Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels

Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214" }, "headline": "Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and...", "datePublished": "2025-02-14T16:02:03", "dateModified": "2026-03-27T10:32:13", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Anjie Su" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Junyi Shen" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Shinichi Koyama" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background This study examined how preferred bubble-tube motion speeds in sensory rooms relate to individual physiological and psychological characteristics, including interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort, and anxiety levels. Methods Fifty adult participants took part in a controlled laboratory experiment using a method-of-adjustment procedure to select their most comfortable motion speed for a simulated bubble tube, presented as an upward-moving Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimulus. Subjective time perception was evaluated using a 60-second time-estimation task, and interoceptive sensitivity was measured via a heartbeat-tracking task. Visual discomfort and anxiety were assessed using the Japanese versions of the Visual Discomfort Scale (VDS-J), Trypophobia Questionnaire (TQ-J), and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Results The results from the method of adjustment indicated that the preferred speed varied widely, from 1.09 to 13.86 degrees per second. Spearman’s correlation analysis revealed that higher interoceptive awareness was associated with a preference for slower speeds, whereas higher anxiety levels were associated with a preference for faster speeds. In addition, multiple regression analysis showed that subjective time-perception accuracy and visual discomfort levels were significant predictors of participants’ preferred RDM speeds. Conclusion The results indicate that interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort, and anxiety levels play significant roles in determining preferred RDM stimulation speeds. These findings highlight the importance of considering individual differences in physiological and psychological states when designing therapeutic sensory environments, such as sensory rooms and bubble tubes, to support comfort, well-being, and therapeutic outcomes. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214", "name": "Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in..." } } ] } Home Browse Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Su A, Shen J and Koyama S. Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161090.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Anjie Su 1 , Junyi Shen 1 , Shinichi Koyama https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6280-5750 2 Anjie Su 1 , Junyi Shen 1 , Shinichi Koyama https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6280-5750 2 PUBLISHED 27 Mar 2026 Author details Author details 1 Doctoral Program in Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan 2 Institute of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan Anjie Su Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Junyi Shen Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation Shinichi Koyama Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Japan Institutional Gateway gateway. Abstract Background This study examined how preferred bubble-tube motion speeds in sensory rooms relate to individual physiological and psychological characteristics, including interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort, and anxiety levels. Methods Fifty adult participants took part in a controlled laboratory experiment using a method-of-adjustment procedure to select their most comfortable motion speed for a simulated bubble tube, presented as an upward-moving Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimulus. Subjective time perception was evaluated using a 60-second time-estimation task, and interoceptive sensitivity was measured via a heartbeat-tracking task. Visual discomfort and anxiety were assessed using the Japanese versions of the Visual Discomfort Scale (VDS-J), Trypophobia Questionnaire (TQ-J), and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Results The results from the method of adjustment indicated that the preferred speed varied widely, from 1.09 to 13.86 degrees per second. Spearman’s correlation analysis revealed that higher interoceptive awareness was associated with a preference for slower speeds, whereas higher anxiety levels were associated with a preference for faster speeds. In addition, multiple regression analysis showed that subjective time-perception accuracy and visual discomfort levels were significant predictors of participants’ preferred RDM speeds. Conclusion The results indicate that interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort, and anxiety levels play significant roles in determining preferred RDM stimulation speeds. These findings highlight the importance of considering individual differences in physiological and psychological states when designing therapeutic sensory environments, such as sensory rooms and bubble tubes, to support comfort, well-being, and therapeutic outcomes. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Sensory Hypersensitivity, Sensory Room, Bubble Tubes, Interoceptive Sensitivity, Subjective Time Perception, Visual Discomfort, Anxiety Corresponding Author(s) Shinichi Koyama ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Shinichi Koyama Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This study was supported by the Topic-Setting Program to Advance Cutting-Edge Humanities, Social Sciences Research Area Cultivation (AFD29210), a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (18H03663), and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (21H03758) awarded to Shinichi Koyama. Additionally, a JST SPRING grant (Grant Number: JPMJSP2124) was awarded to Su Anjie. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2026 Su A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Su A, Shen J and Koyama S. Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161090.2 ) First published: 14 Feb 2025, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161090.1 ) Latest published: 27 Mar 2026, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161090.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 In the abstract, we made minor revisions (highlighted parts) for the gramatical correction and clalification purpose, based on the consultation with a professional English proofreader. Reflecting the recommendation from reviewer 1, we added citations to Green et al. (2012), MacLennan et al. (2020, 2021), and Verhulst et al. (2022) in the Introduction. These references now contextualize the theoretical link between sensory over-responsivity (SOR) and anxiety. Reflecting the recommendation [1] from reviewer 2, we avoided using the word ASD, and rephrase the sentence to more neurodiversity-community-friendly one. Reflecting the recommendation [5] from Reviewer 2, we added key citations (Champagne & Stromberg, 2004; Sutton et al., 2013; Scanlan & Novak, 2015) to contextualize the mechanisms of multisensory modulation within the existing literature. Reflecting the recommendation [6] from Reviewer 2, we strengthened parallels to existing research in sensory processing and neurodivergent experiences by incorporating key evidence from observational studies and systematic reviews (e.g., Breslin et al., 2020; Haig & Hallett, 2023). Reflecting the recommendation [7] from Reviewer 2, we expanded the conceptual framework to explicitly distinguish interoceptive dimensions (referencing Garfinkel et al., 2015) Reflecting the recommendation [7] from Reviewer 2, we strengthened the theoretical framework to explicitly explain how subjective time perception relates to interoceptive processing and anxiety, resolving the previous disconnection. Reflecting the recommendation [7] from Reviewer 2, we expanded the discussion on visual discomfort, elaborating on pattern-glare mechanisms and the impact of spatial/temporal statistics with additional references. Reflecting the recommendation [7] from Reviewer 2, we clarified the clinical distinction between state and trait anxiety to better contextualize the STAI measurements used in this study. In the abstract, we made minor revisions (highlighted parts) for the gramatical correction and clalification purpose, based on the consultation with a professional English proofreader. Reflecting the recommendation from reviewer 1, we added citations to Green et al. (2012), MacLennan et al. (2020, 2021), and Verhulst et al. (2022) in the Introduction. These references now contextualize the theoretical link between sensory over-responsivity (SOR) and anxiety. Reflecting the recommendation [1] from reviewer 2, we avoided using the word ASD, and rephrase the sentence to more neurodiversity-community-friendly one. Reflecting the recommendation [5] from Reviewer 2, we added key citations (Champagne & Stromberg, 2004; Sutton et al., 2013; Scanlan & Novak, 2015) to contextualize the mechanisms of multisensory modulation within the existing literature. Reflecting the recommendation [6] from Reviewer 2, we strengthened parallels to existing research in sensory processing and neurodivergent experiences by incorporating key evidence from observational studies and systematic reviews (e.g., Breslin et al., 2020; Haig & Hallett, 2023). Reflecting the recommendation [7] from Reviewer 2, we expanded the conceptual framework to explicitly distinguish interoceptive dimensions (referencing Garfinkel et al., 2015) Reflecting the recommendation [7] from Reviewer 2, we strengthened the theoretical framework to explicitly explain how subjective time perception relates to interoceptive processing and anxiety, resolving the previous disconnection. Reflecting the recommendation [7] from Reviewer 2, we expanded the discussion on visual discomfort, elaborating on pattern-glare mechanisms and the impact of spatial/temporal statistics with additional references. Reflecting the recommendation [7] from Reviewer 2, we clarified the clinical distinction between state and trait anxiety to better contextualize the STAI measurements used in this study. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Teresa Tavassoli See the authors' detailed response to the review by Sarune Savickaite READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Sensory overload is a common experience among individuals with sensory hypersensitivity, in which everyday stimuli such as light ( Lucker, 2013 ), noise ( Khalfa et al., 2004 ; Landon et al., 2016 ), and touch ( Blakemore et al., 2006 ) can become overwhelming. Individuals may find it challenging to navigate routine environments ( Lucker, 2013 ), which can affect their ability to function effectively in daily life ( Kim et al., 2000 ). Researchers and practitioners have developed various methods and tools to provide sensory support ( Koegel et al., 2004 ). These approaches aim not only to reduce stress associated with sensory overload ( Mazurek et al., 2013 ) but also to enhance quality of life and agency within everyday environments ( Hannant et al., 2016 ). Studies have shown that sensory hypersensitivity can significantly influence behavior and emotional experiences and is associated with heightened distress responses ( Engel-Yeger et al., 2016 ). Consistent with this, work on sensory over-responsivity (SOR) in autism demonstrates robust links with anxiety across development, including theoretical and longitudinal evidence that SOR and anxiety can exacerbate one another ( Green & Ben-Sasson, 2010 ; Green et al., 2012 ). More recent studies further link sensory reactivity differences to anxiety subtypes in autistic children and to perceived causal relations in autistic adults ( MacLennan et al., 2020 , 2021 ; Verhulst et al., 2022 ). Designed to provide a controlled environment that supports self-regulation and relaxation, sensory rooms are typically equipped with assistive technologies and specialized elements. A prominent example of the Snoezelen room, a multisensory environment developed in the Netherlands in the 1970s ( Hulsegge & Verheul, 2005 ). Snoezelen rooms combine sensory experiences to create a soothing atmosphere in which users can explore stimuli at their own pace, thereby promoting relaxation and reducing stress ( Hulsegge & Verheul, 2005 ). These environments are particularly beneficial in psychiatric inpatient care, where they provide sensory-accessible spaces that help individuals navigate environmental stressors. Research has shown that sensory rooms, including Snoezelen rooms, significantly enhance emotional well-being and reduce distress, especially among individuals who experience heightened distress responses or anxiety ( Haig & Hallett, 2023 ; West et al., 2017 ). They also serve as valuable tools for self-management and offer alternatives to more restrictive practices ( Barbic et al., 2019 ). In forensic mental health settings, these rooms have been shown to reduce inpatient stress, support recovery, and enhance overall lived experience within facilities ( Wiglesworth & Farnworth, 2016 ). Among commonly used sensory-room equipment, bubble tubes often serve as a central element, providing visual and auditory stimulation. These tall, water-filled cylinders produce continuously rising bubbles via an internal air pump and are often paired with color-changing LED lights, supporting visual tracking, color engagement, and gentle auditory cues. The continuous movement and changing colors of the bubbles can soothe and attract attention ( Fujisawa, 2021 ). Bubble tubes are frequently described as calming for autistic people and others with sensory processing differences; observational studies indicate that they are among the most popular items in multisensory environments ( Unwin et al., 2024 ). However, the precise mechanisms by which bubble tubes promote relaxation remain poorly understood. Research on sensory modulation in psychiatric inpatient settings and multisensory environments suggests that low-demand, user-controlled multisensory input can support arousal regulation and reduce distress ( Champagne & Stromberg, 2004 ; Sutton et al., 2013 ; Scanlan & Novak, 2015 ). From a sensory-integration perspective, foundational models emphasize individual differences in sensory thresholds and self-regulatory capacity that likely shape responses to such environments ( Dunn, 2001 ; Lane et al., 2019 ). Syntheses of evidence across multisensory environment implementations report generally positive within-session effects on calm and engagement but variable outcomes across populations and programs, underscoring the need to identify person-level moderators ( Breslin et al., 2020 ; Van Weert et al., 2005 ; Haig & Hallett, 2023 ). We focused on four constructs that plausibly shaped comfort during visual stimulation. Interoception can be described in at least three related facets: (i) accuracy—objective performance on tasks indexing detection of internal bodily signals; (ii) sensibility—self-reported beliefs and attention toward internal sensations; and (iii) awareness—metacognitive insight into one’s interoceptive performance ( Garfinkel et al., 2015 ; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017 ). In the present study, we focused on interoceptive accuracy, assessed using an objective heartbeat-tracking task, because objective indices are most directly comparable with behavioral preferences measured in our speed-selection paradigm ( Garfinkel et al., 2015 ). Perception of internal bodily signals (e.g., heartbeat) supports monitoring and adjustment of emotional and physiological states, shaping responses to external sensory input ( Garfinkel & Critchley, 2013 ; Pollatos et al., 2012 ; Tanaka et al., 2021 ). Subjective time perception, shaped by attention, emotion, and sensory input, can influence how dynamic visual stimuli are experienced and may covary with interoceptive processes; timing errors may bias preferred motion speeds toward what feels subjectively “right” ( Yabe & Yamada, 2023 ). Time processing in the seconds range recruits the insular cortex and covaries with interoceptive accuracy, such that individuals with more precise detection of cardiac signals tend to show more accurate duration judgments ( Meissner & Wittmann, 2011 ; Vicario et al., 2020 ). Affective states also modulate temporal judgments: meta-analytic and experimental work indicates that fear and anxiety can distort perceived duration via changes in arousal and attentional allocation, with anxiety in particular biasing underestimation in threat-of-shock paradigms ( Droit-Volet & Meck, 2007 ; Sarigiannidis et al., 2020 ). Given that bubble tubes are intended to enhance well-being and are used by people with sensory processing differences, it is pertinent to examine how interoceptive accuracy and time perception relate to preferred bubble-tube speeds. Visual discomfort can also shape responses to bubble-tube stimulation. Individuals reporting higher visual discomfort often perform visual tasks more slowly, and uncomfortable visual patterns are associated with stronger yet less frequent neural responses, consistent with less efficient coding ( Conlon & Humphreys, 2001 ; Wilkins, 2016 ). Accordingly, the speed of visual motion may either alleviate or exacerbate discomfort, making it a design-relevant parameter in sensory rooms. Visual discomfort is reliably elicited by images whose spatial statistics deviate from natural 1/f structure—typically with excess mid-spatial-frequency energy—and by patterns that provoke pattern glare (e.g., high-contrast stripes), with elevated susceptibility in migraine and related conditions ( Evans & Stevenson, 2008 ; Penacchio & Wilkins, 2015 ). Analogous principles apply in the temporal domain: flicker and temporal profiles that depart from natural temporal statistics increase discomfort, and adaptation can systematically shift both perceived temporal sharpness and discomfort ( Yoshimoto et al., 2019 ). These observations motivate treating motion speed as a design-relevant parameter that can either alleviate or exacerbate discomfort in sensory rooms. Anxiety is likewise important. Elevated state anxiety is linked to heightened sensitivity to environmental cues and greater distress under sensory load ( Åhs et al., 2013 ), and greater sensory-processing sensitivity is associated with higher anxiety, depression, and stress, particularly when mindfulness and acceptance are low ( Bakker & Moulding, 2012 ). Research on SOR in autism indicates sustained associations with anxiety, including bidirectional influences observed longitudinally in toddlers ( Green et al., 2012 ) and systematic links to anxiety subtypes in childhood as well as perceived causal pathways in adults ( MacLennan et al., 2020 , 2021 ; Verhulst et al., 2022 ; Green & Ben-Sasson, 2010 ). In the present study, we assessed both state anxiety (a transient, context-dependent anxious affect) and trait anxiety (a relatively stable dispositional tendency) using the simplified State-Trait Anxiety Inventory ( Spielberger, 1983 ; Koizumi et al., 1998 ). Conceptually, state anxiety primarily indexes momentary arousal that can shift sensory gating, whereas trait anxiety has been linked to broader differences in attentional control that may heighten stimulus-driven processing ( Eysenck et al., 2007 ). Taken together, these considerations underscore the relevance of interoceptive accuracy, subjective time perception, visual discomfort, and anxiety in understanding individual variation in preferred bubble-tube speed. Although we did not recruit a clinically characterized cohort, adjacent work indicates that person-level sensory profiles and user control of sensory inputs shape engagement