Adaptive VR with tactile feedback during venipuncture.
Examine the comparison, reported outcomes and publication behind the Immersive Smile research approach.
Two approaches. One defined procedure.
Twenty-five participants received static VR. Twenty-five received adaptive VR with sensor-enabled tactile feedback.
The adaptive-with-tactile group reported mean post-procedure pain of 1.8/10, compared with 5.0/10 for static VR. The reported between-group difference was 3.2 points.
Mean pain score / 10
Mean pain score / 10
Two groups, not a before-and-after result. Randomized venipuncture study; 50 participants, 25 per group. Reported p < 0.001. Individual responses vary.
Read the publication ↗The outcomes, in context.
The source reports p < 0.001 for the primary pain comparison and Cohen’s d ≈ 1.53.
| Outcome | Static VR | Adaptive VR + tactile |
|---|---|---|
| Mean pain, 0–10 (± SD) | 5.0 ± 2.6 | 1.8 ± 1.4 |
| Reported 0/10 pain | 0/25 | 6/25 |
| Rated “Very Effective” | 36% | 84% |
| Would use VR again | 92% | 100% |
“Very Effective” is an experience rating, not 84% pain reduction. Reuse preference was an acceptability measure; the reported between-group p-value was 0.49.
Strong numbers deserve precise language.
The calculated 64% difference describes lower group mean pain relative to static VR. It is not the percentage of children helped, a before-and-after change in an individual, or a comparison with usual care without VR.
How to read the results →Methods, oversight and interpretation
Study population
The publication reports 50 participants, including younger children and participants aged 17 and 19. This website uses “participants” rather than describing the entire sample as children. Study inclusion does not determine a commercial age range.
View the source ↗Intervention and comparator
The adaptive group combined DQN-based adaptation with sensor-enabled tactile feedback. The comparison did not isolate the independent contribution of either component, and it did not include a no-VR control.
View the source ↗Outcome measurement
We report post-procedure pain on the published 0–10 scale. The supplied author proof uses inconsistent instrument labels; detailed scale reproduction is withheld pending clarification of the final method.
View the source ↗Zero-pain observations
Six of twenty-five adaptive-group participants reported 0/10 pain, compared with none in the static group. These observations do not guarantee a pain-free procedure for every child.
View the source ↗Study oversight and consent
The publication reports institutional and hospital approvals, parental or guardian consent, age-appropriate assent and anonymized participant information. Consult the source for its precise descriptions. These are not product-certification claims.
View the source ↗Limits and future research
The study was small and single-site, and focused on short-term outcomes around venipuncture. Larger and longitudinal evaluations and component-specific comparisons would help answer additional questions. Postoperative recovery and other settings require their own evidence.
View the source ↗Efficacy of Static VR vs. DQN-Enhanced VR with Sensor-Enabled Tactile Feedback for Pediatric Venipuncture: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Jaiyramanan Vijayaalayan · Prasad Wimalaratne
Springer Nature · pp. 69–88
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-032-10951-4_6
What would a better procedural experience look like at your hospital?
Tell us your department, country and clinical interest. We will discuss the right starting point for a demonstration, pilot or research collaboration.
International enquiries are welcome. Availability and implementation depend on local requirements.