Virtual Reality (VR) technology continues to evolve from the realm of an “expensive toy” into that of a functional technology. Although media hype may have oversold VR’s potential during the early 90’s, data has now emerged that supports its use as a valuable tool for cognitive, behavioral, physical, mental health and medical applications. Much like an aircraft simulator serves to test and train pilots under a variety of controlled conditions, VE simulations can model processes that are vital in the assessment, rehabilitation and treatment of clinical populations. In this regard, a growing number of laboratories are developing research programs investigating the use of VEs for these patient purposes and some of these systems have now made the transition into clinical practice. The presenters for this workshop have all developed and/or implemented VR applications that have shown promise for addressing fear reduction with phobic clients, pain and stress reduction for cancer patients, post traumatic stress disorder, physical therapy, anger management, driving abilities with Multiple Sclerosis and brain injury patients, and in the assessment and rehabilitation of motor skills, attention, memory, and vis uospatial processing in persons with central nervous system dysfunction and the elderly. These therapeutic targets reflect an informed appreciation of the unique assets that are available when using VR technology and provide a foundation of work that is supportive of the further development of these “healing” applications. The presenters will detail their work and support the case that these areas represent the “Kinder Killer App”!

The goal of this study was to determine if virtual reality graded exposure therapy (VRGET) was equally efficacious, more efficacious, or less efficacious, than imaginal exposure therapy in the treatment of fear of flying. Thirty participants (Age = 39.8 +/- 9.7) with confirmed DSM-IV diagnosis of specific phobia fear of flying were randomly assigned to one of three groups: VRGET with no physiological feedback (VRGETno), VRGET with physiological feedback (VRGETpm), or systematic desensitization with imaginal exposure therapy (IET). Eight sessions were conducted once a week. During each session, physiology was measured to give an objective measurement of improvement over the course of exposure therapy. In addition, self-report questionnaires, subjective ratings of anxiety (SUDs), and behavioral observations (included here as flying behavior before beginning treatment and at a three-month posttreatment followup) were included. In the analysis of results, the Chi-square test of behavioral observations based on a three-month posttreatment followup revealed a statistically significant difference in flying behavior between the groups [chi(2) (4) = 19.41, p < 0.001]. Only one participant (10%) who received IET, eight of the ten participants (80%) who received VRGETno, and ten out of the ten participants (100%) who received VRGETpm reported an ability to fly without medication or alcohol at three-month followup. Although this study included small sample sizes for the three groups, the results showed VRGET was more effective than IET in the treatment of flying. It also suggests that physiological feedback may add to the efficacy of VR treatment.