and calm in multi-sensory environments ( Dunn, 2001 ; Lane et al., 2019 ; Scanlan & Novak, 2015 ; Champagne & Stromberg, 2004 ; Unwin et al., 2022 , 2024 ). In autistic populations, reviews document distinctive motion and multisensory processing that can shift preferred parameters of dynamic visual input ( Robertson & Baron-Cohen, 2017 ). These observations motivate treating bubble-tube motion speed as a design-tunable parameter and considering person-level characteristics that plausibly modulate comfort, without presupposing clinical diagnosis. We used an upward-moving random dot motion (RDM) display to isolate the motion-speed component of bubble-tube viewing while minimizing confounds from color, texture, and form. RDM/RDK paradigms are canonical tools for probing global motion, with well-established neural underpinnings in primate area MT/V5 and tight psychophysics–neurophysiology links ( Newsome & Paré, 1988 ; Britten et al., 1992 ; Salzman et al., 1992 ). In neurodiversity research, RDM tasks are widely used to assess global motion processing in autistic participants, with mixed but convergent evidence for small group-level differences and strong parameter control across studies (e.g., Milne et al., 2002 ; Koldewyn et al., 2010 ; Van der Hallen et al., 2019 ; see also Robertson & Baron-Cohen, 2017 ). This makes RDM an appropriate, translationally useful proxy for bubble-tube motion when the design-tunable variable of interest is speed. In this study, we tested whether interoceptive accuracy, subjective time perception, anxiety, and visual discomfort levels jointly predict preferred stimulation speed. This approach provides design-relevant estimates that can be translated into adjustable settings for sensory-room equipment. Methods Participants The sample size was determined through a priori power analysis using G*Power (version 3.1). Based on the consideration of three key parameters—a large effect size (r = 0.50) following Cohen’s (1988) guidelines to reflect the anticipated substantive and meaningful association between variables, a conventional significance level ( α = 0.05) to maintain an acceptable balance between Type I error rates and the ability to detect true effects, and a statistical power (1- β = 0.80) to ensure an 80% likelihood of detecting a true effect if one existed—G*Power recommended a minimum sample size of 42 participants. To account for potential data loss or participant dropout, we recruited 50 participants to enhance the robustness and reliability of the statistical analyses. Participants were not screened for clinical diagnoses (e.g., autism, anxiety, or mood-related conditions), and psychotropic medication was not recorded. Our aim was to model inter-individual differences in a non-clinical adult sample rather than to estimate effects by diagnostic subgroup; we did not solicit diagnostic disclosures to minimize privacy burden and because our predictors (interoceptive accuracy, time-estimation error, state anxiety, visual discomfort) are non-diagnostic mechanistic indices relevant to design-tunable parameters. We recruited 50 participants (27 females) aged 22–35 years (M = 25.94, SD = 2.74) from the University of Tsukuba between December 25, 2023, and March 22, 2024. Prior to participation, all participants provided written informed consent as approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Institute of Art and Design, the University of Tsukuba (IRB No. [GEI021-15]). On the day of the experiment, participants were asked to abstain from alcohol, caffeine, and cigarettes to support consistency of physiological state across participants. Participants reported adequate sleep and typical or corrected-to-typical vision. Stimuli We used a Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimulus program developed using the Flutter SDK. The source code (v1.0) is available under the MIT License on Zenodo ( Su, 2025 ; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14795461 ), with a Windows executable build concurrently archived ( Su, 2025d ; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14795194 ). The program ran on a Lenovo laptop (screen dimensions: 36.3 cm × 23.8 cm, resolution: 1920 × 1080, model number: 115423562). Our RDM program generated dots that moved vertically upward within a circular aperture centered on the screen ( Figure 1 ). All dots moved at the same speed, simulating the upward movement of the bubbles in the tube. This circular area had a diameter of 1000 pixels, corresponding to a visual angle of 21.88°. A white fixation cross was placed at the center of the circular area. This helped ensure that participants maintained fixation on a specific location and sustained visual attention, facilitating detection of subsequent stimuli. During the experiment, the program randomly generated 200 dots per second within a circular area. Each dot had a radius of 12 pixels, corresponding to a visual angle of 0.26°. All dots had the same brightness and chromaticity, set at 128 cd/m 2 , X = 0.23, Y = 0.28 in the CIE 1931 color space, ensuring consistent visual presentation. Figure 1. Schematics of the Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimulus. The RDM stimulus allowed parametric control over upward motion speed (°/s) while holding dot density, lifetime, and luminance statistics constant, thereby aligning the laboratory manipulation with the adjustable bubble-rise rate used in sensory-room equipment. This choice is grounded in extensive basic-science validation of RDM for motion perception and in its widespread use to characterize motion processing in autistic samples, facilitating comparison with prior neurodiversity research ( Newsome & Paré, 1988 ; Britten et al., 1992 ; Salzman et al., 1992 ; Milne et al., 2002 ; Koldewyn et al., 2010 ; Van der Hallen et al., 2019 ). During the experiment, participants adjusted the upward speed of the dots using a keyboard. The program recorded the current dot speed when the “Enter” key was pressed, allowing for later review. The upward motion speed ranged from 0 pixel/s (0°/s) to 1000 pixels/s (21.88°/s). Bellini et al. (2023) reported that sensory environments typically use soft, dim lighting to create a tranquil atmosphere that supports comfort, relaxation, and reduced stress. Therefore, the experiment was conducted in a darkened room designed to simulate a sensory-room environment ( Figure 2 ). Figure 2. Experimental setup shows a participant adjusting the speed of the dots in the Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimulus. Apparatus A fingertip pulse oximeter (CMS50D, Contec Medical Systems Co., Ltd.) was used to monitor the participants’ heart rates throughout the experiment. We also used a stopwatch to measure participants’ subjective time perception. Procedures To ensure consistent viewing of the RDM stimuli, a chin rest was used to maintain a viewing distance of 57 cm between the participant’s eyes and the screen. Participants were given control over the upward movement speed of the dots, adjusting it using arrow keys until they identified the most comfortable speed, which they confirmed by pressing the Enter key. A consolidated summary of all measures is presented in Tables 1A (experimental tasks) and 1B (questionnaires), including key settings, scoring, and validation references. Table 1A. Experimental tasks. Construct Task Key settings Scoring Validation refs Preferred stimulation speed Method of Adjustment with upward RDM 6 runs; ascending & descending starts; aperture 21.88°; 200 dots/s Mean of 6 speeds (deg/s) Wier et al., 1976 Subjective time perception 60-s time-estimation Eyes closed; self start/stop stopwatch |recorded − 60|in seconds Castellotti et al., 2022 Interoceptive accuracy Heartbeat-tracking 60 s; no palpation; pulse oximeter |counted−recorded| Schandry, 1981 Table 1B. Questionnaires. Construct Instrument Items/Scale Scoring Validation refs Visual discomfort (General) VDS-J 23 items; 0–3 Sum/mean (higher = more) Imaizumi et al., 2018 Visual discomfort (Trypophobia) TQ-J 17 items; 1–5 Sum/mean Imaizumi et al., 2016 Anxiety (State & Trait) STAI-Y (JP short form) 4-point; Y-1 & Y-2 Separate state/trait sums Koizumi et al., 1998 We used a method-of-adjustment procedure with an upward random-dot motion (RDM) display to isolate the motion-speed component of bubble-tube viewing while minimizing color/texture/form confounds. Each participant completed eight runs (two practice, six recorded) with randomized ascending (0→21.88°/s) and descending (21.88→0°/s) starting speeds. Participants adjusted speed until it felt most comfortable and pressed “Enter” to record the value. The primary dependent variable was the mean of the six recorded speeds (°/s). This classical method-of-adjustment approach is standard in psychophysics and supports precise parameter control with RDM. Following Castellotti et al. (2022) , participants completed a 60-s time-estimation task with eyes closed, starting and stopping a stopwatch when they judged that 60 s had elapsed. We computed absolute error (|recorded − 60|in seconds). We administered the heartbeat-tracking task following Schandry (1981) . Participants silently counted heartbeats during a 60-s interval without palpation, while a fingertip pulse oximeter recorded actual beats. Interoceptive accuracy was computed as|counted − recorded|(lower values indicate better accuracy). General tendency to visual discomfort was assessed using the Japanese Visual Discomfort Scale (VDS-J; 23 items, 0–3); the Japanese version shows a unidimensional Rasch structure, Rasch person reliability of approximately 0.82, good test–retest stability, and construct validity (higher scores reported in migraine) ( Imaizumi et al., 2018 ). Discomfort to clustered patterns was assessed with the Japanese Trypophobia Questionnaire (TQ-J; 17 items, 1–5), which demonstrates a one-factor structure and adequate internal consistency and test–retest reliability in Japanese adults ( Imaizumi et al., 2016 ). We measured both state and trait anxiety using the simplified State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Koizumi et al., 1998 ) to assess anxiety. These scales provided detailed information about participants’ sensory and psychological profiles. All participants completed three questionnaires in a separate bright and quiet room, and each questionnaire score was recorded separately for further analysis. We summarized all measures in Tables 1A, 1B and the essential task settings and scoring rules are reported below. Statistical analysis To explore the relationship between the average preferred speed (APS) (i.e., the mean of the six speeds that participants identified as most comfortable) for RDM stimulation and factors such as interoceptive sensitivity (measured by the absolute difference between perceived and actual heart rates), subjective time perception (measured by actual time and the absolute difference between estimated time and actual time), visual discomfort levels (measured by the VDS-J and TQ-J scores), and anxiety levels (measured by the STAI scores), we conducted correlation analyses. Prior to inference, we screened the data for entry errors and outliers and inspected Q–Q plots and Shapiro–Wilk tests; several variables (e.g. Absolute Difference between Estimated Time and Actual Time, Absolute Difference between the Perceived and Actual Heart Rate) departed from normality. Accordingly, Spearman’s rank correlations were used for bivariate associations. We computed Spearman’s r s and 95% confidence intervals (CI) via bootstrap (5,000 resamples). We examined the correlation between the APS for RDM stimulation and several variables. All statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed tests, with the significance level set at α = 0.05. While the Spearman correlation analysis revealed significant relationships between certain variables and the APS, this analysis examined only bivariate associations. To examine the combined effects of multiple variables on APS, we conducted a multiple regression analysis. This analysis identified factors that significantly predicted APS, providing a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms influencing participants’ comfort levels. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics v27 (64-bit) via the graphical interface; no custom code was written. To facilitate reuse, we provide de-identified data files (.xlsx and .sav), complete SPSS output files (.spv) containing the exact procedures and parameter settings and a step-by-step analysis recipe (PDF) that enumerates each transformation and test from raw variables to the reported tables and figures. Results Descriptive statistics Table 2 summarizes means, standard deviations, ranges, and distribution shape (skewness, kurtosis) for all variables (N = 50). APS showed wide inter-individual variability (M = 249.47, SD = 116.82; range = 50.00–633.33). TimeDiff and the visual-discomfort measures (VDS-J, TQ-J) were positively skewed, whereas other variables were approximately symmetric; accordingly, bivariate associations used Spearman’s rs, and regression inference relied on residual diagnostics. Table 2. Descriptive statistics for all variables. Variable N Mean SD Range Skewness Kurtosis APS 50 249.47 116.82 50.00–633.33 0.95 1.40 AHR 50 79.14 9.20 60.00–102.00 0.28 −0.29 PHR 50 63.96 16.82 33.00–100.00 0.30 −0.62 HRDiff 50 17.46 13.66 1.00–44.00 0.69 −0.66 ST 50 67.07 11.84 39.56–102.91 0.44 0.78 TimeDiff 50 10.53 8.83 0.31–42.91 1.37 2.56 VDS-J 50 13.38 9.34 1.00–55.00 2.00 6.83 TQ-J 50 28.82 12.50 17.00–63.00 1.41 1.05 STAI total 50 21.18 5.41 10.00–31.00 −0.24 −0.93 Spearman correlation coefficients and p-values for variables relative to the average preferred speed of RDM stimulation Spearman’s rank correlation analysis revealed significant correlations between APS and several variables at α = 0.05. A strong positive correlation ( rs = 0.49, 95% CI [.267,.660], p < .001) was found between the Absolute Difference between the Perceived and Actual Heart Rate (HRDiff) and the APS. This indicates that individuals with a greater discrepancy between their actual and perceived heart rates, reflecting lower interoceptive sensitivity, tended to perceive faster RDM stimuli as more comfortable. This finding underscores the relevance of interoceptive sensitivity in preferred RDM speed. In addition, a negative correlation ( rs = -0.31, 95% CI [-.555, -.025], p = .030) was observed between the APS and the Perceived Heart Rate (PHR). This indicates that individuals who perceived a higher number of heartbeats tended to find slower speeds more comfortable, suggesting a preference for less-intense sensory input when interoceptive awareness is heightened. Furthermore, the APS was positively correlated with the Standard Deviation of the Six Recorded Speeds (SD, rs = 0.49, 95% CI [.204, .709], p < .001). This suggests that individuals who preferred faster speeds also exhibited greater variability across the six trials, indicating a wider range of preferred RDM speeds. This finding was further supported by the significant positive correlation ( rs = 0.36, 95% CI [.108,.560], p = .011) observed between SD and HRDiff. This suggests that participants with lower heartbeat-tracking accuracy tended to show greater variability in preferred speeds across the six trials. This finding further highlights the association between interoceptive sensitivity and preferred RDM speed. Finally, a positive correlation ( rs = 0.36, 95% CI [.060, .601], p = .011) was found between APS and STAI scores, reflecting participants’ anxiety levels during the experiment. This indicates that participants with higher STAI scores tended to perceive faster visual motion stimuli as more comfortable, suggesting that faster RDM stimulation speeds may be more effective in modulating anxiety levels. However, Actual Heart Rate (AHR), Subjective Time (ST), Absolute Difference between Estimated Time and Actual Time (TimeDiff), and visual discomfort (VDS-J and TQ-J scores) did not show significant correlations with APS at α = 0.05. This suggests that while interoceptive sensitivity and anxiety levels play primary roles, other factors may influence the preferred speed to a lesser extent or in more nuanced ways. Table 3 presents the Spearman correlation coefficients and p -values for the relationships between the APS and various variables. Table 3. Spearman Correlation Coefficients and P-values for variables relative to the Average Preferred Speed (APS). Variable Spearman Correlation Coefficient P-Value Standard Deviation of Six Recorded Speeds 0.49 <.001 ** Actual Heart Rate 0.10 0.485 Perceived Heart Rate -0.31 0.030 * Absolute Difference between Perceived and Actual Heart Rate 0.49 <.001 ** Subjective Time 0.10 0.478 Absolute Difference between Estimated Time and Actual Time 0.20 0.162 VDS-J Scores 0.01 0.963 TQ-J Scores 0.07 0.614 STAI Scores 0.31 0.028 * * The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Multiple linear regression analysis We specified a single multiple-regression model for APS with a limited, theory-driven set of candidate predictors (PHR, HRDiff, ST, TimeDiff, VDS-J, TQ-J, STAI). Because inference targeted the model as a whole and the number of pre-specified predictors was modest, we did not apply a formal multiplicity correction (two-sided α = .05). Instead, we emphasize effect sizes and 95% CI, consistent with guidance cautioning against routine Bonferroni-type adjustments in planned analyses ( Rothman, 1990 ; Perneger, 1998 ). To obtain a parsimonious subset we used forward stepwise selection (F-to-enter ≤ .05; F-to-remove ≥ .10) and interpret selected predictors cautiously given known limitations of automated selection ( Babyak, 2004 ; Derksen & Keselman, 1992 ; Whittingham et al., 2006 ). Analyses were conducted in SPSS (v27, 64-bit). Model assumptions were checked and met, including linearity (residuals vs. fitted), independence (Durbin–Watson = 2.17), normality (skew = 0.37, kurtosis = 0.20), and homoscedasticity (residual plots). The final model was significant, F (3, 46) = 7.14, p < .001, explaining 31.8% of the variance in APS (R 2 = .318, adjusted R 2 = .273). The detailed coefficients are presented in Table 4 . Multicollinearity was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each predictor in the model. All VIF values were well below the threshold of 10, with a highest VIF value being 1.199. This indicates that multicollinearity is not a concern in the model, as each predictor variable exhibits low intercorrelation with the others. Additionally, no multiplicity correction was applied; p values are two-sided and should be interpreted descriptively alongside effect sizes and CI s ( Rothman, 1990 ; Perneger, 1998 ). Our linear regression analysis revealed that three predictors significantly contributed to APS: • STAI: STAI scores positively predicted APS. This suggests that participants with higher STAI scores tend to prefer faster RDM stimulation speeds. • TimeDiff: TimeDiff was a significant positive predictor of APS. This suggests that participants with larger time-estimation errors (i.e., lower accuracy) prefer faster visual motion. • VDS-J: VDS-J scores negatively predicted APS. Higher visual discomfort (VDS-J) predicted lower APS (i.e., slower preferred speeds). Table 4. Multiple linear regression results for predicting Average Preferred Speed. Predictor B SE B β t p VIF 95% CI for B (Constant) 51.49 58.13 0.886 0.380 STAI 9.54 2.76 0.44 3.46 0.001 1.128 3.92 to 15.17 TimeDiff 4.77 1.69 0.36 2.83 0.007 1.094 1.38 to 8.16 VDS-J -4.06 1.68 -0.33 -2.42 0.019 1.199 -7.42 to -0.70 The standardized coefficients ( β ) indicated that STAI scores ( β = 0.44) had the strongest relative influence on APS, followed by TimeDiff ( β = 0.36) and VDS-J scores ( β = -0.33). The variance inflation factor (VIF) values for all predictors were close to 1, indicating no serious multicollinearity