Next Article in Journal
Emotional Intelligence and University Students’ Happiness: The Mediating Role of Basic Psychological Needs’ Satisfaction
Previous Article in Journal
Cognitive Biases in Penalty Shootouts: Evaluating Fairness in ABAB and ABBA Formats
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Psychology International
Volume 6
Issue 4
10.3390/psycholint6040054
psycholint-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Punching up the Fun: A Comparison of Enjoyment and In-Task Valance in Virtual Reality Boxing and Treadmill Running

by
Daniel R. Greene
1,* and
Kathryn M. Rougeau
2
1
Department of Kinesiology, Augusta University, 3109 Wrightsboro Road, Augusta, GA 30909, USA
2
Department of Public & Environmental Wellness, Oakland University, 433 Meadow Brook Road, Rochester, MI 48309, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Psychol. Int. 2024, 6(4), 842-854; https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint6040054
Submission received: 30 August 2024 / Revised: 8 October 2024 / Accepted: 12 October 2024 / Published: 16 October 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Given the overwhelming literature on the beneficial effects of exercise, it is surprising that many individuals do not meet current physical activity guidelines. Among the most often cited reasons for nonadherence to exercise are a lack of time and lack of enjoyment. However, recent technology has provided a new mode of exercise that could change an individual’s perception of exercise. Purpose: Compare in-task valance during and enjoyment after a bout of moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE) and virtual reality boxing (VRB). Methods: Participants [N = 20, 8 females; age (M ± SD); 26.1 ± 7.2 yrs; BMI (M ± SD); 26.4 ± 5.8] completed a 5 min warm-up, 20 min MICE and VRB workout, and a 5 min cool-down. The in-task valance, heart rate, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were assessed during, and enjoyment was assessed immediately after each condition. Results: Participants reported more positive in-task valence [Cohen’s d = 0.59] and greater post-exercise enjoyment [Cohen’s d = 1.76] during VRB relative to MICE. Further, participants reported higher RPE [Cohen’s d = 0.53] and heart rates [Cohen’s d = 0.52] during VRB. Conclusion: Virtual reality boxing resulted in significantly greater in-task valence and post-exercise enjoyment relative to traditional cardio. As both in-task valence and enjoyment have been linked to exercise adherence, virtual reality exercise should be considered as a means to increase exercise adherence.

