virtual reality essay pdf

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy (Chalmers David J., 2022)

Table of contents : Title Contents Introduction Adventures in technophilosophy Part 1 Virtual Worlds Chapter 1 Is this the real life? Chapter 2 What is the simulation hypothesis? Part 2 Knowledge Chapter 3 Do we know things? Chapter 4 Can we prove there is an external world? Chapter 5 Is it likely that we’re in a simulation? Part 3 Reality Chapter 6 What is reality? Chapter 7 Is God a hacker in the next universe up? Chapter 8 Is the universe made of information? Chapter 9 Did simulation create its from bits? Part 4 Real Virtual Reality Chapter 10 Do virtual reality headsets create reality? Chapter 11 Are virtual reality devices illusion machines? Chapter 12 Does augmented reality lead to alternative facts? Chapter 13 Can we avoid being deceived by deepfakes? Part 5 Mind Chapter 14 How do mind and body interact in a virtual world? Chapter 15 Can there be consciousness in a digital world? Chapter 16 Does augmented reality extend the mind? Part 6 Value Chapter 17 Can you lead a good life in a virtual world? Chapter 18 Do simulated lives matter? Chapter 19 How should we build a virtual society? Part 7 Foundations Chapter 20 What do our words mean in virtual worlds? Chapter 21 Do dust clouds run computer programs? Chapter 22 Is reality a mathematical structure? Chapter 23 Have we fallen from the Garden of Eden? Chapter 24 Are we Boltzmann brains in a dream world? Acknowledgments Glossary Notes Index

Related Papers

The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind's Evolution (ISBN: 978-0578451206)

Alex Vikoulov

Magnum Opus of digital philosopher Alex Vikoulov on the ultimate nature of reality, consciousness, the physics of time, philosophy of mind, the technological singularity, the impending phase transition of humanity, transcendental metaphysics and God. In one volume, the author covers it all: from quantum physics to your experiential reality, from the Big Bang to the Omega Point, from the 'flow state' to psychedelics, from 'Lucy' to the looming AI Singularity, from natural algorithms to the operating system of your mind, from geo-engineering to nanotechnology, from anti-aging to immortality technologies, from oligopoly capitalism to Star-Trekonomics, from the Matrix to Universal Mind, from Homo sapiens to Holo syntellectus. This is an essential read in digital physics, foundations of quantum physics, science of consciousness, philosophy of mind, physics of time, digital philosophy, economic theory, cybernetics and AI research, collective evolution and self-development in the Information Age. Despite a dozen of neologisms, readily explained by given definitions and contextually, the book is an exceptionally easy read for an intellectual reader. Alongside with the Syntellect Hypothesis, as the author's main contribution to the scientific and philosophical dialogue, you'll encounter the Conscious Instant Hypothesis and the Temporal Singularity, Experiential Realism and the Mental Universe Hypothesis in regards to our phenomenological experience; the Noocentric Model challenging the centuries-old Copernican heliocentric model; the Chrysalis Conjecture as his solution to the Fermi Paradox; D-theory of Time, or Digital Presentism, as his fresh perspective on temporal ontology and the physics of time; the mind-bending Digital Pantheism Argument, Exponential Evolution, and the Omega Point Cosmo-Teleology.

Brian Whitworth

Matthew Jones , Joan Jasak

Indrajit Patra

Bikram Lamba

Across his career, the philosopher David Chalmers has challenged what we hold to be true about consciousness and the mind. And, now he is questioning reality itself.

Patrick S. O'Donnell

Are we, or might we become, artificial intelligences "living" in a virtual or artificial reality (a 'simulation')? Patrick S. O'Donnell (2022) "There's a new creation story going around. In the beginning, someone booted up a computer. Everything we see around us reflects states of that computer. We are artificial intelligences living in an artificial reality-a 'simulation.' It's a fun idea, and one worth taking seriously, as people increasingly do. But we should very much hope that we're not living in a simulation."-Eric Schwitzgebel in an op-ed in the LA Times. (Schwitzgebel is a well-known philosopher at UC Riverside who has a blog titled The Splintered Mind, where this article is also found, with links and additional material.

Patrick Ivers

Radhika Dirks

The nature of consciousness has been one of the longest-standing open questions in philosophy. Advancements in physics, neuroscience, and information theory have informed and constrained this topic, but have not produced any consensus. What would it mean to ’solve’ or ’dissolve’ the mystery of consciousness? Part I begins with grounding this topic by considering a concrete question: what makes some conscious experiences more pleasant than others? We first review what’s known about the neuroscience of pain & pleasure, find the current state of knowledge narrow, inconsistent, and often circular, and conclude we must look elsewhere for a systematic framework (Sections I & II). We then review the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness and several variants of IIT, and find each of them promising, yet also underdeveloped and flawed (Sections III-V). We then take a step back and distill what kind of problem consciousness is. Importantly, we offer eight sub-problems whose solu...

Alasdair M Richmond

Following on from Nick Bostrom's discussion of the Doomsday argument, Alasdair Richmond considers how anthropic reasoning can lead from Doomsday to some odd conclusions about computation and our place in reality.

Alexander Diligence

RELATED PAPERS

Scholars' Press

Professor Terry Hyland

Stephen Wysong

UMI Dissertations A Bell & Howell Information & Learning

Rita M . Lauria

Forthcoming in The Philosophical Forum

Marcus Arvan

Barry Dainton

Nicholas Rosseinsky

Ulrich de Balbian

Religious Studies

MUSTAPHA NASIR USMAN

Eric Forman

Utku TUNÇER

THE AGE OF SPIRITUAL MACHINES WHEN COMPUTERS EXCEED HUMAN INTELLIGENCE RAY KURZWEIL

Paul Mamani

Allan F . Randall

Irfan Ahmad

Rational Realm

Leslie Allan

Hannes Nortjé

Samuel R Burns

Preston Greene

Rune Klevjer

Abhas Mitra

Università di Perugia

Roberto Paura

Luca Paggio

Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research

Peter Hankins

Human IT: Journal for Information Technology Studies as a Human Science

Svante Lovén

Encyclopedia of Consciousness

David Gamez

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games pp 1–4 Cite as

Virtual Reality: A Model for Understanding Immersive Computing

• A. Protopsaltis 2 , 3 &
• G. Papagiannakis 3 , 4  
• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 28 January 2022

56 Accesses

1 Citations

Engagement ; Interaction ; Mental immersion ; Physical immersion ; Presence ; Quality of experience ; Spatial perception

Virtual reality model allows the user to subjectively be involved and become immersed within a computer-generated environment. As the physical world is hidden, the user realizes the virtual environment as real while the acquired sense of presence enhances the feeling of immersion.

Introduction

Immersive computing has been gaining a lot of attention the last decade, due to advancements and innovations in hardware and software. The first reference to the term of immersive simulation was done in 1968 by Ivan Sutherland when he designed the first Head-Mounted Display (HMD) (Sutherland 1965 ). Nowadays, immersive computing enables seamless, and fluid user interaction with technology that gradually becomes smarter as it leverages advancements in deep learning. Emerging applications, such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR),...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Abari, O., Bharadia, D., Duffield, A., Katabi, D.: Enabling high-quality untethered virtual reality. In: 14th {USENIX} Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation USENIX Association, CA, US ({NSDI} 17), pp. 531–544. (2017)

Google Scholar  

Broeck, M.V.D., Kawsar, F., Schöning, J.: It’s all around you: Exploring 360 video viewing experiences on mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, ACM NY, US, pp. 762–768. (2017)

Brunnström, K., Beker, S.A., De Moor, K., Dooms, A., Egger, S., Garcia, M.N., Hossfeld, T., Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., Keimel, C., Larabi, M.C., Lawlor, B.: Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of Quality of Experience. HAL open science, hal-00977812 (2013)

Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D.J., DeFanti, T.A., Kenyon, R.V., Hart, J.C.: The CAVE: Audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Commun. ACM. 35 (6), 64–73 (1992)

Article   Google Scholar  

Ebrahimi, T.: Quality of multimedia experience: Past, present and future. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, ACM NY, US, pp. 3–4. (2009)

Gaggioli, A., Keshner, E.A., Weiss, P.L.T. (eds.): Advanced Technologies in Rehabilitation: Empowering Cognitive, Physical, Social and Communicative Skills Through Virtual Reality, Robots, Wearable Systems and Brain-Computer Interfaces, vol. 145. IOS Press (2009)

Jennett, C., Cox, A.L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., Walton, A.: Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. Int. J. Human Comput. Stud. 66 (9), 641–661 (2008)

Krokos, E., Plaisant, C., Varshney, A.: Virtual memory palaces: immersion aids recall. Virtual Reality. 23 (1), 1–15 (2019)

Lackey, S.J., Salcedo, J.N., Szalma, J.L., Hancock, P.A.: The stress and workload of virtual reality training: the effects of presence, immersion and flow. Ergonomics. 59 (8), 1060–1072 (2016)

Liu, L., Zhong, R., Zhang, W., Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Zhang, L., Gruteser, M.: Cutting the cord: Designing a high-quality untethered vr system with low latency remote rendering. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, ACM NY, US, pp. 68–80. (2018)

Ott, M., Pozzi, F.: ICT and cultural heritage education: Which added value? In: World Summit on Knowledge Society, pp. 131–138. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2008)

Ponder, M., Herbelin, B., Molet, T., Scherteneib, S., Ulicny, B., Papagiannakis, G., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Thalmann, D.: Immersive VR Decision Training: Telling Interactive Stories Featuring Advanced Virtual Human Simulation Technologies, Proc. of 9th Eurographics Workshop on Virtual Environments 2003, pp. 97-106, The EG Association, ACM Press, Zurich, May (2003)

Slater, M.: Grand challenges in virtual environments. Front. Robot. AI. 1 , 3 (2014)

Slater, M., Sanchez-Vives, M.V.: Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Front. Robot. AI. 3 , 74 (2016)

Sukhmani, S., Sadeghi, M., Erol-Kantarci, M., El Saddik, A.: Edge caching and computing in 5G for mobile AR/VR and tactile internet. IEEE MultiMedia. 26 (1), 21–30 (2018)

Sutherland, I.: The ultimate display. In: Proceedings of the International Federation for Information Processing Congress, London : Macmillan and Co. pp. 506–508. (1965)

Yoo, S.J., Ryu, S., Kim, S., Han, H.S., Moon, C.: Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology. Elsevier (2017)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Western Macedonia, Kozani, Greece

A. Protopsaltis

ORamaVR S.A., Heraklion, Greece

A. Protopsaltis & G. Papagiannakis

FORTH-ICS, Heraklion, Greece University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece

G. Papagiannakis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Protopsaltis .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Inst. for Education Research Scholarship, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Protopsaltis, A., Papagiannakis, G. (2022). Virtual Reality: A Model for Understanding Immersive Computing. In: Lee, N. (eds) Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_165-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_165-1

Received : 26 July 2021

Accepted : 07 December 2021

Published : 28 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-08234-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-08234-9

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Computer Sciences Reference Module Computer Science and Engineering

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The Past, Present, and Future of Virtual and Augmented Reality Research: A Network and Cluster Analysis of the Literature

Pietro cipresso.

1 Applied Technology for Neuro-Psychology Lab, Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy

2 Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy

Irene Alice Chicchi Giglioli

3 Instituto de Investigación e Innovación en Bioingeniería, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

Mariano Alcañiz Raya

Giuseppe riva, associated data.

The recent appearance of low cost virtual reality (VR) technologies – like the Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive and the Sony PlayStation VR – and Mixed Reality Interfaces (MRITF) – like the Hololens – is attracting the attention of users and researchers suggesting it may be the next largest stepping stone in technological innovation. However, the history of VR technology is longer than it may seem: the concept of VR was formulated in the 1960s and the first commercial VR tools appeared in the late 1980s. For this reason, during the last 20 years, 100s of researchers explored the processes, effects, and applications of this technology producing 1000s of scientific papers. What is the outcome of this significant research work? This paper wants to provide an answer to this question by exploring, using advanced scientometric techniques, the existing research corpus in the field. We collected all the existent articles about VR in the Web of Science Core Collection scientific database, and the resultant dataset contained 21,667 records for VR and 9,944 for augmented reality (AR). The bibliographic record contained various fields, such as author, title, abstract, country, and all the references (needed for the citation analysis). The network and cluster analysis of the literature showed a composite panorama characterized by changes and evolutions over the time. Indeed, whether until 5 years ago, the main publication media on VR concerned both conference proceeding and journals, more recently journals constitute the main medium of communication. Similarly, if at first computer science was the leading research field, nowadays clinical areas have increased, as well as the number of countries involved in VR research. The present work discusses the evolution and changes over the time of the use of VR in the main areas of application with an emphasis on the future expected VR’s capacities, increases and challenges. We conclude considering the disruptive contribution that VR/AR/MRITF will be able to get in scientific fields, as well in human communication and interaction, as already happened with the advent of mobile phones by increasing the use and the development of scientific applications (e.g., in clinical areas) and by modifying the social communication and interaction among people.