issues in the final model. Other variables, including HRDiff, PHR, AHR, ST, and TQ-J scores, did not contribute significantly to the prediction of APS in this model. These findings provide insight into factors influencing preferred RDM speed. However, it is important to note that while the model explains a substantial portion of the variance in the APS (31.8%), unexplained variability remains, indicating that other factors not included in this model may also influence the preferred bubble tube speed. Discussion This study aimed to investigate the relationship between various physiological and psychological factors and APS during RDM stimulation. Using Spearman’s correlation and multiple regression analyses, we identified several significant predictors of APS, providing insight into the interplay between interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, anxiety levels, and the preferred speeds for bubble tubes. Our pattern of associations aligns with adjacent literatures on sensory processing, neurodivergent experience, and multi-sensory therapeutic environments. Sensory-integration frameworks propose individual differences in sensory thresholds and modulation that shape comfort under dynamic input ( Dunn, 2001 ; Lane et al., 2019 ). In autism research, atypical motion processing and heightened visual sensitivity can bias preferences toward slower, steadier dynamics when discomfort is high ( Robertson & Baron-Cohen, 2017 ). Clinical and community studies of multi-sensory environments further indicate that low-demand, user-controlled inputs reduce distress and improve engagement ( Champagne & Stromberg, 2004 ; Scanlan & Novak, 2015 ; Unwin et al., 2022 , 2024 ). Framing bubble-tube speed as a design-tunable parameter therefore accords with theory and practice, while our data identify person-level predictors that can guide initial settings and individualized adjustments. The significant positive correlation between the absolute difference between perceived and actual heart rate (HRDiff) and APS ( rs = 0.49, 95% CI [.238, .681], p < .001) underscores the pivotal role of interoceptive sensitivity in shaping the preferred RDM stimulation speeds. Interoceptive sensitivity and sensory processing are related via a clear mechanistic pathway. Enhanced interoceptive sensitivity enables more precise detection of internal physiological states, which, in turn, facilitates higher temporal resolution in sensory processing. This heightened internal awareness allows individuals to detect subtle physiological responses to sensory stimuli more accurately. Recent research by Grist et al. (2023) supports this connection by demonstrating that interoceptive awareness is correlated with sensory processing capabilities in neurotypical children, suggesting this relationship is fundamental to human development. People with higher interoceptive sensitivity preferred slower visual motion, which may reflect two complementary mechanisms. First, reduced speed decreases information load and prevents sensory system overload. Second, slower presentation speeds provide extended processing windows, allowing for more thorough signal integration. This pathway enhances sensory comfort in two ways: by reducing sensory overload, and by improving processing precision. Slower information presentation lowers neural stress and fatigue, while better signal-to-noise ratios and prediction accuracy promote psychological ease. Together, these factors enable effortless engagement with the sensory environment, facilitating effective tracking and integration of stimuli for an optimal sensory experience. The positive correlation between anxiety levels and APS ( rs = 0.31, 95% CI [.076, .582] p = .028), as confirmed by the multiple regression analysis ( β = 0.44, p = .001), suggests that faster RDM stimulation speeds may be preferred by individuals with higher anxiety levels. This finding is consistent with that of Park and Youn (2022) who found that high-intensity visual stimuli can replenish cognitive resources and reduce anxiety. Faster speeds may induce a state of physiological arousal that counteracts the heightened arousal associated with anxiety, thereby promoting relaxation and calmness. The multiple regression analysis not only confirmed the independent contribution of anxiety levels to the APS, but also revealed the significant influence of subjective time perception. Although not significantly correlated with APS in the correlation analysis, the Absolute Difference between Estimated Time and Actual Time (TimeDiff) emerged as a predictor in the regression model ( β = 0.36, p = .007), suggesting that subjective time perception may interact with other factors to influence the preferred RDM stimulation speed in a complex manner. Individuals with lower subjective time-perception accuracy, in the same way as those with lower interoceptive sensitivity, may perceive faster RDM stimulation speeds as more comfortable. This finding suggests a potential link between time perception and interoceptive processing, as proposed by Di Lernia et al. (2018) . Subjective time appears to covary with interoceptive processes: people with greater interoceptive accuracy may prefer slower visual motion, consistent with our observation that larger time-estimation errors were associated with faster preferred speeds. Furthermore, while visual discomfort did not show significant correlations with APS in the correlation analysis, the multiple regression analysis revealed additional effects. Specifically, higher VDS-J scores were significantly associated with lower APS ( β = -0.33, p = .019). These results indicate that although visual discomfort may not independently predict the APS, it contributes to the overall model of the preferred speed. This suggests that individuals with higher visual discomfort levels perceive slower speeds as more comfortable. This finding aligns with that of Penacchio et al. (2023) who suggested that slower visual stimulus speeds can alleviate discomfort in individuals with visual sensitivity. This emphasizes the importance of tailoring the sensory stimuli to individual comfort levels to maximize the therapeutic benefits of RDM stimulation. These insights contribute to our understanding how physiological and psychological factors relate to preferred RDM speed and suggest potential pathways for designing sensory interventions. Our findings showed that the participants’ preferred RDM stimulation speeds varied according to their physiological and psychological factors, underscoring the need for personalized design in bubble tubes and sensory rooms. Limitations This study has several limitations that qualify the interpretation of the findings. First, the sample size (N = 50) constrains statistical power and external validity. Although the final regression model explained a meaningful proportion of variance, estimates may be unstable in small samples, and the precision of effects is limited. Replication with larger, prospectively powered cohorts is needed to refine effect sizes and improve generalizability. Second, the multiple linear regression analysis used a stepwise variable-selection procedure after considering several candidate predictors. Data-driven selection can capitalize on chance and inflate Type I error, even when diagnostics such as VIF are satisfactory. Future work should confirm the model using a priori–specified predictors, cross-validation or a hold-out set, and consider regularized regression (e.g., ridge/LASSO) to reduce overfitting. Third, the sample comprised a non-clinical convenience group. As such, the results may not generalize to autistic or other neurodivergent populations, nor to broader clinical settings. Multi-site studies that include autistic participants and other relevant user groups are required to establish transportability. Fourth, several measures relied on self-report questionnaires (VDS-J, TQ-J, STAI), which are susceptible to response styles and situational influences. Moreover, time perception was indexed by a single 60-s estimation task, and interoception by the heartbeat-tracking task; both are single-method operationalizations with known variability. Future work should adopt multi-method batteries (e.g., heartbeat discrimination or respiratory interoception tasks; MAIA for sensibility) and report internal consistency/test–retest where applicable. Fifth, regarding ecological validity, the upward random dot motion (RDM) stimulus isolates motion speed but does not reproduce the full chromatic, acoustic, and tactile dynamics of physical bubble tubes. Consequently, the preferred speeds identified here should be treated as laboratory proxies. Follow-up studies should verify whether preferences translate to device-controlled bubble tubes or video stimuli and to multi-sensory environments with user-controlled settings. Finally, the study was exploratory and was not preregistered. While we mitigate this by sharing de-identified data, SPSS outputs, and a step-by-step analysis recipe, future research would benefit from preregistration, independent replication, and expanded physiological recording (e.g., HRV/EDA during stimulation) to test mechanistic accounts. Conclusions This study provides insight into the interplay between physiological and psychological factors that influence preferred RDM stimulation speeds. Our findings reveal that interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort, and anxiety are significant predictors. These results demonstrate that individuals with lower interoceptive sensitivity tend to prefer faster RDM stimulation speeds, possibly as a compensatory mechanism for reduced internal bodily awareness. Observed associations between interoceptive sensitivity and preferred stimulation speed highlight the value of personalizable sensory environments—e.g., adjustable bubble-tube speeds—that account for individual physiological differences. Anxiety levels emerged as a significant factor, with anxiety significantly and positively correlated with preferred RDM speed. This finding suggests that faster and more intense visual stimuli may have applications in anxiety management. Saiu and Grosso (2022) demonstrated that combined audio-visual stimulation significantly reduced anxiety levels, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate in patients undergoing surgery, supporting the potential of multi-sensory interventions in anxiety management. Subjective time-perception ability was also related to the preferred RDM speed, with participants showing lower accuracy tending to prefer faster speeds. Previous research has shown that interoceptive focus significantly influences subjective time perception, with heightened interoceptive awareness amplifying the time-dilating effects of fear and the time-accelerating effects of amusement ( Pollatos et al., 2014 ). This, in turn, may have affected participants’ perceptions of comfort in response to RDM stimulation speeds. Although visual discomfort was not independently correlated with preferred speed in the Spearman correlation analysis, it emerged as a significant predictor in the multiple regression analysis. Specifically, participants with higher visual sensitivity tended to prefer slower speeds. This finding highlights the importance of designers considering individual levels of visual discomfort when designing visual stimuli in bubble tubes or sensory rooms and offering tailored sensory experiences that cater to each person’s diverse sensory needs. As Ziegler (2015) noted in her research on multi-sensory design in healthcare settings, environments that allow users to customize sensory inputs contribute to stress reduction and improved well-being. Garzotto et al. (2019) developed an extensible multilayer software and hardware platform to connect and manage different devices in a sensory room, thereby enabling therapists to fully customize activities in multi-sensory environments for different children. These findings suggest that personalizable sensory environments—for example, installations with adjustable bubble-tube speeds—may better accommodate diverse sensory needs and support user comfort and self-regulation. Building on our previous research ( Su et al., 2024 ), which demonstrated that sensory-hypersensitive individuals have greater variations in their preferences for wallpaper colors and patterns, this study further underscores the necessity for customizable sensory rooms tailored to each person’s unique sensory needs. These findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations. A key limitation is the lack of clinical characterization: participants were not screened for neurodevelopmental or anxiety disorders, and medication status was not recorded. Consequently, generalizability to autistic or clinically anxious populations is uncertain. In conclusion, this study enhances our understanding of the factors influencing preferred bubble tube speeds and lays the groundwork for the development of more personalized and effective sensory interventions to improve outcomes for individuals with diverse sensory needs. Ethical considerations This study recruited 50 adult participants (27 females) aged 22–35 years (M = 25.94, SD = 2.74) from the University of Tsukuba between December 25, 2023, and March 22, 2024. The research was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Institute of Art and Design, the University of Tsukuba (IRB No. [GEI021-15]) on March 22, 2022. Prior to participation, all participants provided written informed consent. To ensure privacy, all participant data were anonymized, and no identifying information was collected or retained. Written informed consent for publication of the participants details was obtained from the participants. Data availability All data, materials, and software are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) license. Underlying data Zenodo: Preferred Bubble Tube Speed and Physiological–Psychological Factors. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14633771 ( Su, A., 2025b ). De-identified participant-level dataset (N = 50) containing trial-level and summary variables used in the analyses. Analysis outputs and protocol Zenodo: Preferred Bubble Tube Speed & Physiological and Psychological Factors — SPSS Outputs and Analysis Recipe (v1.0). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17045820 ( Su, A., 2025c ). Reporting guidelines Zenodo: Checklist for “Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels”. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14633918 ( Su, A., 2025a ). License: CC-BY 4.0. Extended data Zenodo: Scales used to assess participants’ levels of visual discomfort and anxiety. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14770842 ( Su, A., 2025f ). Software GitHub: https://github.com/Lem0n-SAJ/RDM_Program_Su Zenodo (source code): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14795461 ( Su, A, 2025d ) Zenodo (Windows executable): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14795194 ( Su, A, 2025e ) License: MIT Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). References Åhs F, Miller S, Gordon AR, et al. : Aversive learning increases sensory detection sensitivity. Biol. Psychol. 2013; 92 :135–141. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Babyak MA: What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosom Med. 2004; 66 (3):411–421. Publisher Full Text Bakker K, Moulding R: Sensory-processing sensitivity, dispositional mindfulness, and negative psychological symptoms. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2012; 53 (4):341–346. Publisher Full Text Barbic SP, Chan N, Rangi A, et al. : Health provider and service-user experiences of sensory modulation rooms in an acute inpatient psychiatry setting. PLoS One. 2019; 14 (11):e0225238. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Bellini EV, Macchi A, Setola N, et al. : Sensory design in the birth environment: Learning from existing case studies. Buildings. 2023; 13 (3):604. Publisher Full Text Blakemore S-J, Tavassoli T, Calò S, et al. : Tactile sensitivity in Asperger syndrome. Brain Cogn. 2006; 61 (1):5–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Breslin L, Guerra N, Ganz L, et al. : Clinical utility of multisensory environments for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A scoping review. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2020; 74 (1):7401205060p1–7401205060p12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Britten KH, Shadlen MN, Newsome WT, et al. : The analysis of visual motion: a comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance. J. Neurosci. 1992; 12 (12): 4745–4765. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Castellotti S, D’Agostino O, Biondi A, et al. : Influence of motor and cognitive tasks on time estimation. Brain Sci. 2022; 12 (3):404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Champagne T, Stromberg N: Sensory approaches in inpatient psychiatric settings: Innovative alternatives to seclusion & restraint. J. Psychosoc. Nurs. Ment. Health Serv. 2004; 42 (9):34–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Cohen J: 1988; Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed:Routledge. Conlon E, Humphreys L: Visual search in migraine and visual discomfort groups. Vis. Res. 2001; 41 (23):3063–3068. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Critchley HD, Garfinkel SN: Interoception and emotion. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2017; 17 :7–14. Publisher Full Text Derksen S, Keselman HJ: Backward, forward and stepwise automated subset selection algorithms: frequency of obtaining authentic and noise variables. Br. J. Math Stat. Psychol. 1992; 45 (2):265–282. Publisher Full Text Di Lernia D, Serino S, Pezzulo G, et al. : Feel the time: Time perception as a function of interoceptive processing. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018; 12 (74):29559902. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Droit-Volet S, Meck WH: How emotions colour our perception of time. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2007; 11 (12):504–513. Publisher Full Text Dunn W: The sensations of everyday life: Empirical, theoretical, and pragmatic considerations. Am J Occup Ther. 2001; 55 (6):608–620. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Engel-Yeger B, Muzio C, Rinosi G, et al. : Extreme sensory processing patterns and their relation with clinical conditions among individuals with major affective disorders. Psychiatry Res 2016; 236 :112–118. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Evans BJW, Stevenson SJ: The Pattern Glare Test: a review and determination of normative values. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 2008; 28 (4):295–309. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Eysenck MW, Derakshan N, Santos R, et al. : Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion. 2007; 7 (2):336–353. Publisher Full Text Fujisawa K: The effects of a multi-sensory environment using bubble tubes on physiological indicators of students with intellectual disabilities and students without disabilities, and the significance of developmental support. Jpn. J. Hum. Growth Dev. Res. 2021; 2021 (90):37–45. Publisher Full Text Garfinkel SN, Critchley HD: Interoception, emotion and brain: new insights linking internal physiology to social behaviour. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2013; 8 (3):231–234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Garfinkel SN, Seth AK, Barrett AB, et al. : Knowing your own heart: distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness. Biol. Psychol. 2015; 104 :65–74. Publisher Full Text Garzotto F, Gelsomini M, Gianotti M, et al. : Engaging children with neurodevelopmental disorder through multisensory interactive experiences in a smart space. Soro A, Brereton M, Roe P, editors. Social Internet of Things . Springer; 2019; pp.167–184, Publisher Full Text Green SA, Ben-Sasson A: Anxiety disorders and sensory over-responsivity in children with autism spectrum disorders: Is there a causal relationship? J Autism Dev. Disord. 