1. Introduction

Participation in exercise programs and regular physical activity is associated with significant health benefits. Physiologically, exercise significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease [1], type II diabetes mellitus [2], breast cancer, colon cancer, and ischemic stroke events [3]. Based on a large systematic review assessing 10 Cochrane systematic reviews and 187 randomized controlled trials, exercise/physical activity is associated with a 13 percent reduction in mortality [4]. Additionally, exercise significantly reduces the risk of numerous negative mental health considerations including post-traumatic stress disorder [5,6], major depressive disorder [7], and generalized anxiety disorder [8].
Despite an overwhelming body of the literature on the benefits of exercise, nonadherence to and a lack of exercise participation remains a significant public health concern. While estimates vary, a recent analysis of the National Health Interview Survey concluded that 52 percent of adults meet aerobic physical activity guidelines, 35 percent meet resistance exercise guidelines, and only 28 percent of United States adults meet both aerobic and resistance exercise guidelines [9]. Furthermore, global physical inactivity has been identified as a significant health risk. Using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, data from 1.9 million persons were analyzed and it was concluded that 27.5 percent of individuals were insufficiently active [10]. Given the severity of global physical inactivity rates, the World Health Organization (WHO) identified a 10 percent reduction in physical inactivity as one of their nine global targets by 2025 [11]. Reaching this goal would promote numerous health benefits of physical activity, in addition to reducing the risks associated with inactivity. Worldwide, it has been established that physical inactivity causes 9 percent of premature mortality [12]. However, to accomplish this goal, there are numerous barriers associated with increasing physical activity participation to overcome.
While the first step of recognizing physical inactivity as a global concern has been achieved, it is equally important to identify why physical activity rates are so low. A large sample of college students identified exercise enjoyment as a major contributing factor to continued exercise participation. While many have ranked “enjoyment/pleasure” as one of the top 10 motivations for many studies (see [13]), Ebben and Brudzynski [14] found enjoyment as the fourth most important factor associated with exercise adherence. Additionally, the survey identified a lack of time and convenience of the workout facilities as major barriers to exercise participation [14]. Thus, it follows that exploring more enjoyable exercise modes may lead to increased exercise adherence. Additionally, exercise that can be completed at home, would also address barriers associated with convenience, social pressures, and a reduced travel time. Due to these barriers, investigating enjoyment of at-home virtual reality exercise seems warranted.
Although consumer-based, fully immersive, virtual reality is a relatively new technology, other forms of exercise technology have been around for decades (e.g., Dance Dance Revolution, Exergames, WiiFit, etc.). A systematic review examined adherence rates to technology-based exercise programs relative to more traditional exercise programs and found greater adherence to the technology-based programs in older individuals [15]. Lyons et al. [16] assessed energy expenditure and enjoyment following various types of video games. Using a within-subjects design, participants played 10 video games under the following categories: shooter games, band simulation games, dance simulation games, and fitness games. The results indicate no change in energy expenditure following shooter games, but a significant increase in energy expenditure during band simulation games (0.52 METs), dance simulation games (2.16 METs), and fitness games (2.34 METs). Further, enjoyment was significantly greater following band simulation games relative to dance simulation, shooter games, and fitness games [16]. In a related study, 97 participants reported very high enjoyment following a 13 min video game workout (Dance Dance Revolution) [17]. McDonough and colleagues found enjoyment to be higher but metabolic equivalents to be lower following two technology-based exercise conditions relative to treadmill walking [18]. Technology-based exercise may not produce the same physiological benefits as traditional cardiovascular exercise, but it is still worth examining due to increased enjoyment and potential adherence rates. Additionally, technology-based exercise has the potential to reach individuals who are less likely to adhere to other modes of exercise.
The results from an online survey of over 1400 United States teenagers cited that 85 percent report playing video games and 40 percent of those identify as gamers [19]. According to Ćwil and Howe [20] and Kowert et al. [21], gamers are often stereotyped as being overweight, overly intellectual, obsessive, spending excessive time indoors, and less likely to seek out social settings (e.g., gyms). These stereotypes are more commonly associated with men than women, as noted by Taylor [22]. Virtual reality exercise has the potential to significantly impact this target population.
As mentioned previously, fully immersive virtual reality is a relatively new area of interest, but has already been shown to increase exercise enjoyment relative to traditional cardio. Zeng et al. [23] found significantly greater enjoyment following 20 min of virtual reality biking (VirZoom) relative to 20 min of traditional biking between a 65 and 85 percent age-predicted maximum heart rate. However, the subjective exercise intensity was significantly higher during traditional biking (Cohen’s d = 0.68), which may have contributed to the increase in exercise enjoyment following virtual reality biking [23]. To assess various immersion techniques, Shaw et al. [24] had participants cycle using a virtual reality headset (Oculus Rift) under five different conditions. The participants cycled using the virtual reality headset only (i.e., visual immersion), headset plus resistance (i.e., cycling intensity changed based on game parameters), headset plus wind (i.e., a fan was used to simulate wind at the relative speed the participant was cycling), headset plus sound (i.e., auditory cues from the environment and feedback), and a combined condition (i.e., all immersion techniques). The results showed enjoyment to be significantly greater following virtual reality cycling with sound, wind, and combined immersion techniques relative to just the headset or headset plus resistance [24]. While this study did not have a traditional cardio condition for relevant comparison, virtual reality cycling with greater immersion showed increased enjoyment.
Bird et al. [25] had participants complete six exercise conditions with various forms of distraction/immersion relative to a control. The participants completed 10 min of cycling at their ventilatory threshold under the following conditions: (1) music only; (2) video only; (3) music–video; (4) 360-degree video; (5) 360-degree video with music; and (6) a control condition. Although there were no significant effects, the results indicated the largest enjoyment and in-task valance for the 360-degree video with music condition [25]. Dębska et al. had 61 adults complete a 10 min exercise session using an Omni-directional treadmill or Icaros Pro flight simulator. The Omnidirectional treadmill session had participants complete an obstacle course consisting of primarily running/walking movements while the flight simulator session had participants balance/control their bodies in a more static position. Based on these movements, the average heart rate during the Omni-directional treadmill condition was 149.55 bmp, while the average heart rate during the flight simulator was 121.36 bmp. Furthermore, enjoyment was 5.74 and 5.60 on the Interest/Enjoyment subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory following the treadmill and flight simulator conditions, respectively [26]. Further, participants reported significantly greater enjoyment in an open-world virtual reality environment relative to a static environment [27]. Enjoyment of fully immersive virtual reality exercise is high, but more studies directly comparing virtual reality exercise and traditional exercise are needed to understand this phenomenon further.
Given the overall positive affective responses to virtual reality exercise, a further exploration into the enjoyment of virtual reality (VR) gaming is warranted. The purpose of the present study was to assess in-task valance and enjoyment following an acute bout of virtual reality boxing (VRB) relative to more traditional moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE). First, it was hypothesized that enjoyment would be significantly greater following VRB relative to MICE. Second, it was hypothesized that in-task valance would be significantly more positive during VRB relative to MICE. Finally, due to the relationship between in-task valance and enjoyment [28], it was hypothesized that in-task valance would account for a significant percentage of variance in post-exercise enjoyment in both MICE and VRB.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A convenience sample of 20 adult volunteers were recruited through a Southeast public research university (see Table 1 for descriptives). Participants were relatively active with 75 percent reporting exercising vigorously on a regular basis. Of those that reported exercising regularly, the exercise frequency was 4.47 ± 1.23 days*week−1, exercise duration was 76.33 ± 28.12 mins*session−1, and exercise intensity was 4.93 ± 1.34 using the CR-10 RPE scale (0 = not at all; 3 = moderate; 5 = hard; 7 = very hard; 10 = very, very hard [29]). Inclusion criteria included: adults over 18 years of age, completion of the physical activity readiness questionnaire, and a negative pregnancy test for all women before participation (see below for further details).

2.2. Sample Size Calculation

A power analysis was performed to determine an appropriate sample size to assess a two-way analysis of variance following a within-subjects design. Based on previous work assessing enjoyment following virtual reality biking relative to traditional biking [23], a G*Power 3.1 [30] analysis was performed based on the following parameters: Effect size: 0.89; alpha error probability: 0.05; 1-beta: 0.95. The recommended sample size for significance was determined to be 16, and as such, 20 participants were deemed satisfactory.

2.3. Procedures

Prior to participation in the study, all participants read and signed the informed consent document and all procedures were approved by and followed the University’s Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) guidelines. Immediately following, participants completed the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire to determine if exercise was likely safe [31]. Additionally, female participants were required to take a pregnancy test prior to participation in the present study. A negative pregnancy test was a required inclusion criterion for all female participants. After completion of initial questionnaires, participants were informed of all testing procedures. Participants were able to stop exercising at any time and withdraw from the study. However, all participants completed both testing sessions and no adverse events occurred during the study. The within-subjects design required participants to attend two testing sessions, around the same time of day, with at least 48 h between testing sessions. Participants were asked to abstain from alcohol 24 h prior to each session and to abstain from exercise 48 h prior to each session. The order of exercise sessions was randomized and counterbalanced.
Before each condition, participants were fitted with a Polar heart rate monitor. After confirming heart rate was being recorded, participants completed the feeling scale (FS) and rating of perceived exertion scale (RPE). This served as the baseline measure (i.e., “pre”). Immediately following the completion of the pre-exercise assessments (i.e., within 30 s), participants started their warm-up. During each condition, heart rate was continuously monitored while rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and feeling scale (FS) measures were collected every 3.5 min starting after the warm-up. This time was selected as it provided the least interruption as the virtual reality boxing condition changed songs every 3.5 min (see below for further details). Further, this assessment time was determined to be comparable with previous research. Specifically, FS and RPE were assessed every 2 min [32], 3 min [28,33], and 5 min [34], using other methods such as 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of exercise completion [35], and at the end of high-intensity interval sessions [36]. Immediately following each condition (i.e., within 30 s following cool-down), participants completed the feeling scale measure and the post-exercise enjoyment scale. After completion of both questionnaires, participants were monitored for 20 min to ensure physiological responses returned to baseline and to complete a 20 min feeling scale measure, after which, participants were scheduled for their second of two sessions and permitted to leave the laboratory.

2.4. Virtual Reality Boxing

The virtual reality boxing condition (VRB) was completed using an Oculus Quest 2 device. The Oculus Quest 2 was developed by Meta Platforms, Incorporated, located in Menlo Park, CA, USA. This head mounted display (HMD) put the participant into a fully immersive virtual reality experience. Before beginning, the Oculus Quest 2 device was set to the participants’ height. Participants completed a 5 min boxing tutorial as a warm-up. The boxing tutorial explained all aspects of the boxing game and prepared participants for the exercise session. Participants then completed six songs, each about 3.5 min in length, for a total of 20 min. Immediately following each song, participants removed their headset for 30 s to complete the RPE and FS. After all six songs, participants completed a 5 min cool down while remaining in the virtual reality environment. The cool-down consisted of stretching exercises. The boxing workout involved three specific mechanics. Orbs would come towards the participant and the participant was required to punch the orbs with the correct hand (i.e., color match boxing glove in VRB to orb color). Each orb had a directional arrow that indicated if it was a jab/cross, hook, or uppercut. A large orb without a directional arrow that appeared in the middle of the participants’ visual field required a blocking mechanic. To block an orb, participants were required to raise both hands in front of their face. Finally, red bars/lines would appear and come toward the participants. This mechanic required participants to move their bodies away from the obstacle by squatting, bobbing, weaving, or slipping out of its path. The boxing workout contained 1624 punches, 89 blocks, and 820 dodges. During the boxing workout, participants were instructed to do their best by hitting every target and avoiding every obstacle. Further, participants were instructed to fully move their body to avoid obstacles (i.e., full squat, not duck their head) and fully hit every target (i.e., full extension of arm without locking elbow).

2.5. MICE

The moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE) condition was completed on a research-grade treadmill. Participants completed a 5 min warm-up at a very light intensity (i.e., <57 percent maximum heart rate), but did reach light intensity (i.e., 57–63 percent maximum heart rate) at the end of the warm-up [37]. Specifically, the average heart rate during warm-up was 53.4 percent of age-predicted maximum heart rate, but heart rate at the end of warm-up was 63.9 percent age-predicted maximum heart rate. Age-predicted maximum heart rate was calculated using the HUNT equation (211–0.64 * age). After the warm-up, participants completed a 20 min moderate-intensity aerobic exercise condition. Treadmill speed and grade were manipulated to keep RPE between 12 and 15 (“somewhat hard” to “hard”; [29]) and Heart Rate (HR) between 64 and 76% HRmax [37]. To keep a valid assessment of RPE, speed and grade were manipulated following the administration of the RPE scale (i.e., every 3.5 min when necessary). Following the 20 min active exercise condition, participants completed a 5 min cool-down at the same intensity as the warm-up. As the VRB condition was completed with both a visual and auditory distraction/environment, participants were permitted to listen to music of their choice during MICE. This was an attempt to reduce the impact of the environment on in-task valence and enjoyment.

2.6. Measures

2.6.1. The Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES)

Post-exercise enjoyment was measured with the PACES [38]. The PACES is an 18-item self-report measure that has demonstrated strong internal consistency (α = 0.93) and test–retest reliability (Spearman rho = 0.87, p < 0.001 [39]). Participants were instructed to “rate how you feel at the moment about the physical activity you have been doing” [38]. Each item contained a bipolar statement, and participants marked the number that most closely matched how they felt using a 7-point Likert scale [e.g., “It’s very pleasant” (1)… “It’s very unpleasant” (7)]. The PACES ranges from 18 (i.e., lowest enjoyment possible) to 126 (highest enjoyment possible).

2.6.2. Feeling Scale (FS)

In-task valence was assessed using the FS [40]. The FS is an 11-point, single-item, bipolar measure of pleasure–displeasure. During exercise, participants were instructed to indicate how they felt right at that time on the FS. The scale ranges from +5 to −5, with an option for neutral. Keywords are provided at +5 (i.e., “Very Good”), +3 (i.e., “Good”), +1 (i.e., “Fairly good”), 0 (i.e., “Neutral”), −1 (i.e., “Fairly bad”), −3 (i.e., “Bad”), and −5 (i.e., “Very bad”).

2.6.3. Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

Subjective exercise intensity was measured using the RPE scale. The RPE is a self-report measure assessed on a 15-point scale ranging from 6–20 [29]. Keywords are provided at 6 (i.e., “No exertion at all”), between 7 and 8 (i.e., “Extremely light”), 9 (i.e., “Very Light”), 11 (i.e., “Light”), 13 (i.e., “Somewhat hard”), 15 (i.e., “Hard (heavy)”), 17 (i.e., “Very hard”), 19 (i.e., “Extremely hard”), and 20 (i.e., “Maximal exertion”). During each condition, participants were asked to indicate how hard they were working right now. The RPE is commonly used to assess intensity and has been validated as an accurate assessment of exertion within an exercise setting [41].

2.6.4. Heart Rate (HR)

Objective exercise intensity was assessed using a heart rate monitor. Participants were fitted with a Polar RS800CX telemetry system (Polar Electro Inc., Bethpage, NY, USA), and HR values were continuously monitored during all conditions.

2.7. Data Analysis

Using SPSS (IBM Corp. Released 2021. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.), data were inspected for any unusual data points; as none were found, all participants were included in the analyses. First, descriptive statistics were calculated by sex and reported in Table 1. Sex differences were calculated as independent sample t-test. Analysis of differences in the main outcome variable for enjoyment was completed with a Condition (3: VRB, MICE) by Time [1: Post0] two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA). Analysis of differences in the main outcome variable in-task valance was conducted using a Condition (2: VRB, MICE) by Time (10: pre, 6, 9.5, 13, 16.5, 20, 23.5, 27, post, post20) two-way repeated measure ANOVA, using a Bonferroni correction to protect against multiple comparisons. To determine the relationship between in-task valance and post-exercise enjoyment, multiple linear regression analysis was performed. After accounting for age, sex, and baseline feeling scale, R square change values were presented. As a manipulation check, RPE and HR were analyzed using a Condition (2: VRB, MICE) by Time [9: pre, 6, 9.5, 13, 16.5, 20, 23.5, 27, post] repeated measure ANOVA, using a Bonferroni correction to protect against multiple comparisons. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated as Cohen’s d ([42]: Cohen’s d = (M2 − M1) ⁄ SD pooled). Effect size interpretation varies, with original works from Cohen suggesting effect sizes of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50, representing small, medium, and large correlations, respectively [42], while the more recent literature suggests that effect sizes of 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 are sufficient to represent small, medium, and large effects [43].

3. Results

3.1. Enjoyment

Enjoyment was assessed via the PACES immediately following both VRB and MICE. The PACES scores ranged from 91 to 126 (M ± SD; 116.90 ± 9.30) following the VRB condition, and 48 to 119 (M ± SD; 89.20 ± 20.26) following the MICE condition. To determine differences in enjoyment, a Condition (2: VRB, MICE) univariate ANOVA was conducted. Enjoyment was significantly greater following VRB relative to MICE (Mdiff ± SE; 27.70 ± 4.44; 95% CI: 18.40–37.00; p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 1.76; see Figure 1).

3.2. Feeling Scale

To assess in-task valance, feeling scale data were analyzed using a Condition (2: VRB, MICE) by Time (10: pre, 6, 9.5, 13, 16.5, 20, 23.5, 27, post, post20) repeated measure ANOVA. The Condition main effect [p = 0.004] and the Time main effect (p = 0.024) were significant, but the Condition x Time interaction(p = 0.070) was not. The feeling scale was significantly more positive during VRB relative to MICE (Mdiff ± SE; 0.70 ± 0.21; 95% CI: 0.25–1.15; p = 0.004; Cohen’s d = 0.59; see Figure 2).
Further, it was hypothesized that in-task valence would predict post-exercise enjoyment. To determine the average in-task valance, FS measures taken during each condition (7: 6, 9.5, 13, 16.5, 20, 23.5, 27) were averaged. The FS at pre, post, and post20 were excluded as those measures were not taken while the participant was exercising. The average FS during VRB was significantly correlated with post-exercise enjoyment [p = 0.019]. Hierarchical regression revealed that the FS during VRB accounted for an additional 21.3 percent unique variance in enjoyment [p = 0.043], after accounting for age, sex, and the baseline FS. The average FS during MICE was not significantly correlated with post-exercise enjoyment [p = 0.097] and failed to explain a significant variance in enjoyment [p = 0.232], after accounting for age, sex, and the baseline FS.

3.3. Manipulation Check

During VRB and MICE, a subjective and objective measure of exercise intensity was monitored. For RPE, the Condition main effect [p = 0.004], Time main effect [p < 0.001], and Condition x Time interaction [p = 0.034] were significant. RPE was significantly greater during VRB relative to MICE [Mdiff ± SE; 1.02 ± 0.31; 95% CI: 0.37–1.66; p = 0.002; Cohen’s d = 0.53; see Figure 3]. The Condition main effect [p = 0.033], Time main effect [p < 0.001], and Condition x Time interaction [p < 0.001] were significant for the HR. Specifically, the HR was greater during VRB relative to MICE [Mdiff ± SE; 7.35 ± 3.20; 95% CI: 0.66–14.04; p = 0.033; Cohen’s d = 0.52; see Figure 4].

