Short-Term Psychophysiological Effects of Immersive Versus Non-Immersive Relaxation in University Students: A...

Background: University students are particularly vulnerable to elevated stress, anxiety, and reduced psychological well-being, especially in the post-pandemic period. Immersive virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a promising technology-supported approach for relaxation and stress reduction; however, evidence regarding its short-term psychophysiological effects in academic populations remains limited. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a short-term immersive VR relaxation intervention on perceived stress and autonomic nervous system activity in university students. Methods: A randomized controlled study with repeated measures was conducted among university students from Opole, Poland. Participants were allocated to an immersive VR group or a non-immersive screen-based control group. Both groups received identical relaxation content for 10 min daily over five consecutive days, differing only in the level of immersion. Heart rate variability (HRV) was recorded continuously during four consecutive 5-minute epochs within each session. Perceived stress was assessed using the Perceived Stress Scale-10 before and after the intervention. Cybersickness symptoms were assessed in the VR group. Results: Immersive VR elicited more pronounced favourable changes in HRV parameters than non-immersive exposure, including increased lnRMSSD, SDNN, and PNS index values, together with reduced mean heart rate, SNS index, and Stress index. Both groups showed significant reductions in perceived stress; however, the reduction was significantly greater in the VR group (p = 0.009, Cohen's d = 0.78). Cybersickness symptoms were low and decreased across the intervention period. Conclusions: Short-term immersive VR relaxation may represent a feasible and well-tolerated approach for reducing perceived stress and supporting autonomic regulation in university students under controlled experimental conditions. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the short intervention period and the absence of follow-up. Furthermore, adequately powered randomized controlled trials with longer observation periods are required to confirm these preliminary findings.