2010; 40 (12):1495–1504. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Green SA, Ben-Sasson A, Soto TW, et al. : Anxiety and sensory over-responsivity in toddlers with autism spectrum disorders: Bidirectional effects across time. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2012; 42 (6):1112–1119. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Grist N, Brown T, Yu ML, et al. : An exploration of the association between sensory processing and interoceptive awareness in neurotypical school-aged children. J. Occup. Ther. Sch. Early Interv. 2023:1–20. Publisher Full Text Haig S, Hallett N: Use of sensory rooms in adult psychiatric inpatient settings: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2023; 32 (1):54–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Hannant P, Tavassoli T, Cassidy S: The role of sensorimotor difficulties in autism spectrum conditions. Front. Neurol. 2016; 7 :124. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Hulsegge J, Verheul A: 2005; Snoezelen: Another world. A practical book explaining the basic elements of sensory development over 30 years of Snoezelen practice. revised ed: Rompa. Imaizumi S, Furuno M, Hibino H, et al. : Development of the Japanese version of trypophobia questionnaire. Jpn. J. Personal. 2016; 25 (2):171–173. Publisher Full Text Imaizumi S, Koyama S, Tanno Y: Development of the Japanese version of the Visual Discomfort Scale. PLoS One. 2018; 13 (1):e0191094. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Khalfa S, Bruneau N, Rogé B, et al. : Increased perception of loudness in autism. Hear. Res. 2004; 198 (1-2):87–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Kim JA, Szatmari P, Bryson SE, et al. : The prevalence of anxiety and mood problems among children with autism and Asperger syndrome. Autism. 2000; 4 (2):117–132. Publisher Full Text Koegel RL, Openden D, Koegel LK: A systematic desensitization paradigm to treat hypersensitivity to auditory stimuli in children with autism in family contexts. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 2004; 29 (2):122–134. Publisher Full Text Koizumi N, Fujita D, Ninomiya R, et al. : Screening test by statistically reducing the number of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) items. Sangyo Eiseigaku Zasshi. 1998; 40 (4):107–112. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Koldewyn K, Whitney D, Rivera SM: The psychophysics of visual motion and global form processing in autism. Brain. 2010; 133 (2): 599–610. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Landon J, Shepherd D, Lodhia V: A qualitative study of noise sensitivity in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Res. Autism Spectr. Disord. 2016; 32 :43–52. Publisher Full Text Lane SJ, Mailloux Z, Schoen S, et al. : Neural foundations of Ayres Sensory Integration®. Brain Sci. 2019; 9 (7):153. Publisher Full Text Lucker JR: Auditory hypersensitivity in children with autism spectrum disorders. Focus Autism Other Dev. Disabil. 2013; 28 (3):184–191. Publisher Full Text MacLennan K, Roach L, Tavassoli T: The relationship between sensory reactivity differences and anxiety subtypes in autistic children. Autism Res. 2020; 13 (5):785–795. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text MacLennan K, Rossow T, Tavassoli T: The relationship between sensory reactivity, intolerance of uncertainty and anxiety subtypes in preschool-age autistic children. Autism. 2021; 25 (8):2305–2316. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Mazurek MO, Vasa RA, Kalb LG, et al. : Anxiety, sensory over-responsivity, and gastrointestinal problems in children with autism spectrum disorders. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2013; 41 :165–176. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Meissner K, Wittmann M: Body signals, cardiac awareness, and the perception of time. Biol. Psychol. 2011; 86 (3):289–297. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Milne E, Swettenham J, Hansen P, et al. : High motion coherence thresholds in children with autism. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry. 2002; 43 (2): 255–263. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Newsome WT, Paré EB: A selective impairment of motion perception following lesions of the middle temporal visual area (MT). J. Neurosci. 1988; 8 (6): 2201–2211. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Park Y, Youn N: Social distancing and prosocial behaviors: The replenishing effect of intense visual stimulation. J. Bus. Res. 2022; 149 :983–996. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Penacchio O, Otazu X, Wilkins AJ, et al. : A mechanistic account of visual discomfort. Front. Neurosci. 2023; 17 :1200661. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Penacchio O, Wilkins AJ: Visual discomfort and the spatial distribution of Fourier energy. Vision Res. 2015; 108 :1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Perneger TV: What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ. 1998; 316 (7139):1236–1238. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Pollatos O, Füstös J, Critchley HD: On the generalised embodiment of pain: How interoceptive sensitivity modulates cutaneous pain perception. Pain. 2012; 153 (8):1680–1686. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Pollatos O, Laubrock J, Wittmann M: Interoceptive focus shapes the experience of time. PLoS One. 2014; 9 (1):e86934. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Robertson CE, Baron-Cohen S: Sensory perception in autism. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2017; 18 (11): 671–684. Publisher Full Text Rothman KJ: No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology. 1990; 1 (1):43–46. Publisher Full Text Saiu S, Grosso E: Controlled audio-visual stimulation for anxiety reduction. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 2022; 223 :106898. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Salzman CD, Murasugi CM, Britten KH, et al. : Microstimulation in visual area MT: effects on direction discrimination performance. J. Neurosci. 1992; 12 (6): 2331–2355. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Sarigiannidis I, Grillon C, Ernst M, et al. : Anxiety makes time pass quicker while fear has no effect. Cognition. 2020; 197 :104116. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Scanlan JN, Novak T: Sensory approaches in mental health: A scoping review. Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 2015; 62 (5):277–285. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Schandry R: Heartbeat perception and emotional experience. Psychophysiology. 1981; 18 (4):483–488. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Spielberger CD: 1983; Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y) Palo Alto (CA): Consulting Psychologists Press. Su A, Shen J, Zhang X, et al. : Greater variance in wallpaper color evaluation in users with visual sensory hypersensitivity revealed in a virtual reality experiment. J. Sci. Des. 2024; 8 (1):21–30. Su A: A completed STROBE checklist. Zenodo . 2025a. Publisher Full Text Su A: Preferred bubble tube speed and physiological–psychological factors.[Data set]. Zenodo. 2025b. Publisher Full Text SU A:Preferred Bubble Tube Speed & Physiological–Psychological Factors — SPSS Outputs and Analysis Recipe (v1.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. 2025c. Publisher Full Text Su A: Random Dot Motion (RDM) experiment program Source Code (V1.0). Zenodo. 2025d. Publisher Full Text Su A: Random Dot Motion Experiment Program – Windows Executable. Zenodo. 2025e. Publisher Full Text Su A: Scales used to assess participants’ levels of visual discomfort and anxiety (Japanese version used in research and English version for reference). Zenodo. 2025f. Publisher Full Text Sutton D, Wilson M, Van Kessel K, et al. : Optimizing arousal to manage aggression: A pilot study of sensory modulation. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2013; 22 (6):500–511. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Tanaka Y, Terasawa Y, Umeda S: Effects of interoceptive accuracy in autonomic responses to external stimuli based on cardiac rhythm. PLoS One. 2021; 16 (8):e0256914. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Unwin KL, Powell G, Price A, et al. : The use of multi-sensory environments with autistic children: Exploring the effect of having control of sensory changes. Autism. 2022; 26 (6): 1379–1394. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Unwin KL, Powell G, Price A, et al. : Patterns of equipment use for autistic children in multi-sensory environments: Time spent with sensory equipment varies by sensory profile and intellectual ability. Autism. 2024; 28 (3):644–655. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Van der Hallen R, Manning C, Evers K, et al. : Global motion perception in autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analysis. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2019; 49 (12): 4901–4918. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Van Weert JCM, Van Dulmen AM, Spreeuwenberg PMM, et al. : Behavioral and mood effects of Snoezelen integrated into 24-hour dementia care. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2005; 53 (1):24–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Verhulst I, MacLennan K, Haffey A, et al. : The perceived causal relations between sensory reactivity differences and anxiety symptoms in autistic adults. Autism Adulthood. 2022; 4 (3):183–192. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Vicario CM, Nitsche MA, Salehinejad MA, et al. : Time processing, interoception, and insula activation: a mini-review on clinical disorders. Front. Psychol. 2020; 11 :1893. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text West M, Melvin G, McNamara F, et al. : An evaluation of the use and efficacy of a sensory room within an adolescent psychiatric inpatient unit. Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 2017; 64 (3):253–263. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Whittingham MJ, Stephens PA, Bradbury RB, et al. : Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? J. Anim. Ecol. 2006; 75 (5):1182–1189. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Wier CC, Jesteadt W, Green DM: A comparison of method-of-adjustment and forced-choice procedures in frequency discrimination. Percept. Psychophys. 1976; 19 (1): 75–79. Publisher Full Text Wiglesworth S, Farnworth L: An exploration of the use of a sensory room in a forensic mental health setting: Staff and patient perspectives. Occup. Ther. Int. 2016; 23 (3):255–264. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Wilkins A: A physiological basis for visual discomfort: Application in lighting design. Light. Res. Technol. 2016; 48 (1):44–54. Publisher Full Text Yabe Y, Yamada S: A pilot study of how the past, present, and future are represented in three-dimensional space. Front. Psychol. 2023; 14 :1071917. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Yoshimoto S, Jiang F, Takeuchi T, et al. : Adaptation and visual discomfort from flicker. Vision Res. 2019; 160 :99–107. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Ziegler U: Multi-sensory design as a health resource: Customizable, individualized, and stress-regulating spaces. Des. Issues. 2015; 31 (1):53–62. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Feb 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Doctoral Program in Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan 2 Institute of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan Anjie Su Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Junyi Shen Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation Shinichi Koyama Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This study was supported by the Topic-Setting Program to Advance Cutting-Edge Humanities, Social Sciences Research Area Cultivation (AFD29210), a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (18H03663), and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (21H03758) awarded to Shinichi Koyama. Additionally, a JST SPRING grant (Grant Number: JPMJSP2124) was awarded to Su Anjie. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 27 Mar 2026, 14:214 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161090.2 version 1 Published: 14 Feb 2025, 14:214 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161090.1 Copyright © 2026 Su A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Su A, Shen J and Koyama S. Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161090.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 14 Feb 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Savickaite S. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177078.r375957 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v1#referee-response-375957 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 22 Aug 2025 Sarune Savickaite , University of Exeter, Exeter, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177078.r375957 This study explored how individuals’ physiological and psychological characteristics affect their preferred speeds of bubble tube stimulation in sensory rooms, using a simulated upward-moving visual task. Results showed that people with higher interoceptive sensitivity preferred slower speeds, while those with ... Continue reading READ ALL This study explored how individuals’ physiological and psychological characteristics affect their preferred speeds of bubble tube stimulation in sensory rooms, using a simulated upward-moving visual task. Results showed that people with higher interoceptive sensitivity preferred slower speeds, while those with higher anxiety or less accurate time perception preferred faster speeds. Visual discomfort also played a role, with those experiencing more discomfort tending to prefer slower visual motion. A combination of interoceptive accuracy, anxiety levels, time estimation ability, and visual sensitivity significantly predicted preferred stimulation speed. The findings highlight the importance of personalized sensory environments tailored to individual needs for optimal therapeutic impact. 1. Terminology. Use “autism” instead of “ASD” throughout for a more inclusive and widely accepted terminology, especially in line with neurodiversity research. 2. Avoid Ableist Language. Refrain from using medicalized or deficit-based terms such as “impairment.” Instead, adopt terminology grounded in the social model of disability, which focuses on societal barriers rather than individual deficits. 3. Identity-First Language. Use “autistic individuals” rather than “individuals with autism” to align with current preferences within the autistic community and neurodiversity literature. 4. Improve Rationale Structure. Streamline the background by clearly introducing the key constructs (e.g., interoception, time perception, anxiety, visual discomfort), then presenting a focused rationale for the current study. Avoid repeating the aim multiple times. 5. Reference Gaps. In the paragraph starting “However, the precise mechanisms by which the bubble tubes induce relaxation remain poorly understood…”, add references to prior sensory integration or multi sensory environments research to contextualize the claim. 6. Existing Research. Although this is a novel area, relevant adjacent literature does exist. Draw clearer parallels to studies in sensory processing, neurodivergent experience, and multi-sensory therapeutic environments. 7. Conceptual Clarity Interoception. Define which aspects of interoception are relevant (e.g., accuracy, awareness, sensibility), and clarify why they matter for this context. Reference foundational literature (e.g., Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Time Perception. Explicitly explain how time perception relates to interoception and anxiety in this study. Currently, it appears disconnected. Anxiety and Visual Discomfort. Define anxiety more clinically (e.g., state vs. trait), and expand discussion of visual discomfort with more references. Both constructs are complex and under-contextualized in the paper. 8. Participant Characteristics. Clarify whether participants were asked about clinical diagnoses (e.g., anxiety, neurodevelopmental conditions), given their relevance to the research aims. If not assessed, provide a justification. 9. Stimuli Choice. Justify the use of Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimuli, particularly in the context of interoception and neurodiversity research, where its utility is not well-established. 10. Measures. Provide a clearer, consolidated presentation of the scales and tasks used to measure anxiety, interoception, time perception, and visual discomfort—ideally in a dedicated table with psychometric properties and validation references. 11. Open Science Considerations. While SPSS is a common statistical tool, open science practices would benefit from clear data and protocol sharing. Explicitly state where readers can access the materials. 12. Statistical Rationale. Explain why Spearman’s correlation was used (e.g., non-normal distribution), and clarify whether regression models were corrected for multiple comparisons. Justify the model selection process more clearly. 13. Sample Size Concerns. The relatively small sample (N=50) may limit the power and generalizability of the regression analysis. Discuss limitations related to sample size and possible risks of overfitting or underpowered findings. 14. Streamline Results. Reporting of statistics (e.g., means, SDs, p-values, CI) could be streamlined for clarity. Use visual aids (tables or figures) to consolidate key outcomes for easier interpretation. 15. Limitations Section: Explicitly address the study’s limitations, including sample size, generalizability, reliance on self-report measures, and the exploratory nature of the design. This is currently underdeveloped and needed for transparency. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Garfinkel S, Tiley C, O'Keeffe S, Harrison N, et al.: Discrepancies between dimensions of interoception in autism: Implications for emotion and anxiety. Biological Psychology . 2016; 114 : 117-126 Publisher Full Text 2. Critchley H, Garfinkel S: Interoception and emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology . 2017; 17 : 7-14 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: I work with neurodiversity, perceptual differences and interoception. This is my area of expertise and this article requires major revisions. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Savickaite S. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177078.r375957 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v1#referee-response-375957 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 27 Mar 2026 Shinichi Koyama , Institute of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 27 Mar 2026 Author Response Response to reviewer 2. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 1. Terminology. Use “autism” instead of “ASD” throughout for a more inclusive and widely accepted terminology, ... Continue reading Response to reviewer 2. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 1. Terminology. Use “autism” instead of “ASD” throughout for a more inclusive and widely accepted terminology, especially in line with neurodiversity research. => We replaced ASD with autism throughout the paper. We also replaced autism disorder-based terminology and sensory processing with neurodiversity-affirming language. 