Introduction

In the last 5 years, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have attracted the interest of investors and the general public, especially after Mark Zuckerberg bought Oculus for two billion dollars ( Luckerson, 2014 ; Castelvecchi, 2016 ). Currently, many other companies, such as Sony, Samsung, HTC, and Google are making huge investments in VR and AR ( Korolov, 2014 ; Ebert, 2015 ; Castelvecchi, 2016 ). However, if VR has been used in research for more than 25 years, and now there are 1000s of papers and many researchers in the field, comprising a strong, interdisciplinary community, AR has a more recent application history ( Burdea and Coiffet, 2003 ; Kim, 2005 ; Bohil et al., 2011 ; Cipresso and Serino, 2014 ; Wexelblat, 2014 ). The study of VR was initiated in the computer graphics field and has been extended to several disciplines ( Sutherland, 1965 , 1968 ; Mazuryk and Gervautz, 1996 ; Choi et al., 2015 ). Currently, videogames supported by VR tools are more popular than the past, and they represent valuables, work-related tools for neuroscientists, psychologists, biologists, and other researchers as well. Indeed, for example, one of the main research purposes lies from navigation studies that include complex experiments that could be done in a laboratory by using VR, whereas, without VR, the researchers would have to go directly into the field, possibly with limited use of intervention. The importance of navigation studies for the functional understanding of human memory in dementia has been a topic of significant interest for a long time, and, in 2014, the Nobel Prize in “Physiology or Medicine” was awarded to John M. O’Keefe, May-Britt Moser, and Edvard I. Moser for their discoveries of nerve cells in the brain that enable a sense of place and navigation. Journals and magazines have extended this knowledge by writing about “the brain GPS,” which gives a clear idea of the mechanism. A huge number of studies have been conducted in clinical settings by using VR ( Bohil et al., 2011 ; Serino et al., 2014 ), and Nobel Prize winner, Edvard I. Moser commented about the use of VR ( Minderer et al., 2016 ), highlighting its importance for research and clinical practice. Moreover, the availability of free tools for VR experimental and computational use has made it easy to access any field ( Riva et al., 2011 ; Cipresso, 2015 ; Brown and Green, 2016 ; Cipresso et al., 2016 ).

Augmented reality is a more recent technology than VR and shows an interdisciplinary application framework, in which, nowadays, education and learning seem to be the most field of research. Indeed, AR allows supporting learning, for example increasing-on content understanding and memory preservation, as well as on learning motivation. However, if VR benefits from clear and more definite fields of application and research areas, AR is still emerging in the scientific scenarios.

In this article, we present a systematic and computational analysis of the emerging interdisciplinary VR and AR fields in terms of various co-citation networks in order to explore the evolution of the intellectual structure of this knowledge domain over time.

Virtual Reality Concepts and Features

The concept of VR could be traced at the mid of 1960 when Ivan Sutherland in a pivotal manuscript attempted to describe VR as a window through which a user perceives the virtual world as if looked, felt, sounded real and in which the user could act realistically ( Sutherland, 1965 ).

Since that time and in accordance with the application area, several definitions have been formulated: for example, Fuchs and Bishop (1992) defined VR as “real-time interactive graphics with 3D models, combined with a display technology that gives the user the immersion in the model world and direct manipulation” ( Fuchs and Bishop, 1992 ); Gigante (1993) described VR as “The illusion of participation in a synthetic environment rather than external observation of such an environment. VR relies on a 3D, stereoscopic head-tracker displays, hand/body tracking and binaural sound. VR is an immersive, multi-sensory experience” ( Gigante, 1993 ); and “Virtual reality refers to immersive, interactive, multi-sensory, viewer-centered, 3D computer generated environments and the combination of technologies required building environments” ( Cruz-Neira, 1993 ).

As we can notice, these definitions, although different, highlight three common features of VR systems: immersion, perception to be present in an environment, and interaction with that environment ( Biocca, 1997 ; Lombard and Ditton, 1997 ; Loomis et al., 1999 ; Heeter, 2000 ; Biocca et al., 2001 ; Bailenson et al., 2006 ; Skalski and Tamborini, 2007 ; Andersen and Thorpe, 2009 ; Slater, 2009 ; Sundar et al., 2010 ). Specifically, immersion concerns the amount of senses stimulated, interactions, and the reality’s similarity of the stimuli used to simulate environments. This feature can depend on the properties of the technological system used to isolate user from reality ( Slater, 2009 ).

Higher or lower degrees of immersion can depend by three types of VR systems provided to the user:

• simple • Non-immersive systems are the simplest and cheapest type of VR applications that use desktops to reproduce images of the world.
• simple • Immersive systems provide a complete simulated experience due to the support of several sensory outputs devices such as head mounted displays (HMDs) for enhancing the stereoscopic view of the environment through the movement of the user’s head, as well as audio and haptic devices.
• simple • Semi-immersive systems such as Fish Tank VR are between the two above. They provide a stereo image of a three dimensional (3D) scene viewed on a monitor using a perspective projection coupled to the head position of the observer ( Ware et al., 1993 ). Higher technological immersive systems have showed a closest experience to reality, giving to the user the illusion of technological non-mediation and feeling him or her of “being in” or present in the virtual environment ( Lombard and Ditton, 1997 ). Furthermore, higher immersive systems, than the other two systems, can give the possibility to add several sensory outputs allowing that the interaction and actions were perceived as real ( Loomis et al., 1999 ; Heeter, 2000 ; Biocca et al., 2001 ).

Finally, the user’s VR experience could be disclosed by measuring presence, realism, and reality’s levels. Presence is a complex psychological feeling of “being there” in VR that involves the sensation and perception of physical presence, as well as the possibility to interact and react as if the user was in the real world ( Heeter, 1992 ). Similarly, the realism’s level corresponds to the degree of expectation that the user has about of the stimuli and experience ( Baños et al., 2000 , 2009 ). If the presented stimuli are similar to reality, VR user’s expectation will be congruent with reality expectation, enhancing VR experience. In the same way, higher is the degree of reality in interaction with the virtual stimuli, higher would be the level of realism of the user’s behaviors ( Baños et al., 2000 , 2009 ).

From Virtual to Augmented Reality

Looking chronologically on VR and AR developments, we can trace the first 3D immersive simulator in 1962, when Morton Heilig created Sensorama, a simulated experience of a motorcycle running through Brooklyn characterized by several sensory impressions, such as audio, olfactory, and haptic stimuli, including also wind to provide a realist experience ( Heilig, 1962 ). In the same years, Ivan Sutherland developed The Ultimate Display that, more than sound, smell, and haptic feedback, included interactive graphics that Sensorama didn’t provide. Furthermore, Philco developed the first HMD that together with The Sword of Damocles of Sutherland was able to update the virtual images by tracking user’s head position and orientation ( Sutherland, 1965 ). In the 70s, the University of North Carolina realized GROPE, the first system of force-feedback and Myron Krueger created VIDEOPLACE an Artificial Reality in which the users’ body figures were captured by cameras and projected on a screen ( Krueger et al., 1985 ). In this way two or more users could interact in the 2D-virtual space. In 1982, the US’ Air Force created the first flight simulator [Visually Coupled Airbone System Simulator (VCASS)] in which the pilot through an HMD could control the pathway and the targets. Generally, the 80’s were the years in which the first commercial devices began to emerge: for example, in 1985 the VPL company commercialized the DataGlove, glove sensors’ equipped able to measure the flexion of fingers, orientation and position, and identify hand gestures. Another example is the Eyephone, created in 1988 by the VPL Company, an HMD system for completely immerging the user in a virtual world. At the end of 80’s, Fake Space Labs created a Binocular-Omni-Orientational Monitor (BOOM), a complex system composed by a stereoscopic-displaying device, providing a moving and broad virtual environment, and a mechanical arm tracking. Furthermore, BOOM offered a more stable image and giving more quickly responses to movements than the HMD devices. Thanks to BOOM and DataGlove, the NASA Ames Research Center developed the Virtual Wind Tunnel in order to research and manipulate airflow in a virtual airplane or space ship. In 1992, the Electronic Visualization Laboratory of the University of Illinois created the CAVE Automatic Virtual Environment, an immersive VR system composed by projectors directed on three or more walls of a room.

More recently, many videogames companies have improved the development and quality of VR devices, like Oculus Rift, or HTC Vive that provide a wider field of view and lower latency. In addition, the actual HMD’s devices can be now combined with other tracker system as eye-tracking systems (FOVE), and motion and orientation sensors (e.g., Razer Hydra, Oculus Touch, or HTC Vive).

Simultaneously, at the beginning of 90’, the Boing Corporation created the first prototype of AR system for showing to employees how set up a wiring tool ( Carmigniani et al., 2011 ). At the same time, Rosenberg and Feiner developed an AR fixture for maintenance assistance, showing that the operator performance enhanced by added virtual information on the fixture to repair ( Rosenberg, 1993 ). In 1993 Loomis and colleagues produced an AR GPS-based system for helping the blind in the assisted navigation through adding spatial audio information ( Loomis et al., 1998 ). Always in the 1993 Julie Martin developed “Dancing in Cyberspace,” an AR theater in which actors interacted with virtual object in real time ( Cathy, 2011 ). Few years later, Feiner et al. (1997) developed the first Mobile AR System (MARS) able to add virtual information about touristic buildings ( Feiner et al., 1997 ). Since then, several applications have been developed: in Thomas et al. (2000) , created ARQuake, a mobile AR video game; in 2008 was created Wikitude that through the mobile camera, internet, and GPS could add information about the user’s environments ( Perry, 2008 ). In 2009 others AR applications, like AR Toolkit and SiteLens have been developed in order to add virtual information to the physical user’s surroundings. In 2011, Total Immersion developed D’Fusion, and AR system for designing projects ( Maurugeon, 2011 ). Finally, in 2013 and 2015, Google developed Google Glass and Google HoloLens, and their usability have begun to test in several field of application.

Virtual Reality Technologies

Technologically, the devices used in the virtual environments play an important role in the creation of successful virtual experiences. According to the literature, can be distinguished input and output devices ( Burdea et al., 1996 ; Burdea and Coiffet, 2003 ). Input devices are the ones that allow the user to communicate with the virtual environment, which can range from a simple joystick or keyboard to a glove allowing capturing finger movements or a tracker able to capture postures. More in detail, keyboard, mouse, trackball, and joystick represent the desktop input devices easy to use, which allow the user to launch continuous and discrete commands or movements to the environment. Other input devices can be represented by tracking devices as bend-sensing gloves that capture hand movements, postures and gestures, or pinch gloves that detect the fingers movements, and trackers able to follow the user’s movements in the physical world and translate them in the virtual environment.

On the contrary, the output devices allow the user to see, hear, smell, or touch everything that happens in the virtual environment. As mentioned above, among the visual devices can be found a wide range of possibilities, from the simplest or least immersive (monitor of a computer) to the most immersive one such as VR glasses or helmets or HMD or CAVE systems.

Furthermore, auditory, speakers, as well as haptic output devices are able to stimulate body senses providing a more real virtual experience. For example, haptic devices can stimulate the touch feeling and force models in the user.

Virtual Reality Applications

Since its appearance, VR has been used in different fields, as for gaming ( Zyda, 2005 ; Meldrum et al., 2012 ), military training ( Alexander et al., 2017 ), architectural design ( Song et al., 2017 ), education ( Englund et al., 2017 ), learning and social skills training ( Schmidt et al., 2017 ), simulations of surgical procedures ( Gallagher et al., 2005 ), assistance to the elderly or psychological treatments are other fields in which VR is bursting strongly ( Freeman et al., 2017 ; Neri et al., 2017 ). A recent and extensive review of Slater and Sanchez-Vives (2016) reported the main VR application evidences, including weakness and advantages, in several research areas, such as science, education, training, physical training, as well as social phenomena, moral behaviors, and could be used in other fields, like travel, meetings, collaboration, industry, news, and entertainment. Furthermore, another review published this year by Freeman et al. (2017) focused on VR in mental health, showing the efficacy of VR in assessing and treating different psychological disorders as anxiety, schizophrenia, depression, and eating disorders.

