique among other readings, but the aspect of using VR for mental health should explain how it is effective. Combining the data with a little more seasoning would improve the reading.


I disagree with the thinking behind some of their hypothesis or outcomes. For their first hypothesis, I do agree that VR would outperform exposure therapy because patients would be more willing to go into a virtual setting with no preserve of danger than a real one with the possibility of danger. The second hypothesis’s outcome is a major inaccuracy to me. I believe the size of the tested groups would impact the outcome. The bigger the size of the group the vaster differences between patients. This is a big reason I find the math to be a bit out of place since it seems like it is basing equations off predicted human emotions when that is very hard to do. I think the size of a sample would have different operations, different opinions, fears, and mindsets of the participants. For the third and fourth I mostly agree with, but the fifth one I do not. I think the publication of when a study was done would affect outcomes. The time the study is done would mean there was a difference in the technology used. If it is an older study, the technology used during that time would be out of date compared to now. It would be not as effective as studies done today since VR has improved tremendously within a few years. VR has become more engaging, immersive, and realistic so those who have done the therapy recently would have a very different experience than those from the past.


The article is very well thought out and organized. The vocabulary is very ‘clean’ and simple, so it is easy to understand. The use of mathematical data seems a bit out of place for the topic, but it is interesting and does some unique value. The reading would benefit from expanding on the emotional aspect of VR or the reader could combine it with the sources the author used for more information. The article alone is very concise with its information and it is good for comparing with other readings. The main advantage of the article is its layout and presentation of the hypotheses. The main disadvantage of the article is the complicated use of math, the lack of emotional reasoning and some seemingly inaccurate data. Overall, the article is well done and a good reading to find the advantages of VR compared to regular exposure therapy.

Personal tools
Bookmark and Share