2. Avoid Ableist Language. Refrain from using medicalized or deficit-based terms such as “impairment.” Instead, adopt terminology grounded in the social model of disability, which focuses on societal barriers rather than individual deficits. => We removed medicalized/deficit-based phrasing and reframed descriptions using the social model of disability. address these challenges => provide sensory support (Page 2, Line 48) functional abilities => agency within everyday environments (Page 2, Line 50) history of aggression => experience heightened distress responses (Page 3, Line 67) 3. Identity-First Language. Use “autistic individuals” rather than “individuals with autism” to align with current preferences within the autistic community and neurodiversity literature. => We now use autistic children/adults/people/populations/participants rather than individuals with autism, except when citing instruments or studies that use diagnostic labels (Pages 3, 5, 7, 13). 4. Improve Rationale Structure. Streamline the background by clearly introducing the key constructs (e.g., interoception, time perception, anxiety, visual discomfort), then presenting a focused rationale for the current study. Avoid repeating the aim multiple times. => We revised the Introduction to follow a four-step structure: background, mechanisms/needs, key constructs (interoception, time perception, anxiety, and visual discomfort), and presentation of the present study and hypotheses. We streamlined the rationale and removed duplicated statements of the aim to ensure a clearer progression (Pages 2-5). 5. Reference Gaps. In the paragraph starting “However, the precise mechanisms by which the bubble tubes induce relaxation remain poorly understood…”, add references to prior sensory integration or multi-sensory environments research to contextualize the claim. => We added key citations (Champagne & Stromberg, 2004; Sutton et al., 2013; Scanlan & Novak, 2015) (Page 3, Line 83) to contextualize multisensory modulation mechanisms. 6. Existing Research. Although this is a novel area, relevant adjacent literature does exist. Draw clearer parallels to studies in sensory processing, neurodivergent experience, and multi-sensory therapeutic environments. => We strengthened the parallels to existing research in sensory processing, neurodivergent experiences, and multi-sensory environments. Specifically, we incorporated evidence from observational studies and systematic reviews (e.g., Breslin et al., 2020, Page 3, Lines 86-89; Haig & Hallett, 2023, Page 3, Lines 67-71) to contextualize the use of sensory equipment and highlight the variable outcomes across different populations. These additions underscore the necessity of identifying person-level moderators, such as motion processing differences in autistic individuals, to better understand engagement in therapeutic spaces. 7. Conceptual Clarity Interoception. Define which aspects of interoception are relevant (e.g., accuracy, awareness, sensibility), and clarify why they matter for this context. Reference foundational literature (e.g., Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Time Perception. Explicitly explain how time perception relates to interoception and anxiety in this study. Currently, it appears disconnected. Anxiety and Visual Discomfort. Define anxiety more clinically (e.g., state vs. trait), and expand discussion of visual discomfort with more references. Both constructs are complex and under-contextualized in the paper. => We expanded the conceptual definitions of interoception in the Introduction (Page 4, Line 90). We justified our specific focus on interoceptive accuracy as an objective index (Page 4, Line 94). => Beyond interoception, we also strengthened the theoretical framework by: For interoception, we now explicitly define accuracy, sensibility, and awareness, citing foundational literature (Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Subjective Time Perception: linking it to interoception and anxiety (Page 4). Visual Discomfort: Elaborating on the mechanisms of pattern-glare and the impact of spatial/temporal statistics (Page 4). Anxiety: Clarifying the distinction between state and trait anxiety as measured by the STAI short form (Pages 4-5). 8. Participant Characteristics. Clarify whether participants were asked about clinical diagnoses (e.g., anxiety, neurodevelopmental conditions), given their relevance to the research aims. If not assessed, provide a justification. => We clarified that clinical diagnoses (such as anxiety or neurodevelopmental conditions) were not recorded, as the study was designed as a foundational step to investigate person-level predictors of sensory comfort within a general population sample. To address this, we justified this non-clinical focus in the Methods section (Page 6, Line 171) and added a corresponding acknowledgment in the Limitations section (Page 13, Line 419). In the latter, we further propose that future follow-up work should specifically involve autistic and other neurodivergent cohorts to validate these findings and enhance the generalizability of the results within clinical settings. 9. Stimuli Choice. Justify the use of Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimuli, particularly in the context of interoception and neurodiversity research, where its utility is not well-established. => We added a dedicated rationale for the use of RDM stimuli, emphasizing their utility in isolating the motion-speed component of bubble-tube viewing while minimizing confounding variables such as color, texture, and form. In the revised Introduction (Page 5, Line 148), we explicitly linked the RDM paradigm to canonical neurophysiological work in the MT/V5 area and its established application in neurodiversity research, particularly in assessing global motion processing in autistic populations. Furthermore, we have expanded the Methods section to clarify how the RDM provides precise parametric control over the upward motion speed while maintaining a constant dot density and luminance. These additions justify the translational value of RDM as a proxy for bubble-tube motion within the context of interoceptive and sensory-processing research. 10. Measures. Provide a clearer, consolidated presentation of the scales and tasks used to measure anxiety, interoception, time perception, and visual discomfort—ideally in a dedicated table with psychometric properties and validation references. => In response to the request for a more consolidated presentation of our measures, we reorganized all experimental tasks and scales into two comprehensive tables (Page 23). Table 1A summarizes the experimental tasks (e.g., interoception and time perception), whereas Table 1B details the questionnaires used for anxiety and visual discomfort. These tables provide a clear overview of the key settings, scoring procedures, psychometric properties, and validation references with consistent citations. These changes significantly improve the transparency of our operational definitions and streamline the referencing of specific constructs in the Results section. 11. Open Science Considerations. While SPSS is a common statistical tool, open science practices would benefit from clear data and protocol sharing. Explicitly state where readers can access the materials. => We fully agree with the importance of open science practices and included a dedicated Data Availability Statement (Page 16, Line 510) with persistent DOIs to ensure the transparency and reproducibility of our findings. We provide a comprehensive suite of materials, including de-identified participant-level data in .sav format, original SPSS output files (.spv), and a step-by-step analysis protocol in PDF format. As noted in the revised Methods section (Page 9, Line 269), all statistical procedures were conducted via the graphical interface of IBM SPSS Statistics v27. By sharing the original output files along with a detailed "analysis recipe," we enable other researchers to fully verify and replicate our analytical steps. 12. Statistical Rationale. Explain why Spearman’s correlation was used (e.g., non-normal distribution), and clarify whether regression models were corrected for multiple comparisons. Justify the model selection process more clearly. => Response: We updated the Methods and Results sections to provide a more detailed statistical rationale. First, we clarified that Spearman’s rank correlation was employed because several variables exhibited non-normal distributions and outliers, as determined by skewness and kurtosis (Page 8, Lines 256-263). Regarding model selection, we now transparently describe the stepwise regression criteria (entry p .10) while adding caution regarding potential overfitting (Page 10, Line 314). To address the issue of multiple comparisons, we framed our correlation analyses as exploratory and descriptive, and prioritized the interpretation of effect sizes and two-tailed 95% confidence intervals. We have added a corresponding note in the Limitations section to ensure transparency regarding the risk of Type I errors (Page 13, Lines 424-428). 13. Sample Size Concerns. The relatively small sample (N=50) may limit the power and generalizability of the regression analysis. Discuss limitations related to sample size and possible risks of overfitting or underpowered findings. => We acknowledge the limitations associated with our sample size (N = 50) and added a dedicated subsection to the Limitations (Page 13, Lines 419-423) to address the concerns regarding statistical power and generalizability. In this section, we discuss how a relatively small sample size may limit the precision of our estimates and increase the risk of overfitting, particularly in the context of stepwise regression selection. 14. Streamline Results. Reporting of statistics (e.g., means, SDs, p-values, CI) could be streamlined for clarity. Use visual aids (tables or figures) to consolidate key outcomes for easier interpretation. => We streamlined the Results section to enhance clarity and interpretability by reducing the statistical density of the text and consolidating key data into tables. Descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 2 (Page 23), allowing for a more focused narrative flow in the text. Throughout the Results section, we now report a standardized and consistent set of statistics, including means, standard deviations, Spearman correlation coefficients (rs) with 95% confidence intervals and p-values, as well as comprehensive regression parameters (B, SE, β, 95% CI, and VIF). This reorganization ensures that all critical outcomes are presented transparently and are easily accessible to the reader while maintaining a concise and readable manuscript. 15. Limitations Section: Explicitly address the study’s limitations, including sample size, generalizability, reliance on self-report measures, and the exploratory nature of the design. This is currently underdeveloped and needed for transparency. => We expanded the Discussion section by adding a dedicated Limitations subsection (Page 13) to ensure full transparency and provide a balanced interpretation of our findings. This section comprehensively addresses the statistical constraints of our sample size (N = 50), including precision limits and potential overfitting risks associated with our model selection. We also discuss the generalizability of our results, noting that the use of a non-clinical convenience sample may not fully represent the experiences of autistic or other neurodivergent groups. Furthermore, we acknowledge the reliance on self-report measures and ecological validity considerations when using RDM stimuli as a proxy for physical bubble tubes. Finally, we clarify the exploratory nature of the design and the absence of registration, highlighting how our commitment to sharing open materials mitigates these concerns and supports future replication efforts. Response to reviewer 2. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 1. Terminology. Use “autism” instead of “ASD” throughout for a more inclusive and widely accepted terminology, especially in line with neurodiversity research. => We replaced ASD with autism throughout the paper. We also replaced autism disorder-based terminology and sensory processing with neurodiversity-affirming language. 2. Avoid Ableist Language. Refrain from using medicalized or deficit-based terms such as “impairment.” Instead, adopt terminology grounded in the social model of disability, which focuses on societal barriers rather than individual deficits. => We removed medicalized/deficit-based phrasing and reframed descriptions using the social model of disability. address these challenges => provide sensory support (Page 2, Line 48) functional abilities => agency within everyday environments (Page 2, Line 50) history of aggression => experience heightened distress responses (Page 3, Line 67) 3. Identity-First Language. Use “autistic individuals” rather than “individuals with autism” to align with current preferences within the autistic community and neurodiversity literature. => We now use autistic children/adults/people/populations/participants rather than individuals with autism, except when citing instruments or studies that use diagnostic labels (Pages 3, 5, 7, 13). 4. Improve Rationale Structure. Streamline the background by clearly introducing the key constructs (e.g., interoception, time perception, anxiety, visual discomfort), then presenting a focused rationale for the current study. Avoid repeating the aim multiple times. => We revised the Introduction to follow a four-step structure: background, mechanisms/needs, key constructs (interoception, time perception, anxiety, and visual discomfort), and presentation of the present study and hypotheses. We streamlined the rationale and removed duplicated statements of the aim to ensure a clearer progression (Pages 2-5). 5. Reference Gaps. In the paragraph starting “However, the precise mechanisms by which the bubble tubes induce relaxation remain poorly understood…”, add references to prior sensory integration or multi-sensory environments research to contextualize the claim. => We added key citations (Champagne & Stromberg, 2004; Sutton et al., 2013; Scanlan & Novak, 2015) (Page 3, Line 83) to contextualize multisensory modulation mechanisms. 6. Existing Research. Although this is a novel area, relevant adjacent literature does exist. Draw clearer parallels to studies in sensory processing, neurodivergent experience, and multi-sensory therapeutic environments. => We strengthened the parallels to existing research in sensory processing, neurodivergent experiences, and multi-sensory environments. Specifically, we incorporated evidence from observational studies and systematic reviews (e.g., Breslin et al., 2020, Page 3, Lines 86-89; Haig & Hallett, 2023, Page 3, Lines 67-71) to contextualize the use of sensory equipment and highlight the variable outcomes across different populations. These additions underscore the necessity of identifying person-level moderators, such as motion processing differences in autistic individuals, to better understand engagement in therapeutic spaces. 7. Conceptual Clarity Interoception. Define which aspects of interoception are relevant (e.g., accuracy, awareness, sensibility), and clarify why they matter for this context. Reference foundational literature (e.g., Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Time Perception. Explicitly explain how time perception relates to interoception and anxiety in this study. Currently, it appears disconnected. Anxiety and Visual Discomfort. Define anxiety more clinically (e.g., state vs. trait), and expand discussion of visual discomfort with more references. Both constructs are complex and under-contextualized in the paper. => We expanded the conceptual definitions of interoception in the Introduction (Page 4, Line 90). We justified our specific focus on interoceptive accuracy as an objective index (Page 4, Line 94). => Beyond interoception, we also strengthened the theoretical framework by: For interoception, we now explicitly define accuracy, sensibility, and awareness, citing foundational literature (Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Subjective Time Perception: linking it to interoception and anxiety (Page 4). Visual Discomfort: Elaborating on the mechanisms of pattern-glare and the impact of spatial/temporal statistics (Page 4). Anxiety: Clarifying the distinction between state and trait anxiety as measured by the STAI short form (Pages 4-5). 8. Participant Characteristics. Clarify whether participants were asked about clinical diagnoses (e.g., anxiety, neurodevelopmental conditions), given their relevance to the research aims. If not assessed, provide a justification. => We clarified that clinical diagnoses (such as anxiety or neurodevelopmental conditions) were not recorded, as the study was designed as a foundational step to investigate person-level predictors of sensory comfort within a general population sample. To address this, we justified this non-clinical focus in the Methods section (Page 6, Line 171) and added a corresponding acknowledgment in the Limitations section (Page 13, Line 419). In the latter, we further propose that future follow-up work should specifically involve autistic and other neurodivergent cohorts to validate these findings and enhance the generalizability of the results within clinical settings. 9. Stimuli Choice. Justify the use of Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimuli, particularly in the context of interoception and neurodiversity research, where its utility is not well-established. => We added a dedicated rationale for the use of RDM stimuli, emphasizing their utility in isolating the motion-speed component of bubble-tube viewing while minimizing confounding variables such as color, texture, and form. In the revised Introduction (Page 5, Line 148), we explicitly linked the RDM paradigm to canonical neurophysiological work in the MT/V5 area and its established application in neurodiversity research, particularly in assessing global motion processing in autistic populations. Furthermore, we have expanded the Methods section to clarify how the RDM provides precise parametric control over the upward motion speed while maintaining a constant dot density and luminance. These additions justify the translational value of RDM as a proxy for bubble-tube motion within the context of interoceptive and sensory-processing research. 10. Measures. Provide a clearer, consolidated presentation of the scales and tasks used to measure anxiety, interoception, time perception, and visual discomfort—ideally in a dedicated table with psychometric properties and validation references. => In response to the request for a more consolidated presentation of our measures, we reorganized all experimental tasks and scales into two comprehensive tables (Page 23). Table 1A summarizes the experimental tasks (e.g., interoception and time perception), whereas Table 1B details the questionnaires used for anxiety and visual discomfort. These tables provide a clear overview of the key settings, scoring procedures, psychometric properties, and validation references with consistent citations. These changes significantly improve the transparency of our operational definitions and streamline the referencing of specific constructs in the Results section. 11. Open Science Considerations. While SPSS is a common statistical tool, open science practices would benefit from clear data and protocol sharing. Explicitly state where readers can access the materials. => We fully agree with the importance of open science practices and included a dedicated Data Availability Statement (Page 16, Line 510) with persistent DOIs to ensure the transparency and reproducibility of our findings. We provide a comprehensive suite of materials, including de-identified participant-level data in .sav format, original SPSS output files (.spv), and a step-by-step analysis protocol in PDF format. As noted in the revised Methods section (Page 9, Line 269), all statistical procedures were conducted via the graphical interface of IBM SPSS Statistics v27. By sharing the original output files along with a detailed "analysis recipe," we enable other researchers to fully verify and replicate our analytical steps. 