There are many possibilities that allow the use of VR as a stimulus, replacing real stimuli, recreating experiences, which in the real world would be impossible, with a high realism. This is why VR is widely used in research on new ways of applying psychological treatment or training, for example, to problems arising from phobias (agoraphobia, phobia to fly, etc.) ( Botella et al., 2017 ). Or, simply, it is used like improvement of the traditional systems of motor rehabilitation ( Llorens et al., 2014 ; Borrego et al., 2016 ), developing games that ameliorate the tasks. More in detail, in psychological treatment, Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy (VRET) has showed its efficacy, allowing to patients to gradually face fear stimuli or stressed situations in a safe environment where the psychological and physiological reactions can be controlled by the therapist ( Botella et al., 2017 ).

Augmented Reality Concept

Milgram and Kishino (1994) , conceptualized the Virtual-Reality Continuum that takes into consideration four systems: real environment, augmented reality (AR), augmented virtuality, and virtual environment. AR can be defined a newer technological system in which virtual objects are added to the real world in real-time during the user’s experience. Per Azuma et al. (2001) an AR system should: (1) combine real and virtual objects in a real environment; (2) run interactively and in real-time; (3) register real and virtual objects with each other. Furthermore, even if the AR experiences could seem different from VRs, the quality of AR experience could be considered similarly. Indeed, like in VR, feeling of presence, level of realism, and the degree of reality represent the main features that can be considered the indicators of the quality of AR experiences. Higher the experience is perceived as realistic, and there is congruence between the user’s expectation and the interaction inside the AR environments, higher would be the perception of “being there” physically, and at cognitive and emotional level. The feeling of presence, both in AR and VR environments, is important in acting behaviors like the real ones ( Botella et al., 2005 ; Juan et al., 2005 ; Bretón-López et al., 2010 ; Wrzesien et al., 2013 ).

Augmented Reality Technologies

Technologically, the AR systems, however various, present three common components, such as a geospatial datum for the virtual object, like a visual marker, a surface to project virtual elements to the user, and an adequate processing power for graphics, animation, and merging of images, like a pc and a monitor ( Carmigniani et al., 2011 ). To run, an AR system must also include a camera able to track the user movement for merging the virtual objects, and a visual display, like glasses through that the user can see the virtual objects overlaying to the physical world. To date, two-display systems exist, a video see-through (VST) and an optical see-though (OST) AR systems ( Botella et al., 2005 ; Juan et al., 2005 , 2007 ). The first one, disclosures virtual objects to the user by capturing the real objects/scenes with a camera and overlaying virtual objects, projecting them on a video or a monitor, while the second one, merges the virtual object on a transparent surface, like glasses, through the user see the added elements. The main difference between the two systems is the latency: an OST system could require more time to display the virtual objects than a VST system, generating a time lag between user’s action and performance and the detection of them by the system.

Augmented Reality Applications

Although AR is a more recent technology than VR, it has been investigated and used in several research areas such as architecture ( Lin and Hsu, 2017 ), maintenance ( Schwald and De Laval, 2003 ), entertainment ( Ozbek et al., 2004 ), education ( Nincarean et al., 2013 ; Bacca et al., 2014 ; Akçayır and Akçayır, 2017 ), medicine ( De Buck et al., 2005 ), and psychological treatments ( Juan et al., 2005 ; Botella et al., 2005 , 2010 ; Bretón-López et al., 2010 ; Wrzesien et al., 2011a , b , 2013 ; see the review Chicchi Giglioli et al., 2015 ). More in detail, in education several AR applications have been developed in the last few years showing the positive effects of this technology in supporting learning, such as an increased-on content understanding and memory preservation, as well as on learning motivation ( Radu, 2012 , 2014 ). For example, Ibáñez et al. (2014) developed a AR application on electromagnetism concepts’ learning, in which students could use AR batteries, magnets, cables on real superficies, and the system gave a real-time feedback to students about the correctness of the performance, improving in this way the academic success and motivation ( Di Serio et al., 2013 ). Deeply, AR system allows the possibility to learn visualizing and acting on composite phenomena that traditionally students study theoretically, without the possibility to see and test in real world ( Chien et al., 2010 ; Chen et al., 2011 ).

As well in psychological health, the number of research about AR is increasing, showing its efficacy above all in the treatment of psychological disorder (see the reviews Baus and Bouchard, 2014 ; Chicchi Giglioli et al., 2015 ). For example, in the treatment of anxiety disorders, like phobias, AR exposure therapy (ARET) showed its efficacy in one-session treatment, maintaining the positive impact in a follow-up at 1 or 3 month after. As VRET, ARET provides a safety and an ecological environment where any kind of stimulus is possible, allowing to keep control over the situation experienced by the patients, gradually generating situations of fear or stress. Indeed, in situations of fear, like the phobias for small animals, AR applications allow, in accordance with the patient’s anxiety, to gradually expose patient to fear animals, adding new animals during the session or enlarging their or increasing the speed. The various studies showed that AR is able, at the beginning of the session, to activate patient’s anxiety, for reducing after 1 h of exposition. After the session, patients even more than to better manage animal’s fear and anxiety, ware able to approach, interact, and kill real feared animals.

Materials and Methods

Data collection.

The input data for the analyses were retrieved from the scientific database Web of Science Core Collection ( Falagas et al., 2008 ) and the search terms used were “Virtual Reality” and “Augmented Reality” regarding papers published during the whole timespan covered.

Web of science core collection is composed of: Citation Indexes, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) –1970-present, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) –1970-present, Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) –1975-present, Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) –1990-present, Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH) –1990-present, Book Citation Index– Science (BKCI-S) –2009-present, Book Citation Index– Social Sciences & Humanities (BKCI-SSH) –2009-present, Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) –2015-present, Chemical Indexes, Current Chemical Reactions (CCR-EXPANDED) –2009-present (Includes Institut National de la Propriete Industrielle structure data back to 1840), Index Chemicus (IC) –2009-present.

The resultant dataset contained a total of 21,667 records for VR and 9,944 records for AR. The bibliographic record contained various fields, such as author, title, abstract, and all of the references (needed for the citation analysis). The research tool to visualize the networks was Cite space v.4.0.R5 SE (32 bit) ( Chen, 2006 ) under Java Runtime v.8 update 91 (build 1.8.0_91-b15). Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata MP-Parallel Edition, Release 14.0, StataCorp LP. Additional information can be found in Supplementary Data Sheet 1 .

The betweenness centrality of a node in a network measures the extent to which the node is part of paths that connect an arbitrary pair of nodes in the network ( Freeman, 1977 ; Brandes, 2001 ; Chen, 2006 ).

Structural metrics include betweenness centrality, modularity, and silhouette. Temporal and hybrid metrics include citation burstness and novelty. All the algorithms are detailed ( Chen et al., 2010 ).

The analysis of the literature on VR shows a complex panorama. At first sight, according to the document-type statistics from the Web of Science (WoS), proceedings papers were used extensively as outcomes of research, comprising almost 48% of the total (10,392 proceedings), with a similar number of articles on the subject amounting to about 47% of the total of 10, 199 articles. However, if we consider only the last 5 years (7,755 articles representing about 36% of the total), the situation changes with about 57% for articles (4,445) and about 33% for proceedings (2,578). Thus, it is clear that VR field has changed in areas other than at the technological level.

About the subject category, nodes and edges are computed as co-occurring subject categories from the Web of Science “Category” field in all the articles.

According to the subject category statistics from the WoS, computer science is the leading category, followed by engineering, and, together, they account for 15,341 articles, which make up about 71% of the total production. However, if we consider just the last 5 years, these categories reach only about 55%, with a total of 4,284 articles (Table ​ (Table1 1 and Figure ​ Figure1 1 ).

Category statistics from the WoS for the entire period and the last 5 years.

Category from the WoS: network for the last 5 years.

The evidence is very interesting since it highlights that VR is doing very well as new technology with huge interest in hardware and software components. However, with respect to the past, we are witnessing increasing numbers of applications, especially in the medical area. In particular, note its inclusion in the top 10 list of rehabilitation and clinical neurology categories (about 10% of the total production in the last 5 years). It also is interesting that neuroscience and neurology, considered together, have shown an increase from about 12% to about 18.6% over the last 5 years. However, historic areas, such as automation and control systems, imaging science and photographic technology, and robotics, which had accounted for about 14.5% of the total articles ever produced were not even in the top 10 for the last 5 years, with each one accounting for less than 4%.

About the countries, nodes and edges are computed as networks of co-authors countries. Multiple occurrency of a country in the same paper are counted once.

The countries that were very involved in VR research have published for about 47% of the total (10,200 articles altogether). Of the 10,200 articles, the United States, China, England, and Germany published 4921, 2384, 1497, and 1398, respectively. The situation remains the same if we look at the articles published over the last 5 years. However, VR contributions also came from all over the globe, with Japan, Canada, Italy, France, Spain, South Korea, and Netherlands taking positions of prominence, as shown in Figure ​ Figure2 2 .

Country network (node dimension represents centrality).

Network analysis was conducted to calculate and to represent the centrality index ( Freeman, 1977 ; Brandes, 2001 ), i.e., the dimension of the node in Figure ​ Figure2. 2 . The top-ranked country, with a centrality index of 0.26, was the United States (2011), and England was second, with a centrality index of 0.25. The third, fourth, and fifth countries were Germany, Italy, and Australia, with centrality indices of 0.15, 0.15, and 0.14, respectively.

About the Institutions, nodes and edges are computed as networks of co-authors Institutions (Figure ​ (Figure3 3 ).

Network of institutions: the dimensions of the nodes represent centrality.

The top-level institutions in VR were in the United States, where three universities were ranked as the top three in the world for published articles; these universities were the University of Illinois (159), the University of South California (147), and the University of Washington (146). The United States also had the eighth-ranked university, which was Iowa State University (116). The second country in the ranking was Canada, with the University of Toronto, which was ranked fifth with 125 articles and McGill University, ranked 10 th with 103 articles.

Other countries in the top-ten list were Netherlands, with the Delft University of Technology ranked fourth with 129 articles; Italy, with IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, ranked sixth (with the same number of publication of the institution ranked fifth) with 125 published articles; England, which was ranked seventh with 125 articles from the University of London’s Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine; and China with 104 publications, with the Chinese Academy of Science, ranked ninth. Italy’s Istituto Auxologico Italiano, which was ranked fifth, was the only non-university institution ranked in the top-10 list for VR research (Figure ​ (Figure3 3 ).

About the Journals, nodes, and edges are computed as journal co-citation networks among each journals in the corresponding field.

The top-ranked Journals for citations in VR are Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments with 2689 citations and CyberPsychology & Behavior (Cyberpsychol BEHAV) with 1884 citations; however, looking at the last 5 years, the former had increased the citations, but the latter had a far more significant increase, from about 70% to about 90%, i.e., an increase from 1029 to 1147.

Following the top two journals, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications ( IEEE Comput Graph) and Advanced Health Telematics and Telemedicine ( St HEAL T) were both left out of the top-10 list based on the last 5 years. The data for the last 5 years also resulted in the inclusion of Experimental Brain Research ( Exp BRAIN RES) (625 citations), Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ( Arch PHYS MED REHAB) (622 citations), and Plos ONE (619 citations) in the top-10 list of three journals, which highlighted the categories of rehabilitation and clinical neurology and neuroscience and neurology. Journal co-citation analysis is reported in Figure ​ Figure4, 4 , which clearly shows four distinct clusters.

Co-citation network of journals: the dimensions of the nodes represent centrality. Full list of official abbreviations of WoS journals can be found here: https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/A_abrvjt.html .

Network analysis was conducted to calculate and to represent the centrality index, i.e., the dimensions of the nodes in Figure ​ Figure4. 4 . The top-ranked item by centrality was Cyberpsychol BEHAV, with a centrality index of 0.29. The second-ranked item was Arch PHYS MED REHAB, with a centrality index of 0.23. The third was Behaviour Research and Therapy (Behav RES THER), with a centrality index of 0.15. The fourth was BRAIN, with a centrality index of 0.14. The fifth was Exp BRAIN RES, with a centrality index of 0.11.

Who’s Who in VR Research

Authors are the heart and brain of research, and their roles in a field are to define the past, present, and future of disciplines and to make significant breakthroughs to make new ideas arise (Figure ​ (Figure5 5 ).

Network of authors’ numbers of publications: the dimensions of the nodes represent the centrality index, and the dimensions of the characters represent the author’s rank.

Virtual reality research is very young and changing with time, but the top-10 authors in this field have made fundamentally significant contributions as pioneers in VR and taking it beyond a mere technological development. The purpose of the following highlights is not to rank researchers; rather, the purpose is to identify the most active researchers in order to understand where the field is going and how they plan for it to get there.

The top-ranked author is Riva G, with 180 publications. The second-ranked author is Rizzo A, with 101 publications. The third is Darzi A, with 97 publications. The forth is Aggarwal R, with 94 publications. The six authors following these three are Slater M, Alcaniz M, Botella C, Wiederhold BK, Kim SI, and Gutierrez-Maldonado J with 90, 90, 85, 75, 59, and 54 publications, respectively (Figure ​ (Figure6 6 ).

Authors’ co-citation network: the dimensions of the nodes represent centrality index, and the dimensions of the characters represent the author’s rank. The 10 authors that appear on the top-10 list are considered to be the pioneers of VR research.

Considering the last 5 years, the situation remains similar, with three new entries in the top-10 list, i.e., Muhlberger A, Cipresso P, and Ahmed K ranked 7th, 8th, and 10th, respectively.

The authors’ publications number network shows the most active authors in VR research. Another relevant analysis for our focus on VR research is to identify the most cited authors in the field.

For this purpose, the authors’ co-citation analysis highlights the authors in term of their impact on the literature considering the entire time span of the field ( White and Griffith, 1981 ; González-Teruel et al., 2015 ; Bu et al., 2016 ). The idea is to focus on the dynamic nature of the community of authors who contribute to the research.

Normally, authors with higher numbers of citations tend to be the scholars who drive the fundamental research and who make the most meaningful impacts on the evolution and development of the field. In the following, we identified the most-cited pioneers in the field of VR Research.

The top-ranked author by citation count is Gallagher (2001), with 694 citations. Second is Seymour (2004), with 668 citations. Third is Slater (1999), with 649 citations. Fourth is Grantcharov (2003), with 563 citations. Fifth is Riva (1999), with 546 citations. Sixth is Aggarwal (2006), with 505 citations. Seventh is Satava (1994), with 477 citations. Eighth is Witmer (2002), with 454 citations. Ninth is Rothbaum (1996), with 448 citations. Tenth is Cruz-neira (1995), with 416 citations.

Citation Network and Cluster Analyses for VR

Another analysis that can be used is the analysis of document co-citation, which allows us to focus on the highly-cited documents that generally are also the most influential in the domain ( Small, 1973 ; González-Teruel et al., 2015 ; Orosz et al., 2016 ).

The top-ranked article by citation counts is Seymour (2002) in Cluster #0, with 317 citations. The second article is Grantcharov (2004) in Cluster #0, with 286 citations. The third is Holden (2005) in Cluster #2, with 179 citations. The 4th is Gallagher et al. (2005) in Cluster #0, with 171 citations. The 5th is Ahlberg (2007) in Cluster #0, with 142 citations. The 6th is Parsons (2008) in Cluster #4, with 136 citations. The 7th is Powers (2008) in Cluster #4, with 134 citations. The 8th is Aggarwal (2007) in Cluster #0, with 121 citations. The 9th is Reznick (2006) in Cluster #0, with 121 citations. The 10th is Munz (2004) in Cluster #0, with 117 citations.

The network of document co-citations is visually complex (Figure ​ (Figure7) 7 ) because it includes 1000s of articles and the links among them. However, this analysis is very important because can be used to identify the possible conglomerate of knowledge in the area, and this is essential for a deep understanding of the area. Thus, for this purpose, a cluster analysis was conducted ( Chen et al., 2010 ; González-Teruel et al., 2015 ; Klavans and Boyack, 2015 ). Figure ​ Figure8 8 shows the clusters, which are identified with the two algorithms in Table ​ Table2 2 .

Network of document co-citations: the dimensions of the nodes represent centrality, the dimensions of the characters represent the rank of the article rank, and the numbers represent the strengths of the links. It is possible to identify four historical phases (colors: blue, green, yellow, and red) from the past VR research to the current research.

Document co-citation network by cluster: the dimensions of the nodes represent centrality, the dimensions of the characters represent the rank of the article rank and the red writing reports the name of the cluster with a short description that was produced with the mutual information algorithm; the clusters are identified with colored polygons.

Cluster ID and silhouettes as identified with two algorithms ( Chen et al., 2010 ).

The identified clusters highlight clear parts of the literature of VR research, making clear and visible the interdisciplinary nature of this field. However, the dynamics to identify the past, present, and future of VR research cannot be clear yet. We analysed the relationships between these clusters and the temporal dimensions of each article. The results are synthesized in Figure ​ Figure9. 9 . It is clear that cluster #0 (laparoscopic skill), cluster #2 (gaming and rehabilitation), cluster #4 (therapy), and cluster #14 (surgery) are the most popular areas of VR research. (See Figure ​ Figure9 9 and Table ​ Table2 2 to identify the clusters.) From Figure ​ Figure9, 9 , it also is possible to identify the first phase of laparoscopic skill (cluster #6) and therapy (cluster #7). More generally, it is possible to identify four historical phases (colors: blue, green, yellow, and red) from the past VR research to the current research.

Network of document co-citation: the dimensions of the nodes represent centrality, the dimensions of the characters represent the rank of the article rank and the red writing on the right hand side reports the number of the cluster, such as in Table ​ Table2, 2 , with a short description that was extracted accordingly.

We were able to identify the top 486 references that had the most citations by using burst citations algorithm. Citation burst is an indicator of a most active area of research. Citation burst is a detection of a burst event, which can last for multiple years as well as a single year. A citation burst provides evidence that a particular publication is associated with a surge of citations. The burst detection was based on Kleinberg’s algorithm ( Kleinberg, 2002 , 2003 ). The top-ranked document by bursts is Seymour (2002) in Cluster #0, with bursts of 88.93. The second is Grantcharov (2004) in Cluster #0, with bursts of 51.40. The third is Saposnik (2010) in Cluster #2, with bursts of 40.84. The fourth is Rothbaum (1995) in Cluster #7, with bursts of 38.94. The fifth is Holden (2005) in Cluster #2, with bursts of 37.52. The sixth is Scott (2000) in Cluster #0, with bursts of 33.39. The seventh is Saposnik (2011) in Cluster #2, with bursts of 33.33. The eighth is Burdea et al. (1996) in Cluster #3, with bursts of 32.42. The ninth is Burdea and Coiffet (2003) in Cluster #22, with bursts of 31.30. The 10th is Taffinder (1998) in Cluster #6, with bursts of 30.96 (Table ​ (Table3 3 ).

Cluster ID and references of burst article.

Citation Network and Cluster Analyses for AR

Looking at Augmented Reality scenario, the top ranked item by citation counts is Azuma (1997) in Cluster #0, with citation counts of 231. The second one is Azuma et al. (2001) in Cluster #0, with citation counts of 220. The third is Van Krevelen (2010) in Cluster #5, with citation counts of 207. The 4th is Lowe (2004) in Cluster #1, with citation counts of 157. The 5th is Wu (2013) in Cluster #4, with citation counts of 144. The 6th is Dunleavy (2009) in Cluster #4, with citation counts of 122. The 7th is Zhou (2008) in Cluster #5, with citation counts of 118. The 8th is Bay (2008) in Cluster #1, with citation counts of 117. The 9th is Newcombe (2011) in Cluster #1, with citation counts of 109. The 10th is Carmigniani et al. (2011) in Cluster #5, with citation counts of 104.

The network of document co-citations is visually complex (Figure ​ (Figure10) 10 ) because it includes 1000s of articles and the links among them. However, this analysis is very important because can be used to identify the possible conglomerate of knowledge in the area, and this is essential for a deep understanding of the area. Thus, for this purpose, a cluster analysis was conducted ( Chen et al., 2010 ; González-Teruel et al., 2015 ; Klavans and Boyack, 2015 ). Figure ​ Figure11 11 shows the clusters, which are identified with the two algorithms in Table ​ Table3 3 .

Network of document co-citations: the dimensions of the nodes represent centrality, the dimensions of the characters represent the rank of the article rank, and the numbers represent the strengths of the links. It is possible to identify four historical phases (colors: blue, green, yellow, and red) from the past AR research to the current research.

The identified clusters highlight clear parts of the literature of AR research, making clear and visible the interdisciplinary nature of this field. However, the dynamics to identify the past, present, and future of AR research cannot be clear yet. We analysed the relationships between these clusters and the temporal dimensions of each article. The results are synthesized in Figure ​ Figure12. 12 . It is clear that cluster #1 (tracking), cluster #4 (education), and cluster #5 (virtual city environment) are the current areas of AR research. (See Figure ​ Figure12 12 and Table ​ Table3 3 to identify the clusters.) It is possible to identify four historical phases (colors: blue, green, yellow, and red) from the past AR research to the current research.

We were able to identify the top 394 references that had the most citations by using burst citations algorithm. Citation burst is an indicator of a most active area of research. Citation burst is a detection of a burst event, which can last for multiple years as well as a single year. A citation burst provides evidence that a particular publication is associated with a surge of citations. The burst detection was based on Kleinberg’s algorithm ( Kleinberg, 2002 , 2003 ). The top ranked document by bursts is Azuma (1997) in Cluster #0, with bursts of 101.64. The second one is Azuma et al. (2001) in Cluster #0, with bursts of 84.23. The third is Lowe (2004) in Cluster #1, with bursts of 64.07. The 4th is Van Krevelen (2010) in Cluster #5, with bursts of 50.99. The 5th is Wu (2013) in Cluster #4, with bursts of 47.23. The 6th is Hartley (2000) in Cluster #0, with bursts of 37.71. The 7th is Dunleavy (2009) in Cluster #4, with bursts of 33.22. The 8th is Kato (1999) in Cluster #0, with bursts of 32.16. The 9th is Newcombe (2011) in Cluster #1, with bursts of 29.72. The 10th is Feiner (1993) in Cluster #8, with bursts of 29.46 (Table ​ (Table4 4 ).

Our findings have profound implications for two reasons. At first the present work highlighted the evolution and development of VR and AR research and provided a clear perspective based on solid data and computational analyses. Secondly our findings on VR made it profoundly clear that the clinical dimension is one of the most investigated ever and seems to increase in quantitative and qualitative aspects, but also include technological development and article in computer science, engineer, and allied sciences.

Figure ​ Figure9 9 clarifies the past, present, and future of VR research. The outset of VR research brought a clearly-identifiable development in interfaces for children and medicine, routine use and behavioral-assessment, special effects, systems perspectives, and tutorials. This pioneering era evolved in the period that we can identify as the development era, because it was the period in which VR was used in experiments associated with new technological impulses. Not surprisingly, this was exactly concomitant with the new economy era in which significant investments were made in information technology, and it also was the era of the so-called ‘dot-com bubble’ in the late 1990s. The confluence of pioneering techniques into ergonomic studies within this development era was used to develop the first effective clinical systems for surgery, telemedicine, human spatial navigation, and the first phase of the development of therapy and laparoscopic skills. With the new millennium, VR research switched strongly toward what we can call the clinical-VR era, with its strong emphasis on rehabilitation, neurosurgery, and a new phase of therapy and laparoscopic skills. The number of applications and articles that have been published in the last 5 years are in line with the new technological development that we are experiencing at the hardware level, for example, with so many new, HMDs, and at the software level with an increasing number of independent programmers and VR communities.

Finally, Figure ​ Figure12 12 identifies clusters of the literature of AR research, making clear and visible the interdisciplinary nature of this field. The dynamics to identify the past, present, and future of AR research cannot be clear yet, but analyzing the relationships between these clusters and the temporal dimensions of each article tracking, education, and virtual city environment are the current areas of AR research. AR is a new technology that is showing its efficacy in different research fields, and providing a novel way to gather behavioral data and support learning, training, and clinical treatments.

Looking at scientific literature conducted in the last few years, it might appear that most developments in VR and AR studies have focused on clinical aspects. However, the reality is more complex; thus, this perception should be clarified. Although researchers publish studies on the use of VR in clinical settings, each study depends on the technologies available. Industrial development in VR and AR changed a lot in the last 10 years. In the past, the development involved mainly hardware solutions while nowadays, the main efforts pertain to the software when developing virtual solutions. Hardware became a commodity that is often available at low cost. On the other hand, software needs to be customized each time, per each experiment, and this requires huge efforts in term of development. Researchers in AR and VR today need to be able to adapt software in their labs.

Virtual reality and AR developments in this new clinical era rely on computer science and vice versa. The future of VR and AR is becoming more technological than before, and each day, new solutions and products are coming to the market. Both from software and hardware perspectives, the future of AR and VR depends on huge innovations in all fields. The gap between the past and the future of AR and VR research is about the “realism” that was the key aspect in the past versus the “interaction” that is the key aspect now. First 30 years of VR and AR consisted of a continuous research on better resolution and improved perception. Now, researchers already achieved a great resolution and need to focus on making the VR as realistic as possible, which is not simple. In fact, a real experience implies a realistic interaction and not just great resolution. Interactions can be improved in infinite ways through new developments at hardware and software levels.

