Advertisement

How Technology Influences the Therapeutic Process: A Comparative Field Evaluation of Augmented Reality and In Vivo Exposure Therapy for Phobia of Small Animals

  • Maja Wrzesien
  • Jean-Marie Burkhardt
  • Mariano Alcañiz
  • Cristina Botella
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6946)

Abstract

In Vivo Exposure Therapy (IVET) has been a recommended protocol for the treatment of specific phobias. More recently, several studies have suggested that Augmented Reality Exposure Therapy (ARET) is a potentially effective technology in this field. The objective of this paper is to report the preliminary results of a comparative analysis of ARET and IVET applied to the treatment of phobia to small animals. To analyze participants’ activity, we have adopted a multidisciplinary and mixed perspective based on clinical and user-centered approaches. This pilot results show that ARET and IVET are both clinically effective. Both therapies produce a significant reduction in the clinical outcome measures and allow the clients to interact with a real phobic stimulus after the therapeutic session. The results also show some main differences between technology-mediated therapy and traditional non-mediated therapy. We discuss these results in terms of future design and evaluation guidelines for Mental Health technologies.

Keywords

Mental health augmented reality field evaluation 

References

  1. 1.
    Doherty, G., Coyle, D., Matthews, M.: Design and evaluation guidelines for mental health technologies. Interacting with Computers 22(4), 243–252 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coyle, D., Doherty, G., Sharry, J., Matthews, M.: Computers in Talk-Based Mental Health Interventions. Interacting with Computers 19(4), 429–586 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coyle, D., Doherty, G.: Clinical evaluation and collaborative design: developing new technologies for mental healthcare interventions. In: Proc. CHI, pp. 2051–2060 (2009) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Botella, C., Juan, M., et al.: Mixing Realities? An application of Augmented Reality for the treatment of cockroach phobia. CyberPsychology & Behavior 8(2), 161–171 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Botella, C., Bretón-López, J.M., Quero, S., Baños, R.M., García-Palacios, A.: Treating Cockroach Phobia With Augmented Reality. Behavior Therapy 41(3), 401–413 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brinkman, W.P., Sandino, G., van der Mast, C.: Filed observations of therapists conducting virtual reality exposure treatment for the fear of flying. In: Proc. ECCE (2009) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paping, C., Brinkman, W.P., van der Mast, C.: An Explorative Study into a Tele-delivered Multi-patient Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy System. In: Wounds of War II, pp. 203–219. IOS press, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn. Text revision. American Psychatric Association, Washington, D.C (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alonso, J., Angermeyer, M.C., Bernert, S., et al.: Prevalence of mental disorders in Europe: results from the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders (ESEMeD) project. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 109(420), 21–27 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Hout W.J.P.J., Emmelkamp P.M.G.: Exposure in Vivo Therapy. Encyclopedia of Psychotherapy, 761–768 (2003) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choy, Y., Fyer, A.J., Lipsitz, J.D.: Treatment of specific phobia in adults. A comprehensive review on the treatment of specific phobia. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 27, 266–286 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Powers, M.B., Emmelkamp, P.M.G.: Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22(3), 561–569 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baños, R.M., Botella, C., Garcia-Palacios, A., et al.: Presence and reality judgment in virtual environments: a unitary construct? CyberPsychology & Behavior 3(3), 327–335 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horvath, A.O.: The Alliance. Psychotherapy 38(4), 365–372 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Assay, T.P., Lambert, M.J.: The empirical case for common factors in therapy: Quantitative Founding. In: Duncan, B.L., Hubble, M.L., Miller, S.D. (eds.) The Heart and Soul of Change, pp. 23–55. American Psychology Association, Washington, DC (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyerbröker, K., Emmelkamp, P.M.G.: Therapeutic Process in Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy: The Role of Cognitions and The Therapeutic Alliance. Journal of Cybertherapy & Rehabilitation 1(3), 247–257 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nardi, B., Kaptelinin, V.: Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hollan, J.D., Hutchins, E.L.: Opportunities and Challenges for Augmented Environments: A Distributed Cognition Perspective. In: Lahlou, S. (ed.) User Friendly Environments: From Meeting Rooms to Digital Collaborative Spaces. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wrzesien, M., Burkhardt, J.M., et al.: Analysis of Distributed-Collaborative Activity during AR Exposure Therapy for Cockroach Phobia. In: Proc. Cyberpsychology (2010) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Öst, L.G.: Rapid treatment of specific phobias. In: Davey, G.C.L. (ed.) Phobias: A Handbook of Theory, Research, and Treatment, pp. 227–247. Wiley, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tracey, T.J., Kokotovic, A.M.: Factor structure of the Working Alliance Inventory. Psychological Assessment 1, 207–210 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Germain, V., Marchand, A., Bouchard, S., Guay, S., Drouin, M.S.: Assessment of the Therapeutic Alliance in Face-to-face or Videoconference Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 13(1), 29–35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neerincx, M.A., van Besouw, N.J.P.: Cognitive task load: a function of time occupied, level of information processing and task-set switches. Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics 31(6), 247–254 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Piper, A.M., Hollan, J.: Analyzing Multimodal Communication around a Shared Tabletop Display. In: Proceedings of ECSCW, pp. 283–302 (2009) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Botella, C., Breton-López, J., Quero, S., Baños, R.M., Garcia-Palacios, A., et al.: Treating cockroach phobia using a serious game on a mobile phone and augmented reality exposure: A single case study. Computers in Human Behavior 27(1), 217–227 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Riva, G., Zurloni, V., Anolli, L.: Client-Therapist Communication in Computer assisted environment. In: Anolli, L., et al. (eds.) The Hidden Structure of Interaction: From Neurons to Culture Patterns. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maja Wrzesien
    • 1
  • Jean-Marie Burkhardt
    • 2
  • Mariano Alcañiz
    • 1
    • 3
  • Cristina Botella
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Instituto Interuniversitario de Investigación en Bioingeniería y Tecnología Orientada al Ser HumanoUniversidad Politécnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.LATIParis Descartes UniversityParis cedex 06France
  3. 3.CIBERFisiopatología Obesidad y Nutrición, CB06/03 Instituto de Salud Carlos IIISpain
  4. 4.Departamento de Psicologia Basica y PsicobiologiaUniversidad Jaume ICastellónSpain

Personalised recommendations