12. Statistical Rationale. Explain why Spearman’s correlation was used (e.g., non-normal distribution), and clarify whether regression models were corrected for multiple comparisons. Justify the model selection process more clearly. => Response: We updated the Methods and Results sections to provide a more detailed statistical rationale. First, we clarified that Spearman’s rank correlation was employed because several variables exhibited non-normal distributions and outliers, as determined by skewness and kurtosis (Page 8, Lines 256-263). Regarding model selection, we now transparently describe the stepwise regression criteria (entry p .10) while adding caution regarding potential overfitting (Page 10, Line 314). To address the issue of multiple comparisons, we framed our correlation analyses as exploratory and descriptive, and prioritized the interpretation of effect sizes and two-tailed 95% confidence intervals. We have added a corresponding note in the Limitations section to ensure transparency regarding the risk of Type I errors (Page 13, Lines 424-428). 13. Sample Size Concerns. The relatively small sample (N=50) may limit the power and generalizability of the regression analysis. Discuss limitations related to sample size and possible risks of overfitting or underpowered findings. => We acknowledge the limitations associated with our sample size (N = 50) and added a dedicated subsection to the Limitations (Page 13, Lines 419-423) to address the concerns regarding statistical power and generalizability. In this section, we discuss how a relatively small sample size may limit the precision of our estimates and increase the risk of overfitting, particularly in the context of stepwise regression selection. 14. Streamline Results. Reporting of statistics (e.g., means, SDs, p-values, CI) could be streamlined for clarity. Use visual aids (tables or figures) to consolidate key outcomes for easier interpretation. => We streamlined the Results section to enhance clarity and interpretability by reducing the statistical density of the text and consolidating key data into tables. Descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 2 (Page 23), allowing for a more focused narrative flow in the text. Throughout the Results section, we now report a standardized and consistent set of statistics, including means, standard deviations, Spearman correlation coefficients (rs) with 95% confidence intervals and p-values, as well as comprehensive regression parameters (B, SE, β, 95% CI, and VIF). This reorganization ensures that all critical outcomes are presented transparently and are easily accessible to the reader while maintaining a concise and readable manuscript. 15. Limitations Section: Explicitly address the study’s limitations, including sample size, generalizability, reliance on self-report measures, and the exploratory nature of the design. This is currently underdeveloped and needed for transparency. => We expanded the Discussion section by adding a dedicated Limitations subsection (Page 13) to ensure full transparency and provide a balanced interpretation of our findings. This section comprehensively addresses the statistical constraints of our sample size (N = 50), including precision limits and potential overfitting risks associated with our model selection. We also discuss the generalizability of our results, noting that the use of a non-clinical convenience sample may not fully represent the experiences of autistic or other neurodivergent groups. Furthermore, we acknowledge the reliance on self-report measures and ecological validity considerations when using RDM stimuli as a proxy for physical bubble tubes. Finally, we clarify the exploratory nature of the design and the absence of registration, highlighting how our commitment to sharing open materials mitigates these concerns and supports future replication efforts. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 27 Mar 2026 Shinichi Koyama , Institute of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 27 Mar 2026 Author Response Response to reviewer 2. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 1. Terminology. Use “autism” instead of “ASD” throughout for a more inclusive and widely accepted terminology, ... Continue reading Response to reviewer 2. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 1. Terminology. Use “autism” instead of “ASD” throughout for a more inclusive and widely accepted terminology, especially in line with neurodiversity research. => We replaced ASD with autism throughout the paper. We also replaced autism disorder-based terminology and sensory processing with neurodiversity-affirming language. 2. Avoid Ableist Language. Refrain from using medicalized or deficit-based terms such as “impairment.” Instead, adopt terminology grounded in the social model of disability, which focuses on societal barriers rather than individual deficits. => We removed medicalized/deficit-based phrasing and reframed descriptions using the social model of disability. address these challenges => provide sensory support (Page 2, Line 48) functional abilities => agency within everyday environments (Page 2, Line 50) history of aggression => experience heightened distress responses (Page 3, Line 67) 3. Identity-First Language. Use “autistic individuals” rather than “individuals with autism” to align with current preferences within the autistic community and neurodiversity literature. => We now use autistic children/adults/people/populations/participants rather than individuals with autism, except when citing instruments or studies that use diagnostic labels (Pages 3, 5, 7, 13). 4. Improve Rationale Structure. Streamline the background by clearly introducing the key constructs (e.g., interoception, time perception, anxiety, visual discomfort), then presenting a focused rationale for the current study. Avoid repeating the aim multiple times. => We revised the Introduction to follow a four-step structure: background, mechanisms/needs, key constructs (interoception, time perception, anxiety, and visual discomfort), and presentation of the present study and hypotheses. We streamlined the rationale and removed duplicated statements of the aim to ensure a clearer progression (Pages 2-5). 5. Reference Gaps. In the paragraph starting “However, the precise mechanisms by which the bubble tubes induce relaxation remain poorly understood…”, add references to prior sensory integration or multi-sensory environments research to contextualize the claim. => We added key citations (Champagne & Stromberg, 2004; Sutton et al., 2013; Scanlan & Novak, 2015) (Page 3, Line 83) to contextualize multisensory modulation mechanisms. 6. Existing Research. Although this is a novel area, relevant adjacent literature does exist. Draw clearer parallels to studies in sensory processing, neurodivergent experience, and multi-sensory therapeutic environments. => We strengthened the parallels to existing research in sensory processing, neurodivergent experiences, and multi-sensory environments. Specifically, we incorporated evidence from observational studies and systematic reviews (e.g., Breslin et al., 2020, Page 3, Lines 86-89; Haig & Hallett, 2023, Page 3, Lines 67-71) to contextualize the use of sensory equipment and highlight the variable outcomes across different populations. These additions underscore the necessity of identifying person-level moderators, such as motion processing differences in autistic individuals, to better understand engagement in therapeutic spaces. 7. Conceptual Clarity Interoception. Define which aspects of interoception are relevant (e.g., accuracy, awareness, sensibility), and clarify why they matter for this context. Reference foundational literature (e.g., Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Time Perception. Explicitly explain how time perception relates to interoception and anxiety in this study. Currently, it appears disconnected. Anxiety and Visual Discomfort. Define anxiety more clinically (e.g., state vs. trait), and expand discussion of visual discomfort with more references. Both constructs are complex and under-contextualized in the paper. => We expanded the conceptual definitions of interoception in the Introduction (Page 4, Line 90). We justified our specific focus on interoceptive accuracy as an objective index (Page 4, Line 94). => Beyond interoception, we also strengthened the theoretical framework by: For interoception, we now explicitly define accuracy, sensibility, and awareness, citing foundational literature (Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Subjective Time Perception: linking it to interoception and anxiety (Page 4). Visual Discomfort: Elaborating on the mechanisms of pattern-glare and the impact of spatial/temporal statistics (Page 4). Anxiety: Clarifying the distinction between state and trait anxiety as measured by the STAI short form (Pages 4-5). 8. Participant Characteristics. Clarify whether participants were asked about clinical diagnoses (e.g., anxiety, neurodevelopmental conditions), given their relevance to the research aims. If not assessed, provide a justification. => We clarified that clinical diagnoses (such as anxiety or neurodevelopmental conditions) were not recorded, as the study was designed as a foundational step to investigate person-level predictors of sensory comfort within a general population sample. To address this, we justified this non-clinical focus in the Methods section (Page 6, Line 171) and added a corresponding acknowledgment in the Limitations section (Page 13, Line 419). In the latter, we further propose that future follow-up work should specifically involve autistic and other neurodivergent cohorts to validate these findings and enhance the generalizability of the results within clinical settings. 9. Stimuli Choice. Justify the use of Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimuli, particularly in the context of interoception and neurodiversity research, where its utility is not well-established. => We added a dedicated rationale for the use of RDM stimuli, emphasizing their utility in isolating the motion-speed component of bubble-tube viewing while minimizing confounding variables such as color, texture, and form. In the revised Introduction (Page 5, Line 148), we explicitly linked the RDM paradigm to canonical neurophysiological work in the MT/V5 area and its established application in neurodiversity research, particularly in assessing global motion processing in autistic populations. Furthermore, we have expanded the Methods section to clarify how the RDM provides precise parametric control over the upward motion speed while maintaining a constant dot density and luminance. These additions justify the translational value of RDM as a proxy for bubble-tube motion within the context of interoceptive and sensory-processing research. 10. Measures. Provide a clearer, consolidated presentation of the scales and tasks used to measure anxiety, interoception, time perception, and visual discomfort—ideally in a dedicated table with psychometric properties and validation references. => In response to the request for a more consolidated presentation of our measures, we reorganized all experimental tasks and scales into two comprehensive tables (Page 23). Table 1A summarizes the experimental tasks (e.g., interoception and time perception), whereas Table 1B details the questionnaires used for anxiety and visual discomfort. These tables provide a clear overview of the key settings, scoring procedures, psychometric properties, and validation references with consistent citations. These changes significantly improve the transparency of our operational definitions and streamline the referencing of specific constructs in the Results section. 11. Open Science Considerations. While SPSS is a common statistical tool, open science practices would benefit from clear data and protocol sharing. Explicitly state where readers can access the materials. => We fully agree with the importance of open science practices and included a dedicated Data Availability Statement (Page 16, Line 510) with persistent DOIs to ensure the transparency and reproducibility of our findings. We provide a comprehensive suite of materials, including de-identified participant-level data in .sav format, original SPSS output files (.spv), and a step-by-step analysis protocol in PDF format. As noted in the revised Methods section (Page 9, Line 269), all statistical procedures were conducted via the graphical interface of IBM SPSS Statistics v27. By sharing the original output files along with a detailed "analysis recipe," we enable other researchers to fully verify and replicate our analytical steps. 12. Statistical Rationale. Explain why Spearman’s correlation was used (e.g., non-normal distribution), and clarify whether regression models were corrected for multiple comparisons. Justify the model selection process more clearly. => Response: We updated the Methods and Results sections to provide a more detailed statistical rationale. First, we clarified that Spearman’s rank correlation was employed because several variables exhibited non-normal distributions and outliers, as determined by skewness and kurtosis (Page 8, Lines 256-263). Regarding model selection, we now transparently describe the stepwise regression criteria (entry p .10) while adding caution regarding potential overfitting (Page 10, Line 314). To address the issue of multiple comparisons, we framed our correlation analyses as exploratory and descriptive, and prioritized the interpretation of effect sizes and two-tailed 95% confidence intervals. We have added a corresponding note in the Limitations section to ensure transparency regarding the risk of Type I errors (Page 13, Lines 424-428). 13. Sample Size Concerns. The relatively small sample (N=50) may limit the power and generalizability of the regression analysis. Discuss limitations related to sample size and possible risks of overfitting or underpowered findings. => We acknowledge the limitations associated with our sample size (N = 50) and added a dedicated subsection to the Limitations (Page 13, Lines 419-423) to address the concerns regarding statistical power and generalizability. In this section, we discuss how a relatively small sample size may limit the precision of our estimates and increase the risk of overfitting, particularly in the context of stepwise regression selection. 14. Streamline Results. Reporting of statistics (e.g., means, SDs, p-values, CI) could be streamlined for clarity. Use visual aids (tables or figures) to consolidate key outcomes for easier interpretation. => We streamlined the Results section to enhance clarity and interpretability by reducing the statistical density of the text and consolidating key data into tables. Descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 2 (Page 23), allowing for a more focused narrative flow in the text. Throughout the Results section, we now report a standardized and consistent set of statistics, including means, standard deviations, Spearman correlation coefficients (rs) with 95% confidence intervals and p-values, as well as comprehensive regression parameters (B, SE, β, 95% CI, and VIF). This reorganization ensures that all critical outcomes are presented transparently and are easily accessible to the reader while maintaining a concise and readable manuscript. 15. Limitations Section: Explicitly address the study’s limitations, including sample size, generalizability, reliance on self-report measures, and the exploratory nature of the design. This is currently underdeveloped and needed for transparency. => We expanded the Discussion section by adding a dedicated Limitations subsection (Page 13) to ensure full transparency and provide a balanced interpretation of our findings. This section comprehensively addresses the statistical constraints of our sample size (N = 50), including precision limits and potential overfitting risks associated with our model selection. We also discuss the generalizability of our results, noting that the use of a non-clinical convenience sample may not fully represent the experiences of autistic or other neurodivergent groups. Furthermore, we acknowledge the reliance on self-report measures and ecological validity considerations when using RDM stimuli as a proxy for physical bubble tubes. Finally, we clarify the exploratory nature of the design and the absence of registration, highlighting how our commitment to sharing open materials mitigates these concerns and supports future replication efforts. Response to reviewer 2. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 1. Terminology. Use “autism” instead of “ASD” throughout for a more inclusive and widely accepted terminology, especially in line with neurodiversity research. => We replaced ASD with autism throughout the paper. We also replaced autism disorder-based terminology and sensory processing with neurodiversity-affirming language. 2. Avoid Ableist Language. Refrain from using medicalized or deficit-based terms such as “impairment.” Instead, adopt terminology grounded in the social model of disability, which focuses on societal barriers rather than individual deficits. => We removed medicalized/deficit-based phrasing and reframed descriptions using the social model of disability. address these challenges => provide sensory support (Page 2, Line 48) functional abilities => agency within everyday environments (Page 2, Line 50) history of aggression => experience heightened distress responses (Page 3, Line 67) 3. Identity-First Language. Use “autistic individuals” rather than “individuals with autism” to align with current preferences within the autistic community and neurodiversity literature. => We now use autistic children/adults/people/populations/participants rather than individuals with autism, except when citing instruments or studies that use diagnostic labels (Pages 3, 5, 7, 13). 4. Improve Rationale Structure. Streamline the background by clearly introducing the key constructs (e.g., interoception, time perception, anxiety, visual discomfort), then presenting a focused rationale for the current study. Avoid repeating the aim multiple times. => We revised the Introduction to follow a four-step structure: background, mechanisms/needs, key constructs (interoception, time perception, anxiety, and visual discomfort), and presentation of the present study and hypotheses. We streamlined the rationale and removed duplicated statements of the aim to ensure a clearer progression (Pages 2-5). 5. Reference Gaps. In the paragraph starting “However, the precise mechanisms by which the bubble tubes induce relaxation remain poorly understood…”, add references to prior sensory integration or multi-sensory environments research to contextualize the claim. => We added key citations (Champagne & Stromberg, 2004; Sutton et al., 2013; Scanlan & Novak, 2015) (Page 3, Line 83) to contextualize multisensory modulation mechanisms. 6. Existing Research. Although this is a novel area, relevant adjacent literature does exist. Draw clearer parallels to studies in sensory processing, neurodivergent experience, and multi-sensory therapeutic environments. => We strengthened the parallels to existing research in sensory processing, neurodivergent experiences, and multi-sensory environments. Specifically, we incorporated evidence from observational studies and systematic reviews (e.g., Breslin et al., 2020, Page 3, Lines 86-89; Haig & Hallett, 2023, Page 3, Lines 67-71) to contextualize the use of sensory equipment and highlight the variable outcomes across different populations. These additions underscore the necessity of identifying person-level moderators, such as motion processing differences in autistic individuals, to better understand engagement in therapeutic spaces. 