Interaction in AR and VR is going to be “embodied,” with implication for neuroscientists that are thinking about new solutions to be implemented into the current systems ( Blanke et al., 2015 ; Riva, 2018 ; Riva et al., 2018 ). For example, the use of hands with contactless device (i.e., without gloves) makes the interaction in virtual environments more natural. The Leap Motion device 1 allows one to use of hands in VR without the use of gloves or markers. This simple and low-cost device allows the VR users to interact with virtual objects and related environments in a naturalistic way. When technology is able to be transparent, users can experience increased sense of being in the virtual environments (the so-called sense of presence).

Other forms of interactions are possible and have been developing continuously. For example, tactile and haptic device able to provide a continuous feedback to the users, intensifying their experience also by adding components, such as the feeling of touch and the physical weight of virtual objects, by using force feedback. Another technology available at low cost that facilitates interaction is the motion tracking system, such as Microsoft Kinect, for example. Such technology allows one to track the users’ bodies, allowing them to interact with the virtual environments using body movements, gestures, and interactions. Most HMDs use an embedded system to track HMD position and rotation as well as controllers that are generally placed into the user’s hands. This tracking allows a great degree of interaction and improves the overall virtual experience.

A final emerging approach is the use of digital technologies to simulate not only the external world but also the internal bodily signals ( Azevedo et al., 2017 ; Riva et al., 2017 ): interoception, proprioception and vestibular input. For example, Riva et al. (2017) recently introduced the concept of “sonoception” ( www.sonoception.com ), a novel non-invasive technological paradigm based on wearable acoustic and vibrotactile transducers able to alter internal bodily signals. This approach allowed the development of an interoceptive stimulator that is both able to assess interoceptive time perception in clinical patients ( Di Lernia et al., 2018b ) and to enhance heart rate variability (the short-term vagally mediated component—rMSSD) through the modulation of the subjects’ parasympathetic system ( Di Lernia et al., 2018a ).

In this scenario, it is clear that the future of VR and AR research is not just in clinical applications, although the implications for the patients are huge. The continuous development of VR and AR technologies is the result of research in computer science, engineering, and allied sciences. The reasons for which from our analyses emerged a “clinical era” are threefold. First, all clinical research on VR and AR includes also technological developments, and new technological discoveries are being published in clinical or technological journals but with clinical samples as main subject. As noted in our research, main journals that publish numerous articles on technological developments tested with both healthy and patients include Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, Cyberpsychology & Behavior (Cyberpsychol BEHAV), and IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (IEEE Comput Graph). It is clear that researchers in psychology, neuroscience, medicine, and behavioral sciences in general have been investigating whether the technological developments of VR and AR are effective for users, indicating that clinical behavioral research has been incorporating large parts of computer science and engineering. A second aspect to consider is the industrial development. In fact, once a new technology is envisioned and created it goes for a patent application. Once the patent is sent for registration the new technology may be made available for the market, and eventually for journal submission and publication. Moreover, most VR and AR research that that proposes the development of a technology moves directly from the presenting prototype to receiving the patent and introducing it to the market without publishing the findings in scientific paper. Hence, it is clear that if a new technology has been developed for industrial market or consumer, but not for clinical purpose, the research conducted to develop such technology may never be published in a scientific paper. Although our manuscript considered published researches, we have to acknowledge the existence of several researches that have not been published at all. The third reason for which our analyses highlighted a “clinical era” is that several articles on VR and AR have been considered within the Web of Knowledge database, that is our source of references. In this article, we referred to “research” as the one in the database considered. Of course, this is a limitation of our study, since there are several other databases that are of big value in the scientific community, such as IEEE Xplore Digital Library, ACM Digital Library, and many others. Generally, the most important articles in journals published in these databases are also included in the Web of Knowledge database; hence, we are convinced that our study considered the top-level publications in computer science or engineering. Accordingly, we believe that this limitation can be overcome by considering the large number of articles referenced in our research.

Considering all these aspects, it is clear that clinical applications, behavioral aspects, and technological developments in VR and AR research are parts of a more complex situation compared to the old platforms used before the huge diffusion of HMD and solutions. We think that this work might provide a clearer vision for stakeholders, providing evidence of the current research frontiers and the challenges that are expected in the future, highlighting all the connections and implications of the research in several fields, such as clinical, behavioral, industrial, entertainment, educational, and many others.

Author Contributions

PC and GR conceived the idea. PC made data extraction and the computational analyses and wrote the first draft of the article. IG revised the introduction adding important information for the article. PC, IG, MR, and GR revised the article and approved the last version of the article after important input to the article rationale.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer GC declared a shared affiliation, with no collaboration, with the authors PC and GR to the handling Editor at the time of the review.

1 https://www.leapmotion.com/

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02086/full#supplementary-material

