Elizabeth A Shirtcliff, Tor T Finseth, Eliot H Winer, David C Glahn, Roselynn A Conrady, Stacy S Drury
{"title":"Virtual stressors with real impact: what virtual reality-based biobehavioral research can teach us about typical and atypical stress responsivity.","authors":"Elizabeth A Shirtcliff, Tor T Finseth, Eliot H Winer, David C Glahn, Roselynn A Conrady, Stacy S Drury","doi":"10.1038/s41398-024-03129-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stress contributes to transdiagnostic morbidity and mortality across a wide range of physical and mental health problems. VR tasks have been validated as stressors with robust effect sizes for VR-based stressors to evoke stress across the most common autonomic and adrenocortical stress biomarkers. However, meta-analytic validation of VR stressors have resulted in inconsistent logic: why should something that isn't real evoke a very real suite of stress responses? This review posits that conceptually addressing this question requires differentiating a cause, \"stressor\", from effects, \"stress\". Stress comprises a series of well-delineated perturbations in biological systems, such as autonomic and adrenocortical biomarkers in response to stressors. Despite their ubiquity, decades of literature have back-calculated stressor intensity based on the magnitude of a stress response. This causal directionality is not logical, yet remains pervasive because seemingly objective stress indices have generated a wealth of findings showing how stress gets under the skin and skull. This has created challenges for providing clear guidance and strategies to measure acute stressor intensity. Binary thinking about whether something is (not) real has stifled advances in understanding how to measure the dosage of a stressful environment. As a function of being programmed, individualizable, and titrated, virtual reality (VR) based stressors offer the field a platform for quantifying the dose of a stressor and generating reliable dose-response curves. This also raises the possibility to safely and ethically integrate psychosocial stressor administration into clinical and therapeutic settings. For example, Social Evaluative Threat experiments effectively trigger a stress response both in a laboratory setting and in built environments, while also upholding hard-fought trust and rapport with care providers. By focusing attention on the measurement of the stressor, VR paradigms can advance tangible understanding of stressors themselves and the pathways to the stress response.</p>","PeriodicalId":23278,"journal":{"name":"Translational Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487258/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Translational Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-024-03129-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Stress contributes to transdiagnostic morbidity and mortality across a wide range of physical and mental health problems. VR tasks have been validated as stressors with robust effect sizes for VR-based stressors to evoke stress across the most common autonomic and adrenocortical stress biomarkers. However, meta-analytic validation of VR stressors have resulted in inconsistent logic: why should something that isn't real evoke a very real suite of stress responses? This review posits that conceptually addressing this question requires differentiating a cause, "stressor", from effects, "stress". Stress comprises a series of well-delineated perturbations in biological systems, such as autonomic and adrenocortical biomarkers in response to stressors. Despite their ubiquity, decades of literature have back-calculated stressor intensity based on the magnitude of a stress response. This causal directionality is not logical, yet remains pervasive because seemingly objective stress indices have generated a wealth of findings showing how stress gets under the skin and skull. This has created challenges for providing clear guidance and strategies to measure acute stressor intensity. Binary thinking about whether something is (not) real has stifled advances in understanding how to measure the dosage of a stressful environment. As a function of being programmed, individualizable, and titrated, virtual reality (VR) based stressors offer the field a platform for quantifying the dose of a stressor and generating reliable dose-response curves. This also raises the possibility to safely and ethically integrate psychosocial stressor administration into clinical and therapeutic settings. For example, Social Evaluative Threat experiments effectively trigger a stress response both in a laboratory setting and in built environments, while also upholding hard-fought trust and rapport with care providers. By focusing attention on the measurement of the stressor, VR paradigms can advance tangible understanding of stressors themselves and the pathways to the stress response.
期刊介绍:
Psychiatry has suffered tremendously by the limited translational pipeline. Nobel laureate Julius Axelrod''s discovery in 1961 of monoamine reuptake by pre-synaptic neurons still forms the basis of contemporary antidepressant treatment. There is a grievous gap between the explosion of knowledge in neuroscience and conceptually novel treatments for our patients. Translational Psychiatry bridges this gap by fostering and highlighting the pathway from discovery to clinical applications, healthcare and global health. We view translation broadly as the full spectrum of work that marks the pathway from discovery to global health, inclusive. The steps of translation that are within the scope of Translational Psychiatry include (i) fundamental discovery, (ii) bench to bedside, (iii) bedside to clinical applications (clinical trials), (iv) translation to policy and health care guidelines, (v) assessment of health policy and usage, and (vi) global health. All areas of medical research, including — but not restricted to — molecular biology, genetics, pharmacology, imaging and epidemiology are welcome as they contribute to enhance the field of translational psychiatry.