7. Conceptual Clarity Interoception. Define which aspects of interoception are relevant (e.g., accuracy, awareness, sensibility), and clarify why they matter for this context. Reference foundational literature (e.g., Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Time Perception. Explicitly explain how time perception relates to interoception and anxiety in this study. Currently, it appears disconnected. Anxiety and Visual Discomfort. Define anxiety more clinically (e.g., state vs. trait), and expand discussion of visual discomfort with more references. Both constructs are complex and under-contextualized in the paper. => We expanded the conceptual definitions of interoception in the Introduction (Page 4, Line 90). We justified our specific focus on interoceptive accuracy as an objective index (Page 4, Line 94). => Beyond interoception, we also strengthened the theoretical framework by: For interoception, we now explicitly define accuracy, sensibility, and awareness, citing foundational literature (Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Subjective Time Perception: linking it to interoception and anxiety (Page 4). Visual Discomfort: Elaborating on the mechanisms of pattern-glare and the impact of spatial/temporal statistics (Page 4). Anxiety: Clarifying the distinction between state and trait anxiety as measured by the STAI short form (Pages 4-5). 8. Participant Characteristics. Clarify whether participants were asked about clinical diagnoses (e.g., anxiety, neurodevelopmental conditions), given their relevance to the research aims. If not assessed, provide a justification. => We clarified that clinical diagnoses (such as anxiety or neurodevelopmental conditions) were not recorded, as the study was designed as a foundational step to investigate person-level predictors of sensory comfort within a general population sample. To address this, we justified this non-clinical focus in the Methods section (Page 6, Line 171) and added a corresponding acknowledgment in the Limitations section (Page 13, Line 419). In the latter, we further propose that future follow-up work should specifically involve autistic and other neurodivergent cohorts to validate these findings and enhance the generalizability of the results within clinical settings. 9. Stimuli Choice. Justify the use of Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimuli, particularly in the context of interoception and neurodiversity research, where its utility is not well-established. => We added a dedicated rationale for the use of RDM stimuli, emphasizing their utility in isolating the motion-speed component of bubble-tube viewing while minimizing confounding variables such as color, texture, and form. In the revised Introduction (Page 5, Line 148), we explicitly linked the RDM paradigm to canonical neurophysiological work in the MT/V5 area and its established application in neurodiversity research, particularly in assessing global motion processing in autistic populations. Furthermore, we have expanded the Methods section to clarify how the RDM provides precise parametric control over the upward motion speed while maintaining a constant dot density and luminance. These additions justify the translational value of RDM as a proxy for bubble-tube motion within the context of interoceptive and sensory-processing research. 10. Measures. Provide a clearer, consolidated presentation of the scales and tasks used to measure anxiety, interoception, time perception, and visual discomfort—ideally in a dedicated table with psychometric properties and validation references. => In response to the request for a more consolidated presentation of our measures, we reorganized all experimental tasks and scales into two comprehensive tables (Page 23). Table 1A summarizes the experimental tasks (e.g., interoception and time perception), whereas Table 1B details the questionnaires used for anxiety and visual discomfort. These tables provide a clear overview of the key settings, scoring procedures, psychometric properties, and validation references with consistent citations. These changes significantly improve the transparency of our operational definitions and streamline the referencing of specific constructs in the Results section. 11. Open Science Considerations. While SPSS is a common statistical tool, open science practices would benefit from clear data and protocol sharing. Explicitly state where readers can access the materials. => We fully agree with the importance of open science practices and included a dedicated Data Availability Statement (Page 16, Line 510) with persistent DOIs to ensure the transparency and reproducibility of our findings. We provide a comprehensive suite of materials, including de-identified participant-level data in .sav format, original SPSS output files (.spv), and a step-by-step analysis protocol in PDF format. As noted in the revised Methods section (Page 9, Line 269), all statistical procedures were conducted via the graphical interface of IBM SPSS Statistics v27. By sharing the original output files along with a detailed "analysis recipe," we enable other researchers to fully verify and replicate our analytical steps. 12. Statistical Rationale. Explain why Spearman’s correlation was used (e.g., non-normal distribution), and clarify whether regression models were corrected for multiple comparisons. Justify the model selection process more clearly. => Response: We updated the Methods and Results sections to provide a more detailed statistical rationale. First, we clarified that Spearman’s rank correlation was employed because several variables exhibited non-normal distributions and outliers, as determined by skewness and kurtosis (Page 8, Lines 256-263). Regarding model selection, we now transparently describe the stepwise regression criteria (entry p .10) while adding caution regarding potential overfitting (Page 10, Line 314). To address the issue of multiple comparisons, we framed our correlation analyses as exploratory and descriptive, and prioritized the interpretation of effect sizes and two-tailed 95% confidence intervals. We have added a corresponding note in the Limitations section to ensure transparency regarding the risk of Type I errors (Page 13, Lines 424-428). 13. Sample Size Concerns. The relatively small sample (N=50) may limit the power and generalizability of the regression analysis. Discuss limitations related to sample size and possible risks of overfitting or underpowered findings. => We acknowledge the limitations associated with our sample size (N = 50) and added a dedicated subsection to the Limitations (Page 13, Lines 419-423) to address the concerns regarding statistical power and generalizability. In this section, we discuss how a relatively small sample size may limit the precision of our estimates and increase the risk of overfitting, particularly in the context of stepwise regression selection. 14. Streamline Results. Reporting of statistics (e.g., means, SDs, p-values, CI) could be streamlined for clarity. Use visual aids (tables or figures) to consolidate key outcomes for easier interpretation. => We streamlined the Results section to enhance clarity and interpretability by reducing the statistical density of the text and consolidating key data into tables. Descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 2 (Page 23), allowing for a more focused narrative flow in the text. Throughout the Results section, we now report a standardized and consistent set of statistics, including means, standard deviations, Spearman correlation coefficients (rs) with 95% confidence intervals and p-values, as well as comprehensive regression parameters (B, SE, β, 95% CI, and VIF). This reorganization ensures that all critical outcomes are presented transparently and are easily accessible to the reader while maintaining a concise and readable manuscript. 15. Limitations Section: Explicitly address the study’s limitations, including sample size, generalizability, reliance on self-report measures, and the exploratory nature of the design. This is currently underdeveloped and needed for transparency. => We expanded the Discussion section by adding a dedicated Limitations subsection (Page 13) to ensure full transparency and provide a balanced interpretation of our findings. This section comprehensively addresses the statistical constraints of our sample size (N = 50), including precision limits and potential overfitting risks associated with our model selection. We also discuss the generalizability of our results, noting that the use of a non-clinical convenience sample may not fully represent the experiences of autistic or other neurodivergent groups. Furthermore, we acknowledge the reliance on self-report measures and ecological validity considerations when using RDM stimuli as a proxy for physical bubble tubes. Finally, we clarify the exploratory nature of the design and the absence of registration, highlighting how our commitment to sharing open materials mitigates these concerns and supports future replication efforts. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Tavassoli T. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177078.r382825 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v1#referee-response-382825 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 13 Jun 2025 Teresa Tavassoli , University of Reading, Reading, England, UK Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177078.r382825 This paper is about an interesting topic of the speed of bubbles and how its relates to interoception and visual discomfort. Here are a few comments : In the introduction also mention the work on sensory hyperreactivity ... Continue reading READ ALL This paper is about an interesting topic of the speed of bubbles and how its relates to interoception and visual discomfort. Here are a few comments : In the introduction also mention the work on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety such as Green et al., 2010 and 2012, MacLennan at el, 2020, 2021, Verhulst et al., 2022. Please comment on why healthy adults were used for this study. The introduction covers anxiety, autism and mental health conditions and thus it might have been more informative to use one of these groups rather then healthy controls. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: autism, sensory reactivity I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Tavassoli T. Reviewer Report For: Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177078.r382825 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v1#referee-response-382825 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 27 Mar 2026 Shinichi Koyama , Institute of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 27 Mar 2026 Author Response Response to reviewer 1 Thank you very much for your comment. In the introduction also mention the work on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety such as Green et al., ... Continue reading Response to reviewer 1 Thank you very much for your comment. In the introduction also mention the work on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety such as Green et al., 2012, MacLennan et al, 2020, 2021, Verhulst et al., 2022. Please comment on why healthy adults were used for this study. The introduction covers anxiety, autism and mental health conditions and thus it might have been more informative to use one of these groups rather than healthy controls. => We have now incorporated the references you mentioned in the Introduction section to better contextualize our work within the existing literature on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety: Green et al., 2012 (Page 3, Line 55); MacLennan et al., 2020, 2021 (Page 3, Lines 55-56); Verhulst et al., 2022 (Page 3, Line 55-56). => The purpose of the study was to examine the correlation between sensory sensitivity (ranging from very low to very high sensitivity) and preferred dot speed. We therefore recruited participants with a wide variance in sensitivity, from below average to highly sensitive, regardless of the presence or absence of a clinical diagnosis. Response to reviewer 1 Thank you very much for your comment. In the introduction also mention the work on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety such as Green et al., 2012, MacLennan et al, 2020, 2021, Verhulst et al., 2022. Please comment on why healthy adults were used for this study. The introduction covers anxiety, autism and mental health conditions and thus it might have been more informative to use one of these groups rather than healthy controls. => We have now incorporated the references you mentioned in the Introduction section to better contextualize our work within the existing literature on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety: Green et al., 2012 (Page 3, Line 55); MacLennan et al., 2020, 2021 (Page 3, Lines 55-56); Verhulst et al., 2022 (Page 3, Line 55-56). => The purpose of the study was to examine the correlation between sensory sensitivity (ranging from very low to very high sensitivity) and preferred dot speed. We therefore recruited participants with a wide variance in sensitivity, from below average to highly sensitive, regardless of the presence or absence of a clinical diagnosis. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 27 Mar 2026 Shinichi Koyama , Institute of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 27 Mar 2026 Author Response Response to reviewer 1 Thank you very much for your comment. In the introduction also mention the work on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety such as Green et al., ... Continue reading Response to reviewer 1 Thank you very much for your comment. In the introduction also mention the work on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety such as Green et al., 2012, MacLennan et al, 2020, 2021, Verhulst et al., 2022. Please comment on why healthy adults were used for this study. The introduction covers anxiety, autism and mental health conditions and thus it might have been more informative to use one of these groups rather than healthy controls. => We have now incorporated the references you mentioned in the Introduction section to better contextualize our work within the existing literature on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety: Green et al., 2012 (Page 3, Line 55); MacLennan et al., 2020, 2021 (Page 3, Lines 55-56); Verhulst et al., 2022 (Page 3, Line 55-56). => The purpose of the study was to examine the correlation between sensory sensitivity (ranging from very low to very high sensitivity) and preferred dot speed. We therefore recruited participants with a wide variance in sensitivity, from below average to highly sensitive, regardless of the presence or absence of a clinical diagnosis. Response to reviewer 1 Thank you very much for your comment. In the introduction also mention the work on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety such as Green et al., 2012, MacLennan et al, 2020, 2021, Verhulst et al., 2022. Please comment on why healthy adults were used for this study. The introduction covers anxiety, autism and mental health conditions and thus it might have been more informative to use one of these groups rather than healthy controls. => We have now incorporated the references you mentioned in the Introduction section to better contextualize our work within the existing literature on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety: Green et al., 2012 (Page 3, Line 55); MacLennan et al., 2020, 2021 (Page 3, Lines 55-56); Verhulst et al., 2022 (Page 3, Line 55-56). => The purpose of the study was to examine the correlation between sensory sensitivity (ranging from very low to very high sensitivity) and preferred dot speed. We therefore recruited participants with a wide variance in sensitivity, from below average to highly sensitive, regardless of the presence or absence of a clinical diagnosis. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Feb 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 2 (revision) 27 Mar 26 Version 1 14 Feb 25 read read Teresa Tavassoli , University of Reading, Reading, UK Sarune Savickaite , University of Exeter, Exeter, UK Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Savickaite S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 22 Aug 2025 | for Version 1 Sarune Savickaite , University of Exeter, Exeter, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Savickaite S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This study explored how individuals’ physiological and psychological characteristics affect their preferred speeds of bubble tube stimulation in sensory rooms, using a simulated upward-moving visual task. Results showed that people with higher interoceptive sensitivity preferred slower speeds, while those with higher anxiety or less accurate time perception preferred faster speeds. Visual discomfort also played a role, with those experiencing more discomfort tending to prefer slower visual motion. A combination of interoceptive accuracy, anxiety levels, time estimation ability, and visual sensitivity significantly predicted preferred stimulation speed. The findings highlight the importance of personalized sensory environments tailored to individual needs for optimal therapeutic impact. 1. Terminology. Use “autism” instead of “ASD” throughout for a more inclusive and widely accepted terminology, especially in line with neurodiversity research. 2. Avoid Ableist Language. Refrain from using medicalized or deficit-based terms such as “impairment.” Instead, adopt terminology grounded in the social model of disability, which focuses on societal barriers rather than individual deficits. 3. Identity-First Language. Use “autistic individuals” rather than “individuals with autism” to align with current preferences within the autistic community and neurodiversity literature. 4. Improve Rationale Structure. Streamline the background by clearly introducing the key constructs (e.g., interoception, time perception, anxiety, visual discomfort), then presenting a focused rationale for the current study. Avoid repeating the aim multiple times. 5. Reference Gaps. In the paragraph starting “However, the precise mechanisms by which the bubble tubes induce relaxation remain poorly understood…”, add references to prior sensory integration or multi sensory environments research to contextualize the claim. 6. Existing Research. Although this is a novel area, relevant adjacent literature does exist. Draw clearer parallels to studies in sensory processing, neurodivergent experience, and multi-sensory therapeutic environments. 7. Conceptual Clarity Interoception. Define which aspects of interoception are relevant (e.g., accuracy, awareness, sensibility), and clarify why they matter for this context. Reference foundational literature (e.g., Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Time Perception. Explicitly explain how time perception relates to interoception and anxiety in this study. Currently, it appears disconnected. Anxiety and Visual Discomfort. Define anxiety more clinically (e.g., state vs. trait), and expand discussion of visual discomfort with more references. Both constructs are complex and under-contextualized in the paper. 8. Participant Characteristics. Clarify whether participants were asked about clinical diagnoses (e.g., anxiety, neurodevelopmental conditions), given their relevance to the research aims. If not assessed, provide a justification. 9. Stimuli Choice. Justify the use of Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimuli, particularly in the context of interoception and neurodiversity research, where its utility is not well-established. 10. Measures. Provide a clearer, consolidated presentation of the scales and tasks used to measure anxiety, interoception, time perception, and visual discomfort—ideally in a dedicated table with psychometric properties and validation references. 11. Open Science Considerations. While SPSS is a common statistical tool, open science practices would benefit from clear data and protocol sharing. Explicitly state where readers can access the materials. 12. Statistical Rationale. Explain why Spearman’s correlation was used (e.g., non-normal distribution), and clarify whether regression models were corrected for multiple comparisons. Justify the model selection process more clearly. 13. Sample Size Concerns. The relatively small sample (N=50) may limit the power and generalizability of the regression analysis. Discuss limitations related to sample size and possible risks of overfitting or underpowered findings. 14. Streamline Results. Reporting of statistics (e.g., means, SDs, p-values, CI) could be streamlined for clarity. Use visual aids (tables or figures) to consolidate key outcomes for easier interpretation. 15. Limitations Section: Explicitly address the study’s limitations, including sample size, generalizability, reliance on self-report measures, and the exploratory nature of the design. This is currently underdeveloped and needed for transparency. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly References 1. Garfinkel S, Tiley C, O'Keeffe S, Harrison N, et al.: Discrepancies between dimensions of interoception in autism: Implications for emotion and anxiety. Biological Psychology . 2016; 114 : 117-126 Publisher Full Text 2. Critchley H, Garfinkel S: Interoception and emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology . 2017; 17 : 7-14 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise I work with neurodiversity, perceptual differences and interoception. This is my area of expertise and this article requires major revisions. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 27 Mar 2026 Shinichi Koyama, Institute of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan Response to reviewer 2. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 1. Terminology. Use “autism” instead of “ASD” throughout for a more inclusive and widely accepted terminology, especially in line with neurodiversity research. => We replaced ASD with autism throughout the paper. We also replaced autism disorder-based terminology and sensory processing with neurodiversity-affirming language. 2. Avoid Ableist Language. Refrain from using medicalized or deficit-based terms such as “impairment.” Instead, adopt terminology grounded in the social model of disability, which focuses on societal barriers rather than individual deficits. => We removed medicalized/deficit-based phrasing and reframed descriptions using the social model of disability. address these challenges => provide sensory support (Page 2, Line 48) functional abilities => agency within everyday environments (Page 2, Line 50) history of aggression => experience heightened distress responses (Page 3, Line 67) 3. Identity-First Language. Use “autistic individuals” rather than “individuals with autism” to align with current preferences within the autistic community and neurodiversity literature. => We now use autistic children/adults/people/populations/participants rather than individuals with autism, except when citing instruments or studies that use diagnostic labels (Pages 3, 5, 7, 13). 4. Improve Rationale Structure. Streamline the background by clearly introducing the key constructs (e.g., interoception, time perception, anxiety, visual discomfort), then presenting a focused rationale for the current study. Avoid repeating the aim multiple times. => We revised the Introduction to follow a four-step structure: background, mechanisms/needs, key constructs (interoception, time perception, anxiety, and visual discomfort), and presentation of the present study and hypotheses. We streamlined the rationale and removed duplicated statements of the aim to ensure a clearer progression (Pages 2-5). 5. Reference Gaps. In the paragraph starting “However, the precise mechanisms by which the bubble tubes induce relaxation remain poorly understood…”, add references to prior sensory integration or multi-sensory environments research to contextualize the claim. => We added key citations (Champagne & Stromberg, 2004; Sutton et al., 2013; Scanlan & Novak, 2015) (Page 3, Line 83) to contextualize multisensory modulation mechanisms. 6. Existing Research. Although this is a novel area, relevant adjacent literature does exist. Draw clearer parallels to studies in sensory processing, neurodivergent experience, and multi-sensory therapeutic environments. => We strengthened the parallels to existing research in sensory processing, neurodivergent experiences, and multi-sensory environments. Specifically, we incorporated evidence from observational studies and systematic reviews (e.g., Breslin et al., 2020, Page 3, Lines 86-89; Haig & Hallett, 2023, Page 3, Lines 67-71) to contextualize the use of sensory equipment and highlight the variable outcomes across different populations. These additions underscore the necessity of identifying person-level moderators, such as motion processing differences in autistic individuals, to better understand engagement in therapeutic spaces. 7. Conceptual Clarity Interoception. Define which aspects of interoception are relevant (e.g., accuracy, awareness, sensibility), and clarify why they matter for this context. Reference foundational literature (e.g., Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Time Perception. Explicitly explain how time perception relates to interoception and anxiety in this study. Currently, it appears disconnected. Anxiety and Visual Discomfort. Define anxiety more clinically (e.g., state vs. trait), and expand discussion of visual discomfort with more references. Both constructs are complex and under-contextualized in the paper. => We expanded the conceptual definitions of interoception in the Introduction (Page 4, Line 90). We justified our specific focus on interoceptive accuracy as an objective index (Page 4, Line 94). => Beyond interoception, we also strengthened the theoretical framework by: For interoception, we now explicitly define accuracy, sensibility, and awareness, citing foundational literature (Garfinkel et al., 2015; Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). Subjective Time Perception: linking it to interoception and anxiety (Page 4). Visual Discomfort: Elaborating on the mechanisms of pattern-glare and the impact of spatial/temporal statistics (Page 4). Anxiety: Clarifying the distinction between state and trait anxiety as measured by the STAI short form (Pages 4-5). 8. Participant Characteristics. Clarify whether participants were asked about clinical diagnoses (e.g., anxiety, neurodevelopmental conditions), given their relevance to the research aims. If not assessed, provide a justification. => We clarified that clinical diagnoses (such as anxiety or neurodevelopmental conditions) were not recorded, as the study was designed as a foundational step to investigate person-level predictors of sensory comfort within a general population sample. To address this, we justified this non-clinical focus in the Methods section (Page 6, Line 171) and added a corresponding acknowledgment in the Limitations section (Page 13, Line 419). In the latter, we further propose that future follow-up work should specifically involve autistic and other neurodivergent cohorts to validate these findings and enhance the generalizability of the results within clinical settings. 9. Stimuli Choice. Justify the use of Random Dot Motion (RDM) stimuli, particularly in the context of interoception and neurodiversity research, where its utility is not well-established. => We added a dedicated rationale for the use of RDM stimuli, emphasizing their utility in isolating the motion-speed component of bubble-tube viewing while minimizing confounding variables such as color, texture, and form. In the revised Introduction (Page 5, Line 148), we explicitly linked the RDM paradigm to canonical neurophysiological work in the MT/V5 area and its established application in neurodiversity research, particularly in assessing global motion processing in autistic populations. Furthermore, we have expanded the Methods section to clarify how the RDM provides precise parametric control over the upward motion speed while maintaining a constant dot density and luminance. These additions justify the translational value of RDM as a proxy for bubble-tube motion within the context of interoceptive and sensory-processing research. 10. Measures. Provide a clearer, consolidated presentation of the scales and tasks used to measure anxiety, interoception, time perception, and visual discomfort—ideally in a dedicated table with psychometric properties and validation references. => In response to the request for a more consolidated presentation of our measures, we reorganized all experimental tasks and scales into two comprehensive tables (Page 23). Table 1A summarizes the experimental tasks (e.g., interoception and time perception), whereas Table 1B details the questionnaires used for anxiety and visual discomfort. These tables provide a clear overview of the key settings, scoring procedures, psychometric properties, and validation references with consistent citations. These changes significantly improve the transparency of our operational definitions and streamline the referencing of specific constructs in the Results section. 11. Open Science Considerations. While SPSS is a common statistical tool, open science practices would benefit from clear data and protocol sharing. Explicitly state where readers can access the materials. => We fully agree with the importance of open science practices and included a dedicated Data Availability Statement (Page 16, Line 510) with persistent DOIs to ensure the transparency and reproducibility of our findings. We provide a comprehensive suite of materials, including de-identified participant-level data in .sav format, original SPSS output files (.spv), and a step-by-step analysis protocol in PDF format. As noted in the revised Methods section (Page 9, Line 269), all statistical procedures were conducted via the graphical interface of IBM SPSS Statistics v27. By sharing the original output files along with a detailed "analysis recipe," we enable other researchers to fully verify and replicate our analytical steps. 12. Statistical Rationale. Explain why Spearman’s correlation was used (e.g., non-normal distribution), and clarify whether regression models were corrected for multiple comparisons. Justify the model selection process more clearly. => Response: We updated the Methods and Results sections to provide a more detailed statistical rationale. First, we clarified that Spearman’s rank correlation was employed because several variables exhibited non-normal distributions and outliers, as determined by skewness and kurtosis (Page 8, Lines 256-263). Regarding model selection, we now transparently describe the stepwise regression criteria (entry p .10) while adding caution regarding potential overfitting (Page 10, Line 314). To address the issue of multiple comparisons, we framed our correlation analyses as exploratory and descriptive, and prioritized the interpretation of effect sizes and two-tailed 95% confidence intervals. We have added a corresponding note in the Limitations section to ensure transparency regarding the risk of Type I errors (Page 13, Lines 424-428). 13. Sample Size Concerns. The relatively small sample (N=50) may limit the power and generalizability of the regression analysis. Discuss limitations related to sample size and possible risks of overfitting or underpowered findings. => We acknowledge the limitations associated with our sample size (N = 50) and added a dedicated subsection to the Limitations (Page 13, Lines 419-423) to address the concerns regarding statistical power and generalizability. In this section, we discuss how a relatively small sample size may limit the precision of our estimates and increase the risk of overfitting, particularly in the context of stepwise regression selection. 14. Streamline Results. Reporting of statistics (e.g., means, SDs, p-values, CI) could be streamlined for clarity. Use visual aids (tables or figures) to consolidate key outcomes for easier interpretation. => We streamlined the Results section to enhance clarity and interpretability by reducing the statistical density of the text and consolidating key data into tables. Descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Table 2 (Page 23), allowing for a more focused narrative flow in the text. Throughout the Results section, we now report a standardized and consistent set of statistics, including means, standard deviations, Spearman correlation coefficients (rs) with 95% confidence intervals and p-values, as well as comprehensive regression parameters (B, SE, β, 95% CI, and VIF). This reorganization ensures that all critical outcomes are presented transparently and are easily accessible to the reader while maintaining a concise and readable manuscript. 15. Limitations Section: Explicitly address the study’s limitations, including sample size, generalizability, reliance on self-report measures, and the exploratory nature of the design. This is currently underdeveloped and needed for transparency. => We expanded the Discussion section by adding a dedicated Limitations subsection (Page 13) to ensure full transparency and provide a balanced interpretation of our findings. This section comprehensively addresses the statistical constraints of our sample size (N = 50), including precision limits and potential overfitting risks associated with our model selection. We also discuss the generalizability of our results, noting that the use of a non-clinical convenience sample may not fully represent the experiences of autistic or other neurodivergent groups. Furthermore, we acknowledge the reliance on self-report measures and ecological validity considerations when using RDM stimuli as a proxy for physical bubble tubes. Finally, we clarify the exploratory nature of the design and the absence of registration, highlighting how our commitment to sharing open materials mitigates these concerns and supports future replication efforts. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Savickaite S. Peer Review Report For: Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177078.r375957) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v1#referee-response-375957 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Tavassoli T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Jun 2025 | for Version 1 Teresa Tavassoli , University of Reading, Reading, England, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Tavassoli T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This paper is about an interesting topic of the speed of bubbles and how its relates to interoception and visual discomfort. Here are a few comments : In the introduction also mention the work on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety such as Green et al., 2010 and 2012, MacLennan at el, 2020, 2021, Verhulst et al., 2022. Please comment on why healthy adults were used for this study. The introduction covers anxiety, autism and mental health conditions and thus it might have been more informative to use one of these groups rather then healthy controls. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise autism, sensory reactivity I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 27 Mar 2026 Shinichi Koyama, Institute of Art and Design, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan Response to reviewer 1 Thank you very much for your comment. In the introduction also mention the work on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety such as Green et al., 2012, MacLennan et al, 2020, 2021, Verhulst et al., 2022. Please comment on why healthy adults were used for this study. The introduction covers anxiety, autism and mental health conditions and thus it might have been more informative to use one of these groups rather than healthy controls. => We have now incorporated the references you mentioned in the Introduction section to better contextualize our work within the existing literature on sensory hyperreactivity and anxiety: Green et al., 2012 (Page 3, Line 55); MacLennan et al., 2020, 2021 (Page 3, Lines 55-56); Verhulst et al., 2022 (Page 3, Line 55-56). => The purpose of the study was to examine the correlation between sensory sensitivity (ranging from very low to very high sensitivity) and preferred dot speed. We therefore recruited participants with a wide variance in sensitivity, from below average to highly sensitive, regardless of the presence or absence of a clinical diagnosis. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Tavassoli T. Peer Review Report For: Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds in sensory rooms and physiological–psychological factors: A study on interoceptive sensitivity, subjective time perception, visual discomfort levels, and anxiety levels [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :214 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.177078.r382825) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v1#referee-response-382825 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Exploring the relationship between preferred...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Su A et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214", templates : { twitter : "Exploring the relationship between preferred bubble tube speeds.... Su A et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-214/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/161090/195119") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "195119"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "474372": 0, "474371": 0, "474370": 0, "474369": 0, "474368": 0, "403007": 0, "371007": 0, "371013": 0, "403014": 0, "371012": 0, "403015": 0, "373063": 0, "371015": 0, "403012": 0, "371014": 0, "403013": 0, "371009": 0, "403010": 0, "371008": 0, "403011": 0, "371011": 0, "403008": 0, "371010": 0, "403009": 0, "484943": 0, "403022": 0, "484942": 0, "403023": 0, "484941": 0, "403020": 0, "484940": 0, "403021": 0, "484939": 0, "403018": 0, "484938": 0, "371016": 0, "403019": 0, "484937": 0, "403016": 0, "403017": 0, "403026": 0, "484946": 0, "484945": 0, "403024": 0, "484944": 0, "403025": 0, "397919": 0, "380511": 0, "380510": 0, "397926": 0, "380517": 0, "397927": 0, "380516": 0, "397924": 0, "380519": 0, "397925": 0, "380518": 0, "397922": 0, "380513": 0, "397923": 0, "380512": 0, "397920": 0, "380515": 0, "397921": 0, "380514": 0, "471919": 0, "378477": 0, "382829": 0, "471918": 0, "382828": 0, "471917": 0, "378479": 0, "382831": 0, "471916": 0, "378478": 0, "382830": 0, "471915": 0, "382825": 19, "471914": 0, "382824": 0, "397928": 0, "382827": 0, "382826": 0, "378485": 0, "378484": 0, "378486": 0, "471923": 0, "382833": 0, "378481": 0, "471922": 0, "378480": 0, "382832": 0, "471921": 0, "378483": 0, "471920": 0, "378482": 0, "375957": 28, "375956": 0, "375959": 0, "375958": 0, "471187": 0, "375953": 0, "471186": 0, "375952": 0, "375955": 0, "375954": 0, "372639": 0, "375961": 0, "375960": 0, "372645": 0, "372644": 0, "372647": 0, "372646": 0, "372641": 0, "372640": 0, "372643": 0, "372642": 0, "372648": 0, "473015": 0, "473014": 0, "473013": 0, "473022": 0, "473021": 0, "473020": 0, "473019": 0, "473018": 0, "473017": 0, "473016": 0, "401896": 0, "474367": 0, "474366": 0, "474365": 0, "474364": 0, "474363": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "3cb6c7a0-0e7a-4d23-9336-4369bd5669da"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });