The aim of this study is to investigate the neural correlates during drone control in both VR and 2D monitor conditions. A total of eight participants were instructed to control a drone and perform a heat loss detection task using either VR or a 2D monitor. Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals were recorded and subsequently analyzed using the dynamic causal modeling (DCM) method. By comparing the laterality and the direction of causal connections derived from DCM analysis, the key role of right hemisphere dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) was identified during presence sensing under the VR condition. The results from this preliminary study may be utilized in applications of the augmented cognition program as they provide the basis for monitoring and evaluating the engagement of users.
AshburnerJ.BarnesG.ChenC. C.DaunizeauJ.FlandinG.FristonK.KiebelS.KilnerJ.LitvakV.MoranR. (2014). SPM12 manual (Vol. 2464, pp. 475–481). Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02813.x
2.
BaumgartnerT.SpeckD.WettsteinD.MasnariO.BeeliG.JänckeL. (2008, August2). Feeling present in arousing virtual reality worlds: Prefrontal brain regions differentially orchestrate presence experience in adults and children. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.008.2008
3.
BonnefondM.KastnerS.JensenO. (2017). Communication between brain areas based on nested oscillations. eNeuro, 4(2), ENEURO.0153-16.2017. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0153-16.2017
4.
DavisS. W.CrowellC. A.BeynelL.DengL.LakD.HilbigS. A.LimW.LakhlaniD.HilbigS. A.LimW.NguyenD.PeterchevA. V.LuberB. M.LisanbyS. H.AppelbaumL. G.CabezaR. (2018). Complementary topology of maintenance and manipulation brain networks in working memory. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 17827. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35887-2
5.
DeshpandeA.KimI. (2018). The effects of augmented reality on improving spatial problem solving for object assembly. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 38, 760–775.
6.
de WaeleC.BaudonnièreP. M.LepecqJ. C.Tran Ba HuyP.VidalP. P. (2001). Vestibular projections in the human cortex. Experimental Brain Research, 141(4), 541–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-001-0894-7
7.
FarzanaN.JeffriS.RohayaD.RambliA. (2021). A review of augmented reality systems and their effects on mental workload and task performance. Heliyon, 7(3), e06277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06277
8.
ForlimC. G.BittnerL.MostajeranF.SteinickeF.GallinatJ.KühnS. (2019). Stereoscopic rendering via goggles elicits higher functional connectivity during virtual reality gaming. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 365. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00365
9.
FriedmanN. P.RobbinsT. W. (2022). The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function. Neuropsychopharmacology, 47(1), 72–89.
HartmannT.WirthW.SchrammH.KlimmtC.VordererP.GysbersA.BöckingS.RavajaN.LaarniJ.SaariT.GouveiaF.Maria SacauA. (2016). The spatial presence experience scale (SPES): A short self-report measure for diverse media settings. Journal of Media Psychology, 28, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000137
12.
HuangJ.PughZ. H.KimS.NamC. S. (2024, March). Brain dynamics of mental workload in a multitasking context: Evidence from dynamic causal modeling. Computers in Human Behavior, 152, 108043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108043
13.
JänckeL.CheethamM.BaumgartnerT. (2009). Virtual reality and the role of the prefrontal cortex in adults and children. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 3, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.01.006.2009
14.
KiebelS.DavidO.FristonK. J.KiebelS. J.DavidO.FristonK. J. (2006). Dynamic causal modelling of evoked responses in EEG/MEG with lead field parameterization. NeuroImage, 30(4), 1273–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.055
15.
KoberS. E.KurzmannJ.NeuperC. (2012). Cortical correlate of spatial presence in 2D and 3D interactive virtual reality: An EEG study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(3), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.12.003
16.
KulkeL.PasqualetteL. (2024). Learning from 360-degree videos on a VR headset compared to 2D videos on a monitor. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2024.2355386
17.
MakranskyG.PetersenG. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (camil): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 937–958.
18.
MakranskyG.TerkildsenT. S.MayerR. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
19.
MuellerC.LuehrsM.BaeckeS.AdolfD.LuetzkendorfR.LuchtmannM.BernardingJ. (2012). Building virtual reality fMRI paradigms: A framework for presenting immersive virtual environments. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 209(2), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2012.06.025
20.
PennyW. D.FristonK. J.AshburnerJ. T.KiebelS. J.NicholsT. E. (2011). Statistical parametric mapping: The analysis of functional brain images. Elsevier.
21.
PennyW. D.StephanK. E.DaunizeauJ.RosaM. J.FristonK. J.SchofieldT. M.LeffA. P. (2010). Comparing families of dynamic causal models. PLoS Computational Biology, 6(3), e1000709.
22.
PfeifferC.ScaramuzzaD. (2021). Human-piloted drone racing: Visual processing and control. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6, 3467–3474.
23.
SharbroughF.ChatrianG.LesserR.LudersH.NuwerM.PictonT. (1991). American electroencephalographic society guidelines for Standard Electrode Position Nomenclature. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 8(2), 200–202.
24.
StanneyK. M.SchmorrowD. D.JohnstonM.FuchsS.JonesD.HaleK. S.AhmadA.YoungP. (2009). Augmented cognition: An overview. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 5, 195–224. https://doi.org/10.1518/155723409x448062
25.
StephanK. E.FristonK. J. (2009). Functional connectivity. In SquireL. R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (pp. 391–397). Academic Press.
26.
StephanK. E.FristonK. J. (2010). Analyzing effective connectivity with functional magnetic resonance imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.58
27.
StoffregenT. A.BardyB. G.SmartL.PagulayanR. (2003). On the nature and evaluation of fidelity in virtual environments. In HettingerL. J.HaasM. (Eds.) Virtual and adaptive environments: Applications, implications, and human performance issues (pp. 21–46). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781410608888.pt1
28.
WigG. S.SchlaggarB. L.PetersenS. E. (2011). Concepts and principles in the analysis of brain networks. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1224(1), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05947.x
29.
WuB.YuX.GuX. (2020). Effectiveness of immersive virtual reality using head-mounted displays on learning performance: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 1991–2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13023
30.
XiN.ChenJ.GamaF.RiarM.HamariJ. (2023). The challenges of entering the metaverse: An experiment on the effect of extended reality on workload. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(2), 659–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10244-x
