Back

Effects of Virtual Co-working Environment Using a Work-Support Application on Subjective Workload, Mood, and Fatigue: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Momosaki, R.; Hasegawa, Y.; Ushida, K.; Shimizu, M.

2026-09-21 occupational and environmental health
10.64898/2026.09.19.26362890 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Digitalization and remote work have increased interest in work environments that reduce workload, negative mood, and fatigue. Low-interaction co-presence in virtual spaces may offer a new digital work environment, but its effects on subjective workload remain unclear. Objective: To examine the effects of the 3D-avatar work-support application gogh on subjective workload, mood, and fatigue. Methods: We conducted an open-label randomized two-period crossover trial in 40 gogh desktop users performing desk- or computer-based tasks. Participants completed 30-min task periods with and without gogh, separated by a 30-min break, in randomized order. The NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) was the primary outcome, with the mood and fatigue domains of the Inventory Scale for Mood and Sense of Fatigue as secondary outcomes. Linear mixed-effects models used condition and period as fixed effects and participant as a random intercept. Results: All 40 participants completed both conditions. NASA-TLX scores were 42.3 +/- 12.9 with gogh and 51.7 +/- 15.1 without gogh; the adjusted mean difference was -9.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) -13.4 to -5.5). Adjusted mean differences were -11.4 for mood (95% CI -16.6 to -6.2) and -15.0 for fatigue (95% CI -20.3 to -9.7). Exploratory analyses showed lower Frustration, Effort, and Physical Demand with gogh. Conclusions: The gogh condition was associated with a decrease in post-task perceived workload, negative mood, and fatigue. This combined virtual co-working environment may reduce task-related psychological burden, although objective performance, productivity, and long-term occupational health effects require further study.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.