4. Discussion

The present within-subject, randomized study was designed to examine the psychological effects associated with an acute bout of virtual reality boxing (VRB) and moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE). Overall, this study demonstrated that both VRB and MICE were well-tolerated, but that VRB resulted in significantly greater enjoyment. Additionally, during both VRB and MICE, participants reported positive in-task valence, with participants indicating significantly greater in-task valence during VRB. This suggests that VRB may be an alternative mode of exercise worth exploring as both in-task valence and post-exercise enjoyment were significantly more positive relative to a traditional cardiovascular exercise condition.
The primary purpose of this manuscript was to assess post-exercise enjoyment. It was hypothesized that post-exercise enjoyment would be significantly greater following VRB relative to MICE. The results support this hypothesis. Specifically, participants reported a post-exercise enjoyment of 117 following VRB and 89 following MICE. Post-exercise enjoyment scores ranged from 18–126 on the PACES [38], and it is important to note that while enjoyment was significantly greater following VRB, enjoyment following MICE was still positive. As mentioned above, virtual reality exercise is a relatively new mode of exercise, but has been met with positive psychological outcomes. Numerous studies support high levels of enjoyment following virtual reality exercise [24,26] and the results of the present study agree with previous research assessing enjoyment between virtual reality exercise and a control condition [23,25,27]. Further, post-exercise enjoyment has been linked to continued exercise participation. Specifically, individuals who report greater post-exercise enjoyment are more likely to adhere to/continue to exercise [44,45,46]. Thus, virtual reality exercise may be a viable alternative to traditional exercise to both increase enjoyment and exercise adherence rates.
It was also hypothesized that participants would report significantly greater in-task valence during VRB relative to MICE. Overall, the results of the present study support this hypothesis as in-task valence was significantly greater during VRB relative to MICE. Further, in-task valence remained positive during both VRB and MICE. Thus, both exercise conditions were well-tolerated by participants. The exploration of in-task valence is an important factor as how individuals feel during exercise can have large implications on exercise adherence. While less is known about in-task valence and virtual reality exercise, improved in-task valence during traditional cardiovascular exercise has been associated with improved exercise adherence. A recent study concluded that for every one-point increase in in-task valence, participants showed a 12-month increase in moderate to vigorous physical activity by over 17 min a week [47]. Further, another study assessed in-task valence during indoor and outdoor exercise training. Following a 12-week intervention, participants reported greater in-task valence during and significantly greater adherence following outdoor training relative to indoor training [48]. While there are major differences between outdoor training and virtual reality exercise, both modes of exercise explore aspects of distraction and changing environments that may explain changes in in-task valence responses.
In-task valence remains an important psychological variable often ignored during exercise studies, as how individuals feel during exercise can predict their enjoyment level of the said activity. Additionally, in-task valence has been linked to exercise adherence rates. Thus, the final hypothesis was to determine if in-task valence could predict a significant variance in post-exercise enjoyment. Specifically, it was hypothesized that in-task valence would predict a significant percentage of variance in enjoyment following both VRB and MICE. The results of the present study support part of this hypothesis. In-task valence during VRB successfully predicted a 21.3 percent variance in enjoyment after accounting for age, sex, and the baseline affect. However, in-task valence did not successfully predict enjoyment following MICE. This is somewhat surprising as previous research has shown in-task valence to reliably predict enjoyment following moderate-intensity continuous exercise, high-intensity interval exercise, and even a quiet rest condition [28]. One possible explanation for this is that during MICE, participants showed little to no change in in-task valance. Additionally, while not significant, average in-task valence did predict 8.4 percent variance in enjoyment following MICE. It is possible that with more participants, this relationship would become significant.
A potential confounding variable in the present study was the lack of control over exercise intensity during VRB. This is of concern as in-task valence has been linked to exercise intensity. Specifically, at exercise intensities below the lactate or ventilatory threshold, in-task valence typically remains positive. At intensities approaching the lactate or ventilatory threshold, affect becomes highly variable, with some individuals showing steady affect while others show a significant decline in affect. Finally, as the exercise intensity exceeds the lactate or ventilatory threshold, there is a homogeneous decline in in-task valence, as individuals are no longer able to maintain a steady state [49,50,51,52]. Thus, it is vital to determine the average exercise intensity during both VRB and MICE.
Exercise intensity was assessed using an objective and subjective measure throughout both conditions. The participants rated their level of exertion to be significantly larger during VRB relative to MICE, and reported significantly greater heart rates during VRB relative to MICE. Further, based on the age-predicted maximum heart rate (i.e., HUNT formula: 211−0.64 * age), the maximum heart rate for the present study (i.e., average age 26.05 years) was 194.33. Thus, the average intensity during the 20 min VRB and MICE conditions were an 82.2 percent and 75.8 percent maximum, respectively. The average heart rate during exercise was calculated as the heart rate immediately following the warm-up until the beginning of the cool-down in both VRB and MICE conditions. According to The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), these classifications meet the standards for moderate- and vigorous-intensity exercise. Specifically, a vigorous exercise intensity is defined as 77–95 percent of the maximum heart rate and moderate-intensity exercise as 64–76 percent of the maximum heart rate [37]. Therefore, the more positive in-task valence and significantly greater post-exercise enjoyment reported throughout VRB cannot be explained by a reduced exercise intensity.
Further, the present results contradict the previous aerobic exercise literature with regards to in-task valence. Traditionally, as exercise intensity increases, in-task valence decreases [44,45,46]. However, the present study reports significantly greater in-task valence during VRB, which, according to the ACSM, met the standards for vigorous-intensity exercise, while MICE was classified as moderate-intensity. Therefore, it is likely that immersion in virtual reality exercise influences both in-task valance and post-exercise enjoyment through different pathways relative to traditional exercise [53].
The present manuscript is not without limitations. As mentioned previously, exercise intensity was not controlled for during VRB. While exercise intensity was specifically monitored during MICE, participants were simply instructed to “work as hard as they could” during the boxing game. However, as the primary findings support VRB in terms of in-task valence and post-exercise enjoyment responses, and as VRB was completed at a higher intensity relative to MICE, this is less of a concern. It would be of value to explore other modes of virtual reality exercise that permit controlled intensity settings, such as cycling or rowing. Additionally, participants did not complete a control condition. While having a sedentary control would be of value, the overall results still advance the literature with respect to virtual reality exercise. Future studies could assess the changes in in-task valance and post-exercise enjoyment following a sedentary control and a sedentary virtual reality game to further explore this topic. Finally, it may be of value to explore the psychological outcomes of virtual reality exercise in a larger sample. While a power analysis was conducted to determine the sample size for the target variable (i.e., enjoyment), more information regarding in-task valence and the predictability of in-task valence on enjoyment would benefit from a larger sample. Additionally, the convenience sample did have an average BMI that classified them as overweight. More specifically, the males indicated a BMI of overweight while the females’ BMI was normal. While this is an important consideration, it was less of a concern as the sample was primarily college students. BMI has been shown to overestimate the prevalence of obesity and overweight individuals, especially in college males. Specifically, 48 percent of males classified as a normal weight according to their body fat percentage and abdominal girth were classified as overweight or obese according to their BMI [54].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this randomized, within-subjects study highlighted the effects of virtual reality boxing and moderate-intensity continuous exercise on in-task valance and post-exercise enjoyment. Both VRB and MICE resulted in positive in-task valance and post-exercise enjoyment. Additionally, participants reported significantly more positive in-task valence during VRB and significantly greater enjoyment following VRB relative to MICE. Further, in-task valance successfully predicted post-exercise enjoyment following VRB, but not MICE. While a relatively new mode of exercise, this study provides evidence that virtual reality may be a viable alternative to traditional exercise. Future studies need to explore the psychophysiological outcomes of virtual reality exercise, but the present study supports virtual reality as a highly enjoyable and positive experience. As both in-task valance and post-exercise enjoyment have been linked to adherence, virtual reality exercise may be a viable mode to increase exercise adherence rates.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.R.G.; methodology, D.R.G.; software, D.R.G.; validation, D.R.G., formal analysis, D.R.G.; investigation, D.R.G.; resources, D.R.G.; data curation, D.R.G.; writing—original draft preparation, D.R.G. and K.M.R.; writing—review and editing, D.R.G. and K.M.R.; visualization, D.R.G.; supervision, D.R.G.; project administration, D.R.G.; funding acquisition, D.R.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by Augusta University’s Institutional Review Board (No: 1906411) on 23 June 2022.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Martinez, M.W.; Kim, J.H.; Shah, A.B.; Phelan, D.; Emery, M.S.; Wasfy, M.M.; Fernandez, A.B.; Bunch, T.J.; Dean, P.; Danielian, A. Exercise-induced cardiovascular adaptations and approach to exercise and cardiovascular disease: JACC state-of-the-art review. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2021, 78, 1453–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Magkos, F.; Hjorth, M.F.; Astrup, A. Diet and exercise in the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2020, 16, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kyu, H.H.; Bachman, V.F.; Alexander, L.T.; Mumford, J.E.; Afshin, A.; Estep, K.; Veerman, J.L.; Delwiche, K.; Iannarone, M.L.; Moyer, M.L. Physical activity and risk of breast cancer, colon cancer, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and ischemic stroke events: Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. BMJ 2016, 354, i3857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Posadzki, P.; Pieper, D.; Bajpai, R.; Makaruk, H.; Könsgen, N.; Neuhaus, A.L.; Semwal, M. Exercise/physical activity and health outcomes: An overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Björkman, F.; Ekblom, Ö. Physical exercise as a treatment for PTSD: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mil. Med. 2022, 187, e1103–e1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Oppizzi, L.M.; Umberger, R. The Effect of Physical Activity on PTSD. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 2018, 39, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Morres, I.D.; Hatzigeorgiadis, A.; Stathi, A.; Comoutos, N.; Arpin-Cribbie, C.; Krommidas, C.; Theodorakis, Y. Aerobic exercise for adult patients with major depressive disorder in mental health services: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Depress. Anxiety 2019, 36, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Aylett, E.; Small, N.; Bower, P. Exercise in the treatment of clinical anxiety in general practice—A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2018, 18, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Abildso, C.G. Prevalence of meeting aerobic, muscle-strengthening, and combined physical activity guidelines during leisure time among adults, by rural-urban classification and region—United States, 2020. MMWR. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2023, 72, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guthold, R.; Stevens, G.A.; Riley, L.M.; Bull, F.C. Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: A pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1· 9 million participants. Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e1077–e1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shin, H.-R.; Varghese, C. WHO Western Pacific regional action plan for the prevention and control of NCDs (2014–2020). Epidemiol. Health 2014, 36, e2014007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lee, I.-M.; Shiroma, E.J.; Lobelo, F.; Puska, P.; Blair, S.N.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: An analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet 2012, 380, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kilpatrick, M.; Hebert, E.; Bartholomew, J. College students’ motivation for physical activity: Differentiating men’s and women’s motives for sport participation and exercise. J. Am. Coll. Health 2005, 54, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ebben, W.; Brudzynski, L. Motivations and barriers to exercise among college students. J. Exerc. Physiol. Online 2008, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  15. Valenzuela, T.; Okubo, Y.; Woodbury, A.; Lord, S.R.; Delbaere, K. Adherence to technology-based exercise programs in older adults: A systematic review. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2018, 41, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lyons, E.J.; Tate, D.F.; Ward, D.S.; Bowling, J.M.; Ribisl, K.M.; Kalyararaman, S. Energy expenditure and enjoyment during video game play: Differences by game type. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lyons, E.J.; Tate, D.F.; Ward, D.S.; Ribisl, K.M.; Bowling, J.M.; Kalyanaraman, S. Engagement, enjoyment, and energy expenditure during active video game play. Health Psychol. 2014, 33, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. McDonough, D.J.; Pope, Z.C.; Zeng, N.; Lee, J.E.; Gao, Z. Comparison of college students’ energy expenditure, physical activity, and enjoyment during exergaming and traditional exercise. J. Clin. Med. 2018, 7, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Gottfried, J.; Sidoti, O. Teens and video games. Pew Research Center. 2024. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/05/PI_2024.05.09_Video-Games_REPORT.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2024).
  20. Ćwil, M.; Howe, W.T. Cross-cultural analysis of gamer identity: A comparison of the United States and Poland. Simul. Gaming 2020, 51, 785–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kowert, R.; Griffiths, M.D.; Oldmeadow, J.A. Geek or chic? Emerging stereotypes of online gamers. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2012, 32, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Taylor, T.L. Raising the Stakes: E-Sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zeng, N.; Pope, Z.; Gao, Z. Acute effect of virtual reality exercise bike games on college students’ physiological and psychological outcomes. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2017, 20, 453–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Shaw, L.A.; Wuensche, B.C.; Lutteroth, C.; Buckley, J.; Corballis, P. Evaluating sensory feedback for immersion in exergames. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference, Geelong, Australia, 30 January–3 February 2017; Volume 11, pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bird, J.M.; Karageorghis, C.I.; Baker, S.J.; Brookes, D.A. Effects of music, video, and 360-degree video on cycle ergometer exercise at the ventilatory threshold. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2019, 29, 1161–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Dębska, M.; Polechoński, J.; Mynarski, A.; Polechoński, P. Enjoyment and intensity of physical activity in immersive virtual reality performed on innovative training devices in compliance with recommendations for health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ijaz, K.; Ahmadpour, N.; Wang, Y.; Calvo, R.A. Player experience of needs satisfaction (PENS) in an immersive virtual reality exercise platform describes motivation and enjoyment. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2020, 36, 1195–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Greene, D.R.; Greenlee, T.A.; Petruzzello, S.J. That feeling I get: Examination of the exercise intensity-affect-enjoyment relationship. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2018, 35, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Borg, G. Borg’s Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  30. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Thomas, S.; Reading, J.; Shephard, R.J. Revision of the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can. J. Sport Sci. 1992, 17, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  32. Timme, S.; Brand, R. Affect and exertion during incremental physical exercise: Examining changes using automated facial action analysis and experiential self-report. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0228739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Box, A.G.; Petruzzello, S.J. Why do they do it? Differences in high-intensity exercise-affect between those with higher and lower intensity preference and tolerance. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2020, 47, 101521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kilpatrick, M.W.; Robertson, R.J.; Powers, J.M.; Mears, J.L.; Ferrer, N.F. Comparisons of RPE before, during, and after self-regulated aerobic exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 682–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Haines, M.; Broom, D.; Gillibrand, W.; Stephenson, J. Effects of three low-volume, high-intensity exercise conditions on affective valence. J. Sports Sci. 2020, 38, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Farias-Junior, L.F.; Browne, R.A.; Astorino, T.A.; Costa, E.C. Physical activity level and perceived exertion predict in-task affective valence to low-volume high-intensity interval exercise in adult males. Physiol. Behav. 2020, 224, 112960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Garber, C.E.; Blissmer, B.; Deschenes, M.R.; Franklin, B.A.; Lamonte, M.J.; Lee, I.M.; Nieman, D.C.; Swain, D.P.; American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: Guidance for prescribing exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 1334–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kendzierski, D.; DeCarlo, K.J. Physical activity enjoyment scale: Two validation studies. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1991, 13, 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Roman, P.A.L.; Pinillos, F.G.; Martínez, A.N.; Rus, T.I. Validity and reliability of Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale questionnaire (PACES) in children with asthma. J. Asthma 2014, 51, 633–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ekkekakis, P.; Petruzzello, S.J. Acute aerobic exercise and affect: Current status, problems and prospects regarding dose-response. Sports Med. 1999, 28, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ueda, T.; Kurokawa, T. Validity of heart rate and ratings of perceived exertion as indices of exercise intensity in a group of children while swimming. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1991, 63, 200–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gignac, G.E.; Szodorai, E.T. Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 102, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ekkekakis, P.; Dafermos, M. Exercise is a many-splendored thing but for some it does not feel so splendid: Staging a resurgence of hedonistic ideas in the quest to understand exercise behavior. In Oxford Handbook of Exercise Psychology; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 295–333. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rhodes, R.E.; Fiala, B.; Conner, M. A Review and Meta-Analysis of Affective Judgments and Physical Activity in Adult Populations. Ann. Behav. Med. 2010, 38, 180–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rhodes, R.E.; Kates, A. Can the Affective Response to Exercise Predict Future Motives and Physical Activity Behavior? A Systematic Review of Published Evidence. Ann. Behav. Med. 2015, 49, 715–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Stork, M.J.; Santos, A.; Locke, S.R.; Little, J.P.; Jung, M.E. Can In-Task Affect During Interval and Continuous Exercise Predict 12-Month Physical Activity Behavior? Findings from a Randomized Trial. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lacharité-Lemieux, M.; Brunelle, J.-P.; Dionne, I.J. Adherence to exercise and affective responses: Comparison between outdoor and indoor training. Menopause 2015, 22, 731–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ekkekakis, P. Pleasure and displeasure from the body: Perspectives from exercise. Cogn. Emot. 2003, 17, 213–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ekkekakis, P.; Hall, E.E.; Petruzzello, S.J. Variation and homogeneity in affective responses to physical activity of varying intensities: An alternative perspective on dose–response based on evolutionary considerations. J. Sports Sci. 2005, 23, 477–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Ekkekakis, P.; Hall, E.E.; Petruzzello, S.J. The relationship between exercise intensity and affective responses demystified: To crack the 40-year-old nut, replace the 40-year-old nutcracker! Ann. Behav. Med. 2008, 35, 136–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Kilpatrick, M.; Kraemer, R.; Bartholomew, J.; Acevedo, E.; Jarreau, D. Affective responses to exercise are dependent on intensity rather than total work. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2007, 39, 1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mouatt, B.; Smith, A.E.; Mellow, M.L.; Parfitt, G.; Smith, R.T.; Stanton, T.R. The use of virtual reality to influence motivation, affect, enjoyment, and engagement during exercise: A scoping review. Front. Virtual Real. 2020, 1, 564664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wilson, O.W.; Zou, Z.H.; Bopp, M.; Bopp, C.M. Comparison of obesity classification methods among college students. Obes. Res. Clin. Pract. 2019, 13, 430–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Psycholint 06 00054 g001
Figure 1. Physical activity enjoyment immediately following each condition, * p < 0.001. VRB: virtual reality boxing, MICE: moderate-intensity continuous exercise.
Figure 1. Physical activity enjoyment immediately following each condition, * p < 0.001. VRB: virtual reality boxing, MICE: moderate-intensity continuous exercise.
Psycholint 06 00054 g001
Psycholint 06 00054 g002
Figure 2. In-task valance before, during, and after each condition. VRB: virtual reality boxing, MICE: moderate-intensity continuous exercise.
Figure 2. In-task valance before, during, and after each condition. VRB: virtual reality boxing, MICE: moderate-intensity continuous exercise.
Psycholint 06 00054 g002
Psycholint 06 00054 g003
Figure 3. Rating of perceived exertion before, during, and after each condition. VRB: virtual reality boxing, MICE: moderate-intensity continuous exercise.
Figure 3. Rating of perceived exertion before, during, and after each condition. VRB: virtual reality boxing, MICE: moderate-intensity continuous exercise.
Psycholint 06 00054 g003
Psycholint 06 00054 g004
Figure 4. Heart rate before, during, and after each condition. VRB: virtual reality boxing, MICE: moderate-intensity continuous exercise.
Figure 4. Heart rate before, during, and after each condition. VRB: virtual reality boxing, MICE: moderate-intensity continuous exercise.
Psycholint 06 00054 g004
Table 1. Descriptive Information for the Sample Participants.
Table 1. Descriptive Information for the Sample Participants.
VariableAll
(N = 20)		Females
(n = 8)		Males
(n = 12)		Sex
Differences
MSDMSDMSDMdiffsig.
Age (yrs)26.057.2227.257.2525.257.402.000.558
Height (cm)170.829.43163.515.42175.688.3412.170.002
Body mass (kg)77.5920.3066.2215.9285.1719.8418.940.037
BMI (kg·m−2)26.415.8224.806.0827.485.652.690.325
Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Mdiff = mean difference; sig. = significance (p-value). p < 0.05 indicates statistical significance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Greene, D.R.; Rougeau, K.M. Punching up the Fun: A Comparison of Enjoyment and In-Task Valance in Virtual Reality Boxing and Treadmill Running. Psychol. Int. 2024, 6, 842-854. https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint6040054

AMA Style

Greene DR, Rougeau KM. Punching up the Fun: A Comparison of Enjoyment and In-Task Valance in Virtual Reality Boxing and Treadmill Running. Psychology International. 2024; 6(4):842-854. https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint6040054

Chicago/Turabian Style

Greene, Daniel R., and Kathryn M. Rougeau. 2024. "Punching up the Fun: A Comparison of Enjoyment and In-Task Valance in Virtual Reality Boxing and Treadmill Running" Psychology International 6, no. 4: 842-854. https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint6040054

APA Style

Greene, D. R., & Rougeau, K. M. (2024). Punching up the Fun: A Comparison of Enjoyment and In-Task Valance in Virtual Reality Boxing and Treadmill Running. Psychology International, 6(4), 842-854. https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint6040054

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop