The impact of natural and urban environmental settings on exercise and perceptual responses during virtual reality-based exercise

Emanuel Festino^1,2Olga Papale^1,2Cristina Cortis^1,2Andrea Fusco^3*Angela Hibbs⁴Mohammed Khudair^4,5Kandianos Emmanouil Sakalidis⁶Gill Barry⁴Florentina Johanna Hettinga⁷Gavin Daniel Tempest⁴

• ¹Department of Human Sciences, Society and Health, University of Cassino and Lazio Meridionale, Cassino, Italy
• ²European University of Technology EUt+, Cassino, Italy
• ³Department of Medicine and Sciences of Aging, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti and Pescara, Chieti, Italy
• ⁴School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
• ⁵School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
• ⁶School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
• ⁷Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behavioural and Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Introduction: Exercise in virtual reality (VR) is engaging and provides a positive experience, contributing to long-term adherence. Psychological responses such as flow, a state of optimal engagement, and enjoyment, may contribute to these benefits. However, it is unclear whether different virtual environments influence psychological and exercise responses during cycling. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of a natural and an urban non-immersive VR environment versus traditional cycling on exercise and perceptual responses during cycling exercise. Methods: Twenty-three physically active young adults completed 10 minutes of self-paced indoor cycling in three randomized conditions: No VR, and VR with Nature (Nature VR) and Urban (Urban VR) scenes. Power output, speed, heart rate, and Rating of Perceived Exertion were recorded. After each condition, participants completed Flow State Scale (FSS) and Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES). Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate exercise and perceptual responses across conditions. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: No significant differences were found between conditions for exercise variables. The Nature VR condition reached higher values for Action-Awareness Merging (4.19 ± 0.64), Loss of Self-Consciousness (4.46 ± 0.54), and Unambiguous Feedback (3.85 ± 0.66) compared with No VR (Action-Awareness Merging = 3.59 ± 0.90; Loss of Self-Consciousness = 3.76 ± 1.00; and Unambiguous Feedback = 3.25 ± 0.64). Both VR conditions showed significant differences in Autotelic Experience (Nature = 3.92 ± 0.61; Urban = 3.76 ± 0.59) and PACES (Nature = 30.34 ± 3.88; Urban = 29.08 ± 4.32) compared to No VR (Autotelic Experience = 3.04 ± 0.84; PACES = 25.34 ± 4.40). Discussion: Nature VR provided additional benefits on specific flow dimensions compared with No VR cycling. These findings support the use of non-immersive VR, particularly nature scenes, as a strategy to improve the exercise experience, potentially supporting exercise adherence.