• Akçayır M., Akçayır G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: a systematic review of the literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 20 1–11. 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alexander T., Westhoven M., Conradi J. (2017). “Virtual environments for competency-oriented education and training,” in Advances in Human Factors, Business Management, Training and Education , (Berlin: Springer International Publishing; ), 23–29. 10.1007/978-3-319-42070-7_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andersen S. M., Thorpe J. S. (2009). An if–thEN theory of personality: significant others and the relational self. J. Res. Pers. 43 163–170. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.040 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azevedo R. T., Bennett N., Bilicki A., Hooper J., Markopoulou F., Tsakiris M. (2017). The calming effect of a new wearable device during the anticipation of public speech. Sci. Rep. 7 : 2285 . 10.1038/s41598-017-02274-2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Azuma R., Baillot Y., Behringer R., Feiner S., Julier S., MacIntyre B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comp. Graph. Appl. 21 34–47. 10.1109/38.963459 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bacca J., Baldiris S., Fabregat R., Graf S. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: a systematic review of research and applications. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 17 133 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailenson J. N., Yee N., Merget D., Schroeder R. (2006). The effect of behavioral realism and form realism of real-time avatar faces on verbal disclosure, nonverbal disclosure, emotion recognition, and copresence in dyadic interaction. Presence 15 359–372. 10.1162/pres.15.4.359 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baños R. M., Botella C., Garcia-Palacios A., Villa H., Perpiñá C., Alcaniz M. (2000). Presence and reality judgment in virtual environments: a unitary construct? Cyberpsychol. Behav. 3 327–335. 10.1089/10949310050078760 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baños R., Botella C., García-Palacios A., Villa H., Perpiñá C., Gallardo M. (2009). Psychological variables and reality judgment in virtual environments: the roles of absorption and dissociation. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 2 143–148. 10.1089/cpb.1999.2.143 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baus O., Bouchard S. (2014). Moving from virtual reality exposure-based therapy to augmented reality exposure-based therapy: a review. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8 : 112 . 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00112 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biocca F. (1997). The cyborg’s dilemma: progressive embodiment in virtual environments. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 3 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Biocca F., Harms C., Gregg J. (2001). “The networked minds measure of social presence: pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity,” in 4th Annual International Workshop on Presence , Philadelphia, PA, 1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blanke O., Slater M., Serino A. (2015). Behavioral, neural, and computational principles of bodily self-consciousness. Neuron 88 145–166. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.029 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bohil C. J., Alicea B., Biocca F. A. (2011). Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 12 : 752 . 10.1038/nrn3122 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borrego A., Latorre J., Llorens R., Alcañiz M., Noé E. (2016). Feasibility of a walking virtual reality system for rehabilitation: objective and subjective parameters. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 13 : 68 . 10.1186/s12984-016-0174-171 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Botella C., Bretón-López J., Quero S., Baños R. M., García-Palacios A. (2010). Treating cockroach phobia with augmented reality. Behav. Ther. 41 401–413. 10.1016/j.beth.2009.07.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Botella C., Fernández-Álvarez J., Guillén V., García-Palacios A., Baños R. (2017). Recent progress in virtual reality exposure therapy for phobias: a systematic review. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 19 : 42 . 10.1007/s11920-017-0788-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Botella C. M., Juan M. C., Baños R. M., Alcañiz M., Guillén V., Rey B. (2005). Mixing realities? An application of augmented reality for the treatment of cockroach phobia. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 8 162–171. 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.162 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brandes U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. J. Math. Sociol. 25 163–177. 10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bretón-López J., Quero S., Botella C., García-Palacios A., Baños R. M., Alcañiz M. (2010). An augmented reality system validation for the treatment of cockroach phobia. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 13 705–710. 10.1089/cyber.2009.0170 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown A., Green T. (2016). Virtual reality: low-cost tools and resources for the classroom. TechTrends 60 517–519. 10.1007/s11528-016-0102-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bu Y., Liu T. Y., Huang W. B. (2016). MACA: a modified author co-citation analysis method combined with general descriptive metadata of citations. Scientometrics 108 143–166. 10.1007/s11192-016-1959-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burdea G., Richard P., Coiffet P. (1996). Multimodal virtual reality: input-output devices, system integration, and human factors. Int. J. Hum. Compu. Interact. 8 5–24. 10.1080/10447319609526138 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burdea G. C., Coiffet P. (2003). Virtual Reality Technology Vol. 1 Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carmigniani J., Furht B., Anisetti M., Ceravolo P., Damiani E., Ivkovic M. (2011). Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimed. Tools Appl. 51 341–377. 10.1007/s11042-010-0660-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castelvecchi D. (2016). Low-cost headsets boost virtual reality’s lab appeal. Nature 533 153–154. 10.1038/533153a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cathy (2011). The History of Augmented Reality. The Optical Vision Site. Available at: http://www.theopticalvisionsite.com/history-of-eyewear/the-history-of-augmented-reality/#.UelAUmeAOyA [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen C. (2006). CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 57 359–377. 10.1002/asi.20317 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen C., Ibekwe-SanJuan F., Hou J. (2010). The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: a multipleperspective cocitation analysis. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 61 1386–1409. 10.1002/jez.b.22741 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Y. C., Chi H. L., Hung W. H., Kang S. C. (2011). Use of tangible and augmented reality models in engineering graphics courses. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 137 267–276. 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000078 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chicchi Giglioli I. A., Pallavicini F., Pedroli E., Serino S., Riva G. (2015). Augmented reality: a brand new challenge for the assessment and treatment of psychological disorders. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2015 : 862942 . 10.1155/2015/862942 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chien C. H., Chen C. H., Jeng T. S. (2010). “An interactive augmented reality system for learning anatomy structure,” in Proceedings of the International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists , Vol. 1 (Hong Kong: International Association of Engineers; ), 17–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi S., Jung K., Noh S. D. (2015). Virtual reality applications in manufacturing industries: past research, present findings, and future directions. Concurr. Eng. 23 40–63. 10.1177/1063293X14568814 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cipresso P. (2015). Modeling behavior dynamics using computational psychometrics within virtual worlds. Front. Psychol. 6 : 1725 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01725 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cipresso P., Serino S. (2014). Virtual Reality: Technologies, Medical Applications and Challenges. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cipresso P., Serino S., Riva G. (2016). Psychometric assessment and behavioral experiments using a free virtual reality platform and computational science. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 16 : 37 . 10.1186/s12911-016-0276-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cruz-Neira C. (1993). “Virtual reality overview,” in SIGGRAPH 93 Course Notes 21st International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Orange County Convention Center , Orlando, FL. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Buck S., Maes F., Ector J., Bogaert J., Dymarkowski S., Heidbuchel H., et al. (2005). An augmented reality system for patient-specific guidance of cardiac catheter ablation procedures. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 24 1512–1524. 10.1109/TMI.2005.857661 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Lernia D., Cipresso P., Pedroli E., Riva G. (2018a). Toward an embodied medicine: a portable device with programmable interoceptive stimulation for heart rate variability enhancement. Sensors (Basel) 18 : 2469 . 10.3390/s18082469 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Lernia D., Serino S., Pezzulo G., Pedroli E., Cipresso P., Riva G. (2018b). Feel the time. Time perception as a function of interoceptive processing. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12 : 74 . 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00074 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Serio Á., Ibáñez M. B., Kloos C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Comput. Educ. 68 586–596. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebert C. (2015). Looking into the future. IEEE Softw. 32 92–97. 10.1109/MS.2015.142 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Englund C., Olofsson A. D., Price L. (2017). Teaching with technology in higher education: understanding conceptual change and development in practice. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 36 73–87. 10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Falagas M. E., Pitsouni E. I., Malietzis G. A., Pappas G. (2008). Comparison of pubmed, scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 22 338–342. 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feiner S., MacIntyre B., Hollerer T., Webster A. (1997). “A touring machine: prototyping 3D mobile augmented reality systems for exploring the urban environment,” in Digest of Papers. First International Symposium on Wearable Computers , (Cambridge, MA: IEEE; ), 74–81. 10.1109/ISWC.1997.629922 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman D., Reeve S., Robinson A., Ehlers A., Clark D., Spanlang B., et al. (2017). Virtual reality in the assessment, understanding, and treatment of mental health disorders. Psychol. Med. 47 2393–2400. 10.1017/S003329171700040X [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40 35–41. 10.2307/3033543 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuchs H., Bishop G. (1992). Research Directions in Virtual Environments. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallagher A. G., Ritter E. M., Champion H., Higgins G., Fried M. P., Moses G., et al. (2005). Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann. Surg. 241 : 364 . 10.1097/01.sla.0000151982.85062.80 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigante M. A. (1993). Virtual reality: definitions, history and applications. Virtual Real. Syst. 3–14. 10.1016/B978-0-12-227748-1.50009-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• González-Teruel A., González-Alcaide G., Barrios M., Abad-García M. F. (2015). Mapping recent information behavior research: an analysis of co-authorship and co-citation networks. Scientometrics 103 687–705. 10.1007/s11192-015-1548-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heeter C. (1992). Being there: the subjective experience of presence. Presence 1 262–271. 10.1162/pres.1992.1.2.262 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heeter C. (2000). Interactivity in the context of designed experiences. J. Interact. Adv. 1 3–14. 10.1080/15252019.2000.10722040 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilig M. (1962). Sensorama simulator . U.S. Patent No - 3, 870. Virginia: United States Patent and Trade Office. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ibáñez M. B., Di Serio Á., Villarán D., Kloos C. D. (2014). Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Comput. Educ. 71 1–13. 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Juan M. C., Alcañiz M., Calatrava J., Zaragozá I., Baños R., Botella C. (2007). “An optical see-through augmented reality system for the treatment of phobia to small animals,” in Virtual Reality, HCII 2007 Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 4563 ed. Schumaker R. (Berlin: Springer; ), 651–659. [ Google Scholar ]
• Juan M. C., Alcaniz M., Monserrat C., Botella C., Baños R. M., Guerrero B. (2005). Using augmented reality to treat phobias. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 25 31–37. 10.1109/MCG.2005.143 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim G. J. (2005). A SWOT analysis of the field of virtual reality rehabilitation and therapy. Presence 14 119–146. 10.1162/1054746053967094 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klavans R., Boyack K. W. (2015). Which type of citation analysis generates the most accurate taxonomy of scientific and technical knowledge? J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 68 984–998. 10.1002/asi.23734 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleinberg J. (2002). “Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams,” in Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; 2002; Edmonton , Alberta, NT: 10.1145/775047.775061 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kleinberg J. (2003). Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 7 373–397. 10.1023/A:1024940629314 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korolov M. (2014). The real risks of virtual reality. Risk Manag. 61 20–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger M. W., Gionfriddo T., Hinrichsen K. (1985). “Videoplace—an artificial reality,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Bulletin Vol. 16 New York, NY: ACM, 35–40. 10.1145/317456.317463 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin C. H., Hsu P. H. (2017). “Integrating procedural modelling process and immersive VR environment for architectural design education,” in MATEC Web of Conferences Vol. 104 Les Ulis: EDP Sciences; 10.1051/matecconf/201710403007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Llorens R., Noé E., Ferri J., Alcañiz M. (2014). Virtual reality-based telerehabilitation program for balance recovery. A pilot study in hemiparetic individuals with acquired brain injury. Brain Inj. 28 : 169 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Lombard M., Ditton T. (1997). At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 3 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loomis J. M., Blascovich J. J., Beall A. C. (1999). Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behav. Res. Methods Instr. Comput. 31 557–564. 10.3758/BF03200735 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loomis J. M., Golledge R. G., Klatzky R. L. (1998). Navigation system for the blind: auditory display modes and guidance. Presence 7 193–203. 10.1162/105474698565677 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luckerson V. (2014). Facebook Buying Oculus Virtual-Reality Company for $2 Billion. Available at: http://time.com/37842/facebook-oculus-rift [ Google Scholar ]
• Maurugeon G. (2011). New D’Fusion Supports iPhone4S and 3DSMax 2012. Available at: http://www.t-immersion.com/blog/2011-12-07/augmented-reality-dfusion-iphone-3dsmax [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazuryk T., Gervautz M. (1996). Virtual Reality-History, Applications, Technology and Future. Vienna: Institute of Computer Graphics Vienna University of Technology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meldrum D., Glennon A., Herdman S., Murray D., McConn-Walsh R. (2012). Virtual reality rehabilitation of balance: assessment of the usability of the nintendo Wii ® fit plus. Disabil. Rehabil. 7 205–210. 10.3109/17483107.2011.616922 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milgram P., Kishino F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inform. Syst. 77 1321–1329. [ Google Scholar ]
• Minderer M., Harvey C. D., Donato F., Moser E. I. (2016). Neuroscience: virtual reality explored. Nature 533 324–325. 10.1038/nature17899 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neri S. G., Cardoso J. R., Cruz L., Lima R. M., de Oliveira R. J., Iversen M. D., et al. (2017). Do virtual reality games improve mobility skills and balance measurements in community-dwelling older adults? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Rehabil. 31 1292–1304. 10.1177/0269215517694677 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nincarean D., Alia M. B., Halim N. D. A., Rahman M. H. A. (2013). Mobile augmented reality: the potential for education. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 103 657–664. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.385 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orosz K., Farkas I. J., Pollner P. (2016). Quantifying the changing role of past publications. Scientometrics 108 829–853. 10.1007/s11192-016-1971-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozbek C. S., Giesler B., Dillmann R. (2004). “Jedi training: playful evaluation of head-mounted augmented reality display systems,” in Proceedings of SPIE. The International Society for Optical Engineering Vol. 5291 eds Norwood R. A., Eich M., Kuzyk M. G. (Denver, CO: ), 454–463. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry S. (2008). Wikitude: Android App with Augmented Reality: Mind Blow-Ing. Digital Lifestyles. [ Google Scholar ]
• Radu I. (2012). “Why should my students use AR? A comparative review of the educational impacts of augmented-reality,” in Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2012 IEEE International Symposium on , (IEEE) , 313–314. 10.1109/ISMAR.2012.6402590 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Radu I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 18 1533–1543. 10.1007/s00779-013-0747-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riva G. (2018). The neuroscience of body memory: From the self through the space to the others. Cortex 104 241–260. 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.07.013 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riva G., Gaggioli A., Grassi A., Raspelli S., Cipresso P., Pallavicini F., et al. (2011). NeuroVR 2-A free virtual reality platform for the assessment and treatment in behavioral health care. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 163 493–495. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riva G., Serino S., Di Lernia D., Pavone E. F., Dakanalis A. (2017). Embodied medicine: mens sana in corpore virtuale sano. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11 : 120 . 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00120 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riva G., Wiederhold B. K., Mantovani F. (2018). Neuroscience of virtual reality: from virtual exposure to embodied medicine. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 10.1089/cyber.2017.29099.gri [Epub ahead of print]. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenberg L. (1993). “The use of virtual fixtures to enhance telemanipulation with time delay,” in Proceedings of the ASME Winter Anual Meeting on Advances in Robotics, Mechatronics, and Haptic Interfaces Vol. 49 (New Orleans, LA: ), 29–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt M., Beck D., Glaser N., Schmidt C. (2017). “A prototype immersive, multi-user 3D virtual learning environment for individuals with autism to learn social and life skills: a virtuoso DBR update,” in International Conference on Immersive Learning , Cham: Springer, 185–188. 10.1007/978-3-319-60633-0_15 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwald B., De Laval B. (2003). An augmented reality system for training and assistance to maintenance in the industrial context. J. WSCG 11 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Serino S., Cipresso P., Morganti F., Riva G. (2014). The role of egocentric and allocentric abilities in Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review. Ageing Res. Rev. 16 32–44. 10.1016/j.arr.2014.04.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skalski P., Tamborini R. (2007). The role of social presence in interactive agent-based persuasion. Media Psychol. 10 385–413. 10.1080/15213260701533102 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slater M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364 3549–3557. 10.1098/rstb.2009.0138 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slater M., Sanchez-Vives M. V. (2016). Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Front. Robot. AI 3 : 74 10.3389/frobt.2016.00074 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Small H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 24 265–269. 10.1002/asi.4630240406 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Song H., Chen F., Peng Q., Zhang J., Gu P. (2017). Improvement of user experience using virtual reality in open-architecture product design. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. B J. Eng. Manufact. 232 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Sundar S. S., Xu Q., Bellur S. (2010). “Designing interactivity in media interfaces: a communications perspective,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , (Boston, MA: ACM; ), 2247–2256. 10.1145/1753326.1753666 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutherland I. E. (1965). The Ultimate Display. Multimedia: From Wagner to Virtual Reality. New York, NY: Norton. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutherland I. E. (1968). “A head-mounted three dimensional display,” in Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I , (ACM) , 757–764. 10.1145/1476589.1476686 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas B., Close B., Donoghue J., Squires J., De Bondi P., Morris M., et al. (2000). “ARQuake: an outdoor/indoor augmented reality first person application,” in Digest of Papers. Fourth International Symposium on Wearable Computers , (Atlanta, GA: IEEE; ), 139–146. 10.1109/ISWC.2000.888480 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ware C., Arthur K., Booth K. S. (1993). “Fish tank virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , (Amsterdam: ACM; ), 37–42. 10.1145/169059.169066 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wexelblat A. (ed.) (2014). Virtual Reality: Applications and Explorations. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• White H. D., Griffith B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 32 163–171. 10.1002/asi.4630320302 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrzesien M., Alcañiz M., Botella C., Burkhardt J. M., Bretón-López J., Ortega M., et al. (2013). The therapeutic lamp: treating small-animal phobias. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 33 80–86. 10.1109/MCG.2013.12 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrzesien M., Burkhardt J. M., Alcañiz M., Botella C. (2011a). How technology influences the therapeutic process: a comparative field evaluation of augmented reality and in vivo exposure therapy for phobia of small animals. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2011 523–540. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrzesien M., Burkhardt J. M., Alcañiz Raya M., Botella C. (2011b). “Mixing psychology and HCI in evaluation of augmented reality mental health technology,” in CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems , (Vancouver, BC: ACM; ), 2119–2124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zyda M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer 38 25–32. 10.1109/MC.2005.297 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

MINI REVIEW article

The impact of virtual reality on student engagement in the classroom–a critical review of the literature.

• 1 Faculty of Education, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand
• 2 Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
• 3 Graduate Department, Xi’an Physical Education University, Xi’an, China
• 4 College of Commerce and Tourism, Hunan Vocational College for Nationalities, Yueyang, China
• 5 Graduate Department, Sehan University, Yeongam County, Republic of Korea

Objective: The purpose of this review is to identify the impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on student engagement, specifically cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement, and affective engagement.

Methods: A comprehensive search of databases such as Google, Scopus, and Elsevier was conducted to identify English-language articles related to VR and classroom engagement for the period from 2014 to 2023. After systematic screening, 33 articles were finally reviewed.

Results: The use of VR in the classroom is expected to improve student engagement and learning outcomes, and is particularly effective for students with learning disabilities. However, introducing VR into middle school education poses several challenges, including difficulties in the education system to keep up with VR developments, increased demands on students’ digital literacy, and insufficient proficiency of teachers in using VR.

Conclusion: To effectively utilize VR to increase student engagement, we advocate for educational policymakers to provide training and technical support to teachers to ensure that they can fully master and integrate VR to increase student engagement and instructional effectiveness.

Introduction

In recent years, virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a transformative technology in education, providing new avenues for immersive and interactive learning experiences ( Pottle, 2019 ). At its core, VR offers a departure from the tangible, allowing users to delve into an environment transcending conventional reality ( Brooks, 1999 ; Jeong et al., 2019 ). VR’s essence is captured in three pillars: presence, interactivity, and immersion ( Lee et al., 2017 ). Presence grants users access to previously unreachable 3D landscapes, facilitating a unique, experiential insight ( Poux et al., 2020 ). Interactivity kindles user curiosity, enabling dynamic engagements within the virtual milieu ( Steuer et al. 1995 ; Huvila, 2013 ; Song et al., 2023 ). Immersion pushes the boundaries of conventional experiences, reviving or manifesting phenomena outside the realm of everyday life ( Sanchez-Vives and Slater, 2005 ; Poux et al., 2020 ).

The introduction of VR in education might increase student engagement, which is closely related to the cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions of the engagement model ( Wang and Degol, 2014 ). Cognitive engagement underscores the depth of students’ attention, comprehension, and retention ( Wang and Degol, 2014 ). Behavioral engagement is observable, characterized by consistent attendance and active classroom participation ( Wang and Degol, 2014 ). Affective engagement delves into the emotional realm, encompassing motivation, passion, and learning efficacy ( Wang and Degol, 2014 ).

Existing literature emphasizes the importance of virtual reality technology in promoting full student engagement in cognitive, behavioral, and affective dimensions, and states that the application of virtual reality technology in education has become a trend ( Mystakidis et al., 2021 ). Some literature shows that higher education institutions are increasingly adopting VR, with adoption rates as high as 46% at US universities and 96% at United Kingdom universities ( United Kingdom Authority, 2019 ; Agbo et al., 2021 ). In addition, the establishment of dedicated VR laboratories at leading universities such as Harvard University and Colorado State University underscores the commitment to using VR for educational innovation and advancement ( Reid, 1987 ; Leidner and Jarvenpaa, 1995 ). This literature shows that the widespread use of VR in education has attracted the attention of a growing number of researchers and educators, with a particular interest in the impact of VR in the classroom in terms of students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement.

It is worth noting that although existing literature begins to discuss the impact of VR on student engagement, there are still shortcomings in determining the impact of VR on various dimensions of student engagement, which may limit our overall understanding of the topic. Therefore, further discussion is needed to more specifically identify the impact of VR on the various dimensions of student engagement to gain a more comprehensive and concrete understanding. To accomplish this, this review is guided by the following three questions: (1) What are the positive impacts of VR in education? (2) What are the challenges of VR in education? (3) What interventions can address these challenges? With this in mind, the article will first discuss the positive impact of VR on students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement to help readers understand its potential in education. It will then discuss the challenges facing VR to make constructive recommendations to address the problems in education.

Searching strategy

In our methods, we used critical review. According to Grant and Booth (2009) “an effective critical review presents, analyses and synthesizes material from diverse sources”(p.93). Critical perspectives were used to assess the potential of VR in reforming educational practices and improving teaching and learning outcomes. The purpose of this article was to collect literature on the impact of VR on student engagement. Therefore, this article summarizes the previous studies as follows. First, information was obtained from Google, Scopus, and Elsevier databases: “virtual reality,” “cognitive engagement,” “affective engagement,” “behavioral engagement” and “learning outcomes.” The search was limited to articles published between January 2014 and December 2023 in English. The first search used all combinations of the above keywords and, after an initial review, produced 97 potentially relevant articles (Google: 92, Scopus: 3, Elsevier: 2).

In the second phase, secondary terms such as “affect,” “challenge,” and “education” were added, reducing the number of studies to 63 (Google:60, Scopus:1, Elsevier:2). Of these, 34 did not meet the criteria and were excluded. They were excluded because their target audience was teachers and did not discuss the impact of VR on student engagement from the student’s perspective. In the final stage, another 53 articles were excluded because they were repetitive and their purpose was to discuss either technology or engagement, or both. Finally, their full texts were reviewed to determine if their work fits the focus of this article 20 articles (Google: 17, Scopus: 1, Elsevier: 2) qualified for final review, covered a sample on the impact of VR on student engagement, and were included in the analysis.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To ensure the quality of the literature, we selected only peer-reviewed journal articles published in English in the last decade. The main purpose of this article was to review the impact of VR on student engagement. Therefore, we selected only review articles on the impact of VR on student engagement in educational settings. Articles that were not written in English did not discuss the impact on engagement from a student perspective, and were published beyond the previously established time and language were excluded. In addition, a selection of articles was identified and assessed by manually searching the references of articles related to the topic, of which 13 met the eligibility criteria. Therefore, 13 additional articles were added to the 20 identified. In total, 33 articles that met these eligibility criteria were included and reviewed here. Full-text versions of the articles were obtained, with each article being reviewed and confirmed as appropriate by the authors. Finally, to maximize transparency and traceability, we list the rationale and relevant evidence for all articles included (see Table 1 ). The process of article selection followed the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement ( Moher et al., 2009 ; see Figure 1 ). Figure 1 illustrates the process of article selection.

Table 1 . Publications reviewed in full text with reasons for inclusion or exclusion.

Figure 1 . PRISMA flow diagram for article selection.

The review found that the number of publications increased each year from 2014 to 2023, indicating the continued interest of researchers in exploring the impact of VR on student engagement. When reviewing the impact of VR on student engagement, Wang and Degol’s (2014) article had the most citations at 450, suggesting that the article had a strong impact in the area of student use of VR in the classroom. The majority of articles had only 10 or fewer citations, which may have indicated that these articles were relatively new or had less impact in the field. It was worth noting that more recently published articles, such as Rzanova et al. (2023) , did not have enough time to accumulate citations, so their impact on the field may not have been fully reflected in current citations.

To summarize, the differences in the number of citations for these articles highlighted their different levels of influence in the area of VR’s impact on student engagement. However, there were some limitations to the review methods. For example, some articles might not have fully reflected their impact on the field in the current citations due to their short time frames, which might have resulted in less comprehensive findings. Furthermore, the literature included was small, and in the future consideration would be given to expanding the search of literature and databases, such as PubMed and Web of Science databases, as well as expanding the search with keywords, such as “students’ attitudes toward VR.” In addition, the inclusion and exclusion criteria might have limited the generalizability of the results of the review, and therefore more caution was needed when generalizing the results of the review.

The positive impact of VR on education

This section will discuss the impact of VR on students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement participation. It is important in the field of education. Radianti et al. (2020) noted that student engagement in educational settings was critical to learning outcomes and classroom climate. Yuan and Wang (2021) further noted that the combined effects of cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement could directly impact student learning outcomes and classroom contextual experiences. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the impact of VR on these three dimensions of engagement can provide valuable insights into educational practices and help educators better optimize classroom environments and teaching methods.

First, Papanastasiou et al. (2019) noted that VR immersive learning experiences promoted students’ cognitive engagement and aided in understanding complex and abstract knowledge. That is, through immersive learning, students can understand and remember what they have learned in greater depth and increase cognitive engagement. Pellas (2016) also found that VR encouraged students to learn through self-directed inquiry and move away from traditional teacher-centered instruction. Pellas (2016) further explained that, through VR scenario reenactments and simulations, students could engage in real-world unavailable learning experiences such as exploring historical sites and visiting distant planets. This means that such learning experiences enable students to explore knowledge in deeper and more varied ways, thus increasing cognitive engagement. Similarly, Maples-Keller et al. (2017) showed that VR was beneficial in engaging different types of students in learning, particularly for at-risk students, including those with learning difficulties, anxiety disorders, and other mental illnesses. VR provided personalized and adaptive learning environments that helped students improve cognitive engagement and achievement ( Maples-Keller et al., 2017 ). In summary, VR facilitates understanding of complex knowledge and promotes cognitive engagement for different types of students through immersive learning experiences and self-directed inquiry learning.

Secondly, Pirker and Dengel (2021) demonstrated that VR could promote student behavioral engagement. They discussed the potential of immersive VR in education through an in-depth analysis of 64 articles. They showed that “learning tasks in 3-D VLEs can foster intrinsic motivation for and engagement with the learning content” (p.77). Sun and Peng (2020) also suggested that by combining classical educational concepts with VR, such as Confucianism’s promotion of teaching for fun, students were better able to engage in learning activities. For example, Rzanova et al. (2023) found that the use of VR in the teaching of poetry to create the scenarios depicted in the verses enabled students to actively participate in classroom activities. Similarly, Freina and Ott (2015) also found that by simulating real school escape scenarios in VR, students could take on different roles to perform escape drills, and this sense of behavioral engagement can help students better master escape techniques and enhance safety awareness. These articles seem to echo that VR helps to enhance student behavioral engagement.

It is worth noting that there is debate about whether VR has a positive impact on student behavioral engagement. Proponents noted that students’ hands-on experience and exploration in virtual environments stimulated interest and behavioral engagement ( Wong et al., 2010 ; Allcoat and Von Mühlenen, 2018 ). This view suggests that VR provides an immersive learning experience that enhances students’ motivation and promotes deeper engagement in classroom activities. However, contrary findings exist, suggesting that the use of VR may have some negative effects. For example, students might have become addicted to the virtual world and neglected their real-life tasks and responsibilities, thus affecting their behavior in the classroom ( Cheng et al., 2015 ; Greenwald et al., 2018 ; Makransky et al., 2019 ). In addition, some other scholars noted that there might have been a gap between learning experiences in virtual environments and real-world learning experiences, which might have affected students’ ability to acquire and apply knowledge ( Makransky and Petersen, 2021 ). These conflicting results remind us that these complexities and diversities need to be taken into account when evaluating the role of VR technology in improving student engagement in the classroom.

Finally, scholars such as Wu et al. (2013) , Schutte and Stilinović (2017) , and Yuen et al. (2011) found that VR helped to promote student affective engagement. For example, Schutte and Stilinović (2017) found that contexts provided by VR for children with emotional impairments or disabilities taught them skills in communicating with people and managing their emotions, thus fostering empathy. This implies that VR may stimulate affective engagement. Wu et al. (2013) and Yuen et al. (2011) also found that VR provided opportunities for affective interaction, enabling students to interact with characters in the virtual environment. In language learning, for example, practicing through conversations with virtual characters could help students improve their oral expression ( Dhimolea et al., 2022 ). This means that affective interactions may increase students’ affective engagement with the learning content. Similarly, Misak (2018) noted that VR allowed students to role-play in virtual literature and experience the affective portrayed in the story. In other words, affective experiences may deepen students’ understanding of literary works and increase affective engagement. This literature seems to reflect that VR can promote student affective engagement.

In general, VR positively impacts students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement. In terms of cognitive engagement, VR can facilitate students’ cognitive engagement with learning materials and better understanding of abstract and complex knowledge by creating immersive situations. In terms of behavioral engagement, VR stimulates active student engagement and action through interactive learning. Although there is debate about whether VR has a positive impact on student behavioral engagement, literature has demonstrated the positive impact of VR on student behavioral engagement. In terms of affective engagement, VR promotes students’ emotional engagement by triggering affective resonance through affective experience and affective interaction. This full engagement helps students improve their learning and develop empathy.

The following section discusses the challenges faced when introducing VR in education. Through understanding these challenges, we can better understand the problems in the education system and make some constructive suggestions to help address them.

The challenge of VR in education

Despite the positive impact of VR on students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement, there are still two challenges to introducing VR into middle education, namely the difficulty of the educational system in keeping up with VR developments and the lack of teacher proficiency in VR use ( Islam et al., 2015 ; Zhong, 2017 ; Abich et al., 2021 ). For example, Islam et al. (2015) observed that the pace of technological advancement, including VR, outpaced the ability of the education system to adapt. This phenomenon is due to the slow reform of the education system, which takes time for the acceptance and adoption of emerging technologies ( Islam et al., 2015 ). To this end, the education sector may take longer to standardize the syllabus, resulting in students not having immediate access to VR ( Zhong, 2017 ). In other words, students may not have the opportunity to experience VR in the classroom until the education department completes the standardization process. Sahlberg (2016) further stated that while reform and standardization in the education sector took time, once VR and the education system evolved in tandem, students benefited from an education that matched the VR of the day.

Other scholars observed that VR education faced several challenges in developing digital literacy in students ( Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai, 2006 ; Sahlberg, 2016 ). According to Reddy et al. (2020) , “digital literacy is a set of skills required by 21st Century individuals to use digital tools to support the achievement of goals in their life situations” (p. 66). Digital literacy encompasses the assessment of digital technologies, critical thinking, and the ability to create and express oneself digitally ( Reddy et al., 2020 ). For example, Tsivitanidou et al. (2021) and Necci et al. (2015) emphasized the need for students to identify the differences between the results of simulation experiments and real experiments and to assess the reliability and accuracy of simulation experiments. In other words, students need to judge the plausibility of the results of simulation experiments and interpret and evaluate those results in real-world situations.

Similarly, Farmer and Farmer (2023) found that digital literacy required students to master VR painting and sculpting tools to create art. This involved learning to select appropriate colors and textures and creating three-dimensional effects with VR tools ( Skulmowski et al., 2021 ). Meanwhile, Andone et al. (2018) further noted that students also needed to learn to share and present their work to others in virtual reality. This observation seems to reflect the high demand for students’ creativity, technical skills, and expressive abilities when introducing VR into education. In sum, while the development of VR education benefits students’ learning in conjunction with VR, there are challenges to students’ digital literacy and the technological adaptability of the education system.

In addition, teachers’ lack of proficiency in the use of VR is another major challenge in introducing VR into middle education. For example, Abich et al. (2021) found that teachers might lack proficiency in the operation and application of VR, which might result in teachers not being able to fully utilize VR to supplement instruction. Jensen and Konradsen (2018) claimed that “for HMDs to become a relevant tool for instructors they must have the ability to produce and edit their content” (p.1525). This means that teachers need to spend time familiarizing themselves with HMDs and related software to create, edit, and customize content to meet their specific instructional needs. Similarly, Fransson et al. (2020) discussed the challenges of teachers operating VR equipment and software. They interviewed 28 teachers to understand teachers’ challenges with implementing helmet display VR in educational settings. Fransson et al. (2020) indicated that there might be a technological threshold and learning curve for teachers in controlling and operating VR devices, which might affect the effective use of VR for teaching and learning.

While teachers may lack familiarity with VR, there are solutions to this challenge. For example, Alfalah (2018) noted that proper training and support could help teachers make the most of VR to supplement instruction. That is, teacher training can provide teachers with the technical knowledge and operational skills they need to familiarize themselves with how VR equipment and software work. To this end, Alfalah (2018) found the impact of providing teachers with VR training in schools. They used a quantitative approach by distributing a questionnaire online to 30 IT teachers. Alfalah (2018) indicated that “technology training may be maximized for the integration of VR technology” (P.2634). This finding seems to reflect that proper teacher training and support can be effective in helping teachers overcome the operational and application of VR technology’s difficulties.

In sum, prior literature has shown that introducing VR into middle school education faces several challenges. First, the rapid development of technology makes the educational system keep up with VR, resulting in a disconnect between the educational curriculum and VR. Second, there may be a lack of proficiency in students’ digital literacy and teachers’ handling and application of VR. However, these challenges are not insurmountable. With proper training and support, teachers can make full use of VR to supplement their teaching and learning to realize the potential of VR in education. It is worth noting that through the literature we have found that in practice, due to the rapid development of technology and the limitations of the educational system, achieving a complete balance may take some time and effort. Therefore, considering how to address the gap between the speed of VR development and the education system to better integrate and apply VR in education makes sense.

This article describes the impact of VR on student cognitive, behavioral, and affective engagement and the challenges posed by VR education. The literature review finds that using VR in the classroom can positively impact student engagement and learning outcomes. An interesting finding is that VR can be a promising tool for providing education to students with learning disabilities. For example, the previous literature review section describes how for students with learning difficulties, anxiety disorders, and other mental illnesses, VR can provide personalized and adaptive learning environments that can help students improve cognitive engagement and academic performance. And, for children with emotional disorders or disabilities, VR provides contexts that can teach them skills for communicating with others and managing their emotions, thereby developing empathy and stimulating affective engagement.

However, the potential problems with incorporating VR in middle education are the difficulty of the education system in keeping up with VR developments, the higher demands of student digital literacy, and the lack of teacher proficiency in the use of VR. These challenges require educational policymakers to provide training and technical support to teachers to ensure that they can fully master and integrate VR to improve student engagement and teaching effectiveness.

Author contributions

XL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BL: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ZNY: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ZY: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MZ: Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the General Topics of China’s Hunan Province Social Science Achievement Evaluation Committee Fund [Grant no. XSP2023JYC123].

Acknowledgments

We are deeply appreciative of the editors and reviewers of this journal for their unwavering dedication and contributions that have shaped the publication of this article. Their constructive feedback and invaluable insights were instrumental in bringing this piece to fruition. We extend our heartfelt thanks to the readers with a keen interest in virtual reality technology. It is our sincere hope that this article will inspire enriched discussions within the academic community about the potential and nuances of using virtual reality in educational contexts.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abich, J., Parker, J., Murphy, J. S., and Eudy, M. (2021). A review of the evidence for training effectiveness with virtual reality technology. Virtual Reality 25, 919–933. doi: 10.1007/s10055-020-00498-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Agbo, F. J., Sanusi, I. T., Oyelere, S. S., and Suhonen, J. (2021). Application of virtual reality in computer science education: a systemic review based on bibliometric and content analysis methods. Educ. Sci. 11, 1–23. doi: 10.3390/educsci11030142

Alfalah, S. F. (2018). Perceptions toward adopting virtual reality as a teaching aid in information technology. Educ. Inf. Technol. 23, 2633–2653. doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9734-2

Allcoat, D., and Von Mühlenen, A. (2018). Learning in virtual reality: effects on performance, emotion, and engagement. Res. Learn. Technol. 26, 1–13. doi: 10.25304/rlt.v26.2140

Andone, D., Vert, S., Frydenberg, M., and Vasiu, R. (2018). Open virtual reality project to improve students’ skills. In 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) , 6–10. doi: 10.1109/ICALT.2018.00008

Aviram, A., and Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2006). Towards a theory of digital literacy: three scenarios for the next steps. Eur. J. Open Distance E Learn 9, 1–11.

Google Scholar

Brooks, F. P. (1999). What's real about virtual reality? Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Comput. Graph. Appl. 19, 16–27. doi: 10.1109/38.799723

Cheng, M.-T., Chen, J.-H., Chu, S.-J., and Chen, S.-Y. (2015). The use of serious games in science education: a review of selected empirical research from 2002 to 2013. J. Comput. Educ. 2, 353–375. doi: 10.1007/s40692-015-0039-9

Dhimolea, T. K., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., and Lin, L. (2022). A systematic review of research on high-immersion virtual reality for language learning. TechTrends 66, 810–824. doi: 10.1007/s11528-022-00717-w

Fransson, G., Holmberg, J., and Westelius, C. (2020). The challenges of using head mounted virtual reality in K-12 schools from a teacher perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol. 25, 3383–3404. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10119-1

Freina, L., and Ott, M. (2015). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspectives. Int. Sci. Conf. E Learn. Softw. Educ. 1, 10–1007. doi: 10.12753/2066-026x-15-020

Grant, M. J., and Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26, 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Greenwald, S. W., Corning, W., Funk, M., and Maes, P. (2018). Comparing learning in virtual reality with learning on a 2D screen using electrostatics activities. J. Comput. Sci. 24, 220–245. doi: 10.3217/jucs-024-02-0220

Huvila, I. (2013). Sorting out the metaverse and how the metaverse is sorting us out . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Islam, N., Beer, M., and Slack, F. (2015). E-learning challenges faced by academics in higher education. J. Educ. Train. Stud. 3, 102–112. doi: 10.11114/jets.v3i5.947

Jensen, L., and Konradsen, F. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Educ. Inf. Technol. 23, 1515–1529. doi: 10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0

Jeong, K., Kim, J., Kim, M., Lee, J., and Kim, C. (2019). Asymmetric interface: user interface of asymmetric virtual reality for new presence and experience. Symmetry 12, 1–25. doi: 10.3390/sym12010053

Lee, J., Kim, M., and Kim, J. (2017). A study on immersion and VR sickness in walking interaction for immersive virtual reality applications. Symmetry 9, 1–17. doi: 10.3390/sym9050078

Leidner, D. E., and Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: a theoretical view. Manag. Inf. Serv. Q. 19, 265–291. doi: 10.2307/249596

Makransky, G., and Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive-affective model of immersive learning: a theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 937–958. doi: 10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2

Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., and Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learn. Instr. 60, 225–236. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007

Maples-Keller, J. L., Bunnell, B. E., Kim, S.-J., and Rothbaum, B. O. (2017). The use of virtual reality technology in the treatment of anxiety and other psychiatric disorders. Harv. Rev. Psychiatry 25, 103–113. doi: 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000138

Misak, J. (2018). A (virtual) bridge not too far: teaching narrative sense of place with virtual reality. Comput. Compos. 50, 39–52. doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2018.07.007

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G.PRISMA Group* (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

Mystakidis, S., Berki, E., and Valtanen, J. P. (2021). Deep and meaningful e-learning with social virtual reality environments in higher education: a systematic literature review. Appl. Sci. 11, 1–25. doi: 10.3390/app11052412

Necci, A., Cozzani, V., Spadoni, G., and Khan, F. (2015). Assessment of domino effect: state of the art and research needs. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 143, 3–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.05.017

Papanastasiou, G., Drigas, A., Skianis, C., Lytras, M., and Papanastasiou, E. (2019). Virtual and augmented reality effects on K-12, higher, and tertiary education students’twenty-first-century skills. Virtual Reality 23, 425–436. doi: 10.1007/s10055-018-0363-2

Pellas, N. (2016). “Unraveling a progressive inquiry script in persistent virtual worlds: theoretical foundations and decision processes for constructing a socio-cultural learning framework” in Web design and development: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (Pennsylvania, US: IGI Global), 610–647.

Pirker, J., and Dengel, A. (2021). The potential of 360 virtual reality videos and real VR for education—a literature review. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 41, 76–89. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2021.3067999

Pottle, J. (2019). Virtual reality and the transformation of medical education. Future Healthcare J. 6, 181–185. doi: 10.7861/fhj.2019-0036

Poux, F., Valembois, Q., Mattes, C., Kobbelt, L., and Billen, R. (2020). Initial user-centered design of a virtual reality heritage system: applications for digital tourism. Remote Sens. 12, 1–25. doi: 10.3390/rs12162583

Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., and Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput. Educ. 147, 103778–103729. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778

Reddy, P., Sharma, B., and Chaudhary, K. (2020). Digital literacy: a review of literature. Int. J. Technoethics (IJT) 11, 65–94. doi: 10.4018/IJT.20200701.oa1

Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of English as a second language (ESL) students. Teach. Engl. Speakers Other Lang. Q. 21, 87–111. doi: 10.2307/3586356

Rzanova, S., Yushchik, E., Markova, S., and Sergeeva, A. (2023). Impact of virtual reality technologies in the context of the case method on engineering students’ competencies. Educ. Inf. Technol. 7, 1–19. doi: 10.56028/aetr.7.1.7.2023

Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In: K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, and A. Verger The Handbook of Global Education Policy . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 128–144.

Sanchez-Vives, M. V., and Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 332–339. doi: 10.1038/nrn1651

Schutte, N. S., and Stilinović, E. J. (2017). Facilitating empathy through virtual reality. Motiv. Emot. 41, 708–712. doi: 10.1007/s11031-017-9641-7

Skulmowski, A., Nebel, S., Remmele, M., and Rey, G. D. (2021). Is a preference for realism really naive after all? A cognitive model of learning with realistic visualizations. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34, 1–27. doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09638-1

Song, C., Shin, S. Y., and Shin, K. S. (2023). Optimizing foreign language learning in virtual reality: a comprehensive theoretical framework based on constructivism and cognitive load theory. Appl. Sci. 13, 1–31. doi: 10.3390/app132312557

Steuer, J., Biocca, F., and Levy, M. R. (1995). Communication in the age of virtual reality , New York: Routledge

Sun, S. Y., and Peng, L. H. (2020). Study of the virtual reality education and digitalization in China. J. Physics 1456, 012042–012047. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1456/1/012042

Tsivitanidou, O. E., Georgiou, Y., and Ioannou, A. (2021). A learning experience in inquiry-based physics with immersive virtual reality: student perceptions and an interaction effect between conceptual gains and attitudinal profiles. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 30, 841–861. doi: 10.1007/s10956-021-09924-1

United Kingdom Authority. (2019). VR and AR attract education sector interest . Available at: https://www.ukauthority.com/articles/vr-and-ar-attract-education-sector-interest/ .

Wang, M. T., and Degol, J. (2014). Staying engaged: knowledge and research need in student engagement. Child Dev. Perspect. 8, 137–143. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12073

Wong, B. M., Etchells, E. E., Kuper, A., Levinson, W., and Shojania, K. G. (2010). Teaching quality improvement and patient safety to trainees: a systematic review. Acad. Med. 85, 1425–1439. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181e2d0c6

Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y., and Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Comput. Educ. 62, 41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024

Yuan, H., and Wang, Z. (2021). A review of research on technology enhancing Chinese learning . 2021 international conference on internet, education and information technology (IEIT), pp. 462–467.

Yuen, S. C.-Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., and Johnson, E. (2011). Augmented reality: an overview and five directions for augmented reality (AR) in education. J. Educ. Technol. Dev. Exchange 4, 119–140. doi: 10.18785/jetde.0401.10

Zhong, L. (2017). Indicators of digital leadership in the context of K-12 education. J. Educ. Technol. Dev. Exchange 10, 27–40. doi: 10.18785/jetde.1001.03

Keywords: virtual reality technology, cognitive engagement, affective engagement, behavioral engagement, learning outcomes

Citation: Lin XP, Li BB, Yao ZN, Yang Z and Zhang M (2024) The impact of virtual reality on student engagement in the classroom–a critical review of the literature. Front. Psychol . 15:1360574. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1360574

Received: 23 December 2023; Accepted: 22 March 2024; Published: 10 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Lin, Li, Yao, Yang and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Zhi Yang, [email protected] ; Mingshu Zhang, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Virtual reality essay