The impact of natural and urban environmental settings on exercise and perceptual responses during virtual reality-based exercise
Emanuel Festino, Olga Papale, Cristina Cortis, Andrea Fusco, Angela E. Hibbs, Mohammed Khudair, Kandianos Emmanouil Sakalidis, Gill Barry, Florentina Johanna Hettinga, Gavin Daniel Tempest · Frontiers in Psychology · 2026
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 cycling exercise in different virtual environments influence exercise and perceptual responses. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of a natural and urban non-immersive VR environment versus no VR on exercise and perceptual responses during cycling activity. Methods Twenty-three physically active young adults completed 10 min 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 the 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 natural scenes, as a strategy to improve the exercise experience, potentially supporting exercise adherence.