Theories in XR, 2023

Maxwell Foxman, Shane Burrell, Waseq Rahman

In 2023, theories were not prominently debated in some of extended reality’s (XR)’s most prolific journals. The entire editorial team of Social Grammars of Virtuality tasked all writers of the report to read and analyze all the year’s articles from Frontiers in Virtual Reality (N = 91), Presence (N = 13), Virtual Creativity (N=13), and Virtual Reality (N=153).^[1] We chose these journals because of their specific and longstanding focus on virtual reality. The team supplemented this body of literature with recommendations (N=12) from Convergence, New Media and Society, and similar outlets that stood out as pointed counterexamples to general trends. As authors of the theory section, we collectively analyzed the articles, inductively and qualitatively, coding them to identify common theories and how they were used in the pieces, meeting to compare our findings as is common with such research (e.g., Nowell et al., 2017). Publications in this corpus concentrated on XR’s practical execution and usefulness in fields ranging from medicine, education, and fashion to the arts. Virtual Reality devoted much of its first 2023 issue to the administration of the medium in therapy and rehabilitation. Frontiers in Virtual Reality covered research topics like the state of women in the XR industry, medical simulations, and visualization. Many studies probed how immersive media might stimulate physiological reactions, such as testing haptics within STEM lessons (Johnson-Glenberg et al., 2023) or observing the sense of embodiment of secondary school students when employing Virtual Reality (VR—which tended to be the focus of articles over Augmented Reality (AR) or other mixed reality experiences—to learn public speaking (Valls-Ratés et al., 2023).

In this section, we first explain the major groups of theories found within this corpus. Mainly focused on users’ physical and emotional responses to the technology, the most blatant invocation of theories surrounded cybersickness or the physical discomfort felt when donning head-mounted displays (HMDs). At the same time, other studies obliquely referenced cognitive and affective theories. Following this, we return to the prominent theories in last year’s volume of Social Grammars (Foxman, 2023). Core concepts like presence, embodiment, and avatars were somewhat muted. This signals the normalization of staple XR theories whose effectiveness seems taken for granted and does not warrant explanation. We then discuss how the broader context within which XR is being used and adopted has neither led to the inclusion of critical/cultural theories, nor the development of novel concepts to interrogate XR’s utility beyond direct physical impact. Finally, our annotated bibliography showcases articles from our collection that either contribute to existing theories or capitalize on them for novel work.

Key Themes: Cybersickness, Cognitive Behavior, and Emotion

As cybersickness continues to be an everyday problem, the most explicit speculation within the corpus we analyzed this year surrounded the condition caused by wearing an HMD and includes symptoms such as “visual fatigue, headache, pallor, sweating, dry mouth, full stomach, disorientation, dizziness, ataxia (movements coordination), nausea and tiredness” (Souchet et al., 2023, p. 19). Theories to explain the discomfort are both codified and plentiful. One article touched upon neural mismatch theory, or the idea that cybersickness “occurs because of a sustained conflict between visual and vestibular inputs” to evaluate the physical side effects of mixed reality (Kirollos & Merchant, 2023). Many cited work revolving around sensory motion theory, which predicts “VR cybersickness and its impact on the visuomotor performance using head rotations and field (in)dependence” (Maneuvrier et al., 2023). Affiliated postulates were also voiced: sensory rearrangement theory suggested a neural mismatch between current and past experiences (Jeong et al., 2023); subjective vertical conflict theory posited a “conflict between the subjective or expected vertical from previous experience and the sensed vertical from incoming sensory information” (Chung & Barnett-Cowan, 2023, p. 2037); and postural instability theory equated sickness with an inability to maintain posture (Chung & Barnett-Cowan, 2023). Other concepts included evolutionary theory/poison theory, which assumes the bodily reaction stems from adaptation to poison; dual-process theory, which points to potential fatigue that comes from looking at stereoscopic images; the transactional theory of stress; and sensorimotor contingencies theories (Souchet et al., 2023), among others. Many of the theories cited have decades-long histories, which authors would reference. For instance, Palmisano et al. (2022) provide an in-depth definition and review of cybersickness in their study testing how head orientation and lag may predict sickness. Their work references earlier analyses of VR simulation (e.g., Howarth & Costello, 1997) as well as foundational literature regarding the many dimensions surrounding sensory conflict theory as applied to motion sickness (Ca, 1931).

These examples also indicate the sheer breadth of notions attempting to explain cybersickness, underscoring the investment and vital importance in remedying the phenomenon. Queasiness due to XR remains problematic and one of the significant barriers to adoption. Souchet et al. (2023) note that cybersickness persists no matter the HMD used and, without a unifying theory, remains somewhat unpredictable and a “concern for workers using VR.” Since it is also a bodily reaction that can be measured, it was surveyed via a variety of questionnaires such as the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (e.g., Fantin et al., 2023) or negative feelings subscale of the ITC-Sense of Presence inventory (e.g., Breves & Stein, 2023). However, the quest to fix this unresolved issue is still based on normative assumptions, particularly the ethics of promoting a technology that seems to cause these symptoms and the prospect that it can ever be “solved.”

While cybersickness theories were explicitly referenced, concepts to fathom VR’s effect on cognition and behavior were implied, under headers like “cognitive effects” (Carpio et al., 2023). Specific approaches like the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Radhakrishnan et al., 2023) or the cognitive load “theory” were taken in a few cases. The latter framework states that an “increase in intrinsic and extraneous cognitive loads in parallel with a decrease in germane cognitive load may explain the lower performance in video learning as reported with other multimedia” (Chao et al., 2023, p. 645). XR was considered a mediating factor and a way to ameliorate cognitive issues in therapy for those who were disabled, had dementia, or had other afflictions like facial anxiety, PTSD, or stress from chemotherapy. Broader suppositions tended to be expounded regarding specific mechanisms of the technology: one paper investigated, for instance, how VR’s heightened sense of presence might reduce anxiety and calm emotional turbulence (Buche et al., 2023); another compared three locomotion strategies for explaining intuitiveness (Ganapathi & Sorathia, 2023). Collectively, these works suggest XR could have some cognitive effect, albeit without in-depth theoretical backing.

Explanations of affective and emotional impact were equally murky. A few articles linked cognition and affect (e.g., Takac et al., 2023); tied emotions to “affective dimension theory,” which sets values for measuring student interest (Y. Lin et al., 2023); or raised the “Theory of Magnitude” which proposes information in the brain is processed through systems of magnitude (e.g., Sadeghi et al., 2023). Other studies connected affective dispositions to the Technological Acceptance Model (TAM), which presents how technology is accepted based on perceptions of usefulness and ease of use (e.g., Wong et al., 2023). Overall, XR was broadly positioned as a palliative for social, emotional, and affective issues; one article in Virtual Creativity articulated the poetics of immersive virtual experience by drawing a parallel to the self-transcendence gained with a hallucinogen like ayahuasca (Miller et al., 2023). Nevertheless, there was a dearth of clarity or uniformity in recognizing the emotional and psychological ramifications of the technology. Instead, physiological measurements were calculated (e.g., Høeg et al., 2023; Sadeghi et al., 2023). A few articles evoked the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to study cybersickness (Souchet et al., 2023; Voinescu et al., 2023), acceptance of VR in educational settings (Karaoglan-Yilmaz et al., 2023; Ustun et al., 2022) and for training in infection prevention (Désiron et al., 2023). UTAUT integrates earlier theories centered on technological acceptance, motivation, and reasoned action so that conditions, expectations regarding effort and performance, and social influence are factored into how people adopt novel technologies. However, its application, which incorporates some emotional and cognitive components, still reflects the scarcity of uniformity and the emphasis on quantification when trying to distinguish VR’s affective import in these journals.

Revisiting Classic XR Concepts: Presence, Embodiment, and Avatars

Last year’s report (Foxman, 2023) spotlighted the predominance of what might be considered “classic” concepts surrounding VR’s potential—presence, or the sense of “being there” (Heeter, 1992); embodiment, or the ability to “change one’s character or perspective” (Lachmair et al., 2022; see also Slater, 2017); and the use of avatars or a “graphical representation of a user in a virtual world” (J. Lin & Latoschik, 2022; see also Bailenson et al., 2004). While present across the literature, these concepts were neither deeply theorized nor dominant in discussions. For example, the aforementioned study examining physical head orientation to understand cybersickness defined presence as we did above—as “being there” (Palmisano et al., 2023). The lack of specificity implies that such concepts are assumed to be core to immersive experiences, rendering theorizing and reasoning less necessary within academic communities. Presence also manifested in scales and measurements to analyze everything from fire safety training (Ristor et al., 2023) to immersive exergaming (Høeg et al., 2023). One 20-point scale was devised and deployed to measure “How much do you feel like you are there?” (Palmisano et al., 2023, p. 1299). However, as the concept continues to be debated for lack of theoretical clarity (e.g., Latoschik & Wienrich, 2022; Murphy & Skarbez, 2022; Slater et al., 2022), such staid definitions seem to lack nuance. A few articles did make an effort at more complexity: for instance, looking at presence through phenomenology (Kelly, 2023); or delving into how demographic differences impact users’ experience (Martingano et al., 2023).

Articles on avatars similarly concentrated less on theoretical development and more on functionality (e.g., Gonzalez Morin et al., 2023). Scholars presented a library of diverse avatars for public use (Do et al., 2023). Others utilized avatars to replicate conditions like auditory hallucinations for those with schizophrenia (García et al., 2023), or to combat anxiety induced by public speaking (Valls-Ratés et al., 2023). However, discussions of related theories like the Proteus Effect— the phenomenon of people conforming to their avatar in virtual worlds—were rare (e.g., Beyea et al., 2022; Sakuma et al., 2023). That was the case also with the allied concept of digital twins. This term has found particular traction for industrial, rather than theoretical work, including studies of traffic simulations (Rundel & De Amicis, 2023), XR applications (Tu et al., 2023), or, more fancifully, the natural environment (Harrington, 2023).

Sourcing these concepts for more general terminology demonstrates that rather than debating meanings, authors within the analyzed articles regularly deploy them to explain mechanisms in their research instead. Presence, embodiment, and avatars are acknowledged as inherently practical components that separate XR from other media. Some of this positioning may be based on the subject matters on which this year focused: medicine, therapy, engineering, and education, which dominated Virtual Reality’s 2023 entries and require more applied and practical work rather than theoretical debate.

Contextualizing Theory and Future Work

In the corpus studied for this volume, theory development served physical, social, and emotional outcomes. Most studies saw researchers putting theories to “work” by associating them with material examples and bodily functions rather than debating the broader contexts surrounding XR development and diffusion. Concepts around VR, such as presence, immersion, and embodiment, are simply normalizing when adapting the technology to other fields. This implies that XR concepts are better understood than ever. There is some evidence for this: for instance, Reaver (2023) called upon participatory planning theories when gathering input on urban planning in Oslo, Norway, over five weeks by youth participants armed with AR-enabled devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets), and were able to do so with ease. There is also clearly a deep well of knowledge from which these pragmatic studies draw. For instance, Martingano et al. (2023) provide a detailed theoretical history of presence in their study of it in terms of demographic differences.

However heartening this widespread adoption may be, such articles still need to deploy theory to understand such issues as labor, industry, or cultural impact. XR is approached more as an agnostic tool with a standard set of psychological and social theories to explain its implementation, at least in the journals selected for the analysis. Yet, treating the technology as such is troubling considering XR’s proliferation, as evidenced by the many applied examples we identified. It would be advantageous for scholars to scrutinize the psychological states, cultural issues (e.g., gender, class), and social consequences (e.g., adoption, acceptance) that arise as XR insinuates itself into everyday life. Currently, most work precludes these analyses in the pursuit of implementation, which means that ideological assumptions about HMDs will likely continue to “lock-in” (Foxman, 2019, 2022) without significant debate.

Fortunately for XR scholars, there are existing theories that can complicate normative assumptions. Older studies have addressed many of these concerns, from Susan Langer’s (1953) articulation of virtuality in the arts to Brenda Laurel’s (1993) conceptions of immersive media through the lens of design. There is also a significant body of literature from the early 2000s on socializing in virtual worlds using platforms like Second Life (e.g., Boellstorff, 2015; , Boellstorff et al., 2012; Davis & Boellstorff, 2016). While one or two articles in our readings did reference this in terms of metaverse and marketing (e.g., Dudley et al., 2023; Ramadan, 2023)^[2] such work remains absent from most studies. However, returning to this and their theoretical perspectives would add much-needed context regarding how different cultural groups (e.g., gender, disability, race, income) use these technologies . They also show that practicality can extend to other applications, including marketing, media and communications, and community formation.

Additionally, this year, some critically informed theories regarding XR’s broader dissemination are emerging. For example, Whittaker (2023) tackles the ongoing problem of “onboarding” into HMDs through incorporation. However, perhaps the place where theorizing is growing most rapidly surrounds the broader social impact of the “metaverse.” Since this particular iteration of XR is promoted as potentially occupying all parts of everyday life and communication, scholars are starting to theorize how it may alter a wide variety of social topics: “factual truth” and memory (Bay, 2023), public policy challenges (Mosco, 2023), and economics via Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) (Scheiding, 2023). This work adds to the literature that invokes political economy and cultural theory to investigate the industries disseminating XR (e.g., Chia, 2022; Egliston & Carter, 2022). Ultimately, these debates highlight the continued ample opportunities for employing rich theory beyond practical application as we get to know XR more intimately and it becomes entrenched in our society.

Annotated Bibliography

The following articles, selected from this year’s analyzed corpus, span a wide variety of subjects, from avatars to journalism, and expand theoretical possibilities of how humans are represented in virtual environments.

Beyea, D., Ratan, R. R., Lei, Y. S., Liu, H., Hales, G. E. & Lim, C. (2022). A New Meta-Analysis of the Proteus Effect: Studies in VR Find Stronger Effect Sizes. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 31, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00392

Beyea et al. (2022) review 56 quantitative studies on the Proteus Effect (mentioned above). They paid close attention to effect sizes, sample size, the method by which these articles used the Proteus Effect in their work, and the potential for p-hacking. Ultimately, the work gives future scholars recommendations on areas of the Proteus Effect that have yet to be researched, specifically, the moderating factors that initiate the Proteus Effect and the potential priming factors associated with avatar identification.

Ghosh, R., Feijóo-García, P. G., Stuart, J., Wrenn, C. & Lok, B. (2023). Evaluating face gender cues in virtual humans within and beyond the gender binary. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4(August), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1251420

In this exploratory study, Ghosh et al. examined the impact of gender expression in the virtual workspace. Since more institutions are utilizing immersive workspaces for collaborations and meetings, the scholars looked at how gender can be perceived through the expression of virtual avatars. The findings from the authors' study indicated that while male or female avatars tended to fit users’ gender expression, this was not the case with non-binary individuals. The results from this study expand on how immersive media can be used to express gender representations, thus adding a layer of nuance to the uses of immersive media in the workforce.

Lin, C. C., & Hsu, Y. C. (2023). The new ethical thinking in CGI immersive journalism. Convergence, 29(4), 1033–1053.

While somewhat field-specific, Lin and Hsu’s work provides an excellent model for a theoretically complex and empirically rich approach to studying XR. The authors tackle the conceptually complicated notion of how “realness” can be represented in immersive journalism using computer-generated images (CGI). They return to historical examples of the medium and long-standing theories surrounding hyperreality and virtuality to do this. Then, to explore the ethical implications surrounding such concerns, they report the results of interviews and surveys with professionals in the UK and Taiwan to see how truth is represented in CGI stories. The result is a valuable model for understanding reality, virtuality, and practical discussions of how this can impact newsmakers.

Won, A. S., & Davis, D. Z. (2023). Your money or your data: Avatar embodiment options in the identity economy. Convergence.

Won and Davis confront an inherent paradox with the deployment of avatars: theoretically, users should have almost limitless possibilities regarding the avatar they choose to embody. However, this potential is often deeply restricted by what they describe as the “embodied identity economy,” which ties possibilities to economic and platform prerogatives. To address this issue, they suggest a framework of avatar embodiment based on balancing consistency and discrepancy from physical identity and experience versus self-presence. Their work provides a valuable model for understanding the complicated relationship to avatars that may come as they find increased professional, social, and personal use.

References

Bailenson, J. N., Beall, A. C., Loomis, J., Blascovich, J., & Turk, M. (2004). Transformed social interaction: Decoupling representation from behavior and form in collaborative virtual environments. Presence , 13(4), 428–441.
Bay, M. (2023). Arendt in the Metaverse: Four properties of eXtended Reality that imperil factual truth and democracy. Convergence, 29(6), 1698–1712.
Beyea, D., Ratan, R. (robby), Lei, Y. (skylar), Liu, H., Hales, G. E., & Lim, C. (2022). A new meta-analysis of the Proteus effect: Studies in VR find stronger effect sizes. Presence , 31, 189–202.
Boellstorff, T. (2015). Coming of Age in Second Life. Princeton University Press.
Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., Taylor, T. L., & Marcus, G. E. (2012). Ethnography and Virtual Worlds: A Handbook of Method. Princeton University Press.
Breves, P., & Stein, J.P. (2023). Cognitive load in immersive media settings: the role of spatial presence and cybersickness. Virtual Reality, 27(2), 1077–1089.
Buche, H., Michel, A., & Blanc, N. (2023). When virtual reality supports patients’ emotional management in chemotherapy. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1294482
Ca, C. (1931). The psychology of seasickness. Psyche, 11, 86–90.
Carpio, R., Baumann, O., & Birt, J. (2023). Evaluating the viewer experience of interactive virtual reality movies. Virtual Reality, 27(4), 3181–3190.
Chao, Y.P., Kang, C.J., Chuang, H.H., Hsieh, M.J., Chang, Y.C., Kuo, T. B. J., Yang, C. C. H., Huang, C.G., Fang, T.J., Li, H.Y., & Lee, L.A. (2023). Comparison of the effect of 360° versus two-dimensional virtual reality video on history taking and physical examination skills learning among undergraduate medical students: a randomized controlled trial. Virtual Reality, 27(2), 637–650.
Chia, A. (2022). The metaverse, but not the way you think: game engines and automation beyond game development. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 39(3), 191–200.
Chung, W., & Barnett-Cowan, M. (2023). Sensory reweighting: a common mechanism for subjective visual vertical and cybersickness susceptibility. Virtual Reality, 27(3), 2029–2041.
Davis, D. Z., & Boellstorff, T. (2016). Compulsive Creativity: Virtual Worlds, Disability, and Digital Capital. International Journal of Communication Systems, 10(0), 23.
Désiron, J. C., Petko, D., Lapaire, V., Ullrich, C., & Clack, L. (2023). Using virtual reality to train infection prevention: what predicts performance and behavioral intention? Virtual Reality, 27(2), 1013–1023.
Do, T. D., Zelenty, S., Gonzalez-Franco, M., & McMahan, R. P. (2023). VALID: a perceptually validated Virtual Avatar Library for Inclusion and Diversity. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1248915
Dudley, J., Yin, L., Garaj, V., & Kristensson, P. O. (2023). Inclusive Immersion: a review of efforts to improve accessibility in virtual reality, augmented reality and the metaverse. Virtual Reality, 27(4), 2989–3020.
Egliston, B., & Carter, M. (2022). “The metaverse and how we”ll build it’: The political economy of Meta’s Reality Labs. New Media & Society, 146144482211197.
Fantin, L., Ceyte, G., Maïni, E., Hossu, G., & Ceyte, H. (2023). Do individual constraints induce flexibility of visual field dependence following a virtual immersion? Effects of perceptive style and cybersickness. Virtual Reality, 27(2), 917–928.
Foxman, M. (2019). United We Stand: Platforms, Tools and Innovation With the Unity Game Engine. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 2056305119880177.
Foxman, M. (2022). Gaming the system: Playbour, production, promotion, and the metaverse. Baltic Screen Media Review, 10(2), 224–233.
Foxman, M. (2023). Theories in XR, 2022. In K. Girginova, K. Cassidy, M. Foxman, M. O’Donnell, & K. Rawson (Eds.), Social Grammars of Virtuality (Vol. 1, pp. 18–30). University of Pennsylvania.
Ganapathi, P., & Sorathia, K. (2023). User elicited gesture-based locomotion techniques for immersive VEs in a seated position: a comparative evaluation. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1169654
García, A. S., Fernández-Sotos, P., Vicente-Querol, M. A., Sánchez-Reolid, R., Rodriguez-Jimenez, R., & Fernández-Caballero, A. (2023). Co-design of avatars to embody auditory hallucinations of patients with schizophrenia. Virtual Reality, 27(1), 217–232.
Gonzalez Morin, D., Gonzalez-Sosa, E., Perez, P., & Villegas, A. (2023). Full body video-based self-avatars for mixed reality: from E2E system to user study. Virtual Reality, 27(3), 2129–2147.
Harrington, M. C. R. (2023). Virtual nature makes knowledge beautiful. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1100540
Heeter, C. (1992). Being There: The Subjective Experience of Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271.
Høeg, E. R., Bruun-Pedersen, J. R., Cheary, S., Andersen, L. K., Paisa, R., Serafin, S., & Lange, B. (2023). Buddy biking: a user study on social collaboration in a virtual reality exergame for rehabilitation. Virtual Reality, 27(1), 245–262.
Howarth, P. A., & Costello, P. J. (1997). The occurrence of virtual simulation sickness symptoms when an HMD was used as a personal viewing system. Displays, 18(2), 107–116.
Jeong, D., Paik, S., Noh, Y., & Han, K. (2023). MAC: multimodal, attention-based cybersickness prediction modeling in virtual reality. Virtual Reality, 27(3), 2315–2330.
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Yu, C. S. P., Liu, F., Amador, C., Bao, Y., Yu, S., & LiKamWa, R. (2023). Embodied mixed reality with passive haptics in STEM education: randomized control study with chemistry titration. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1047833
Karaoglan-Yilmaz, F. G., Yilmaz, R., Zhang, K., & Ustun, A. B. (2023). Development of educational virtual reality attitude scale: A validity and reliability study. Virtual Reality, 27(3), 1875–1885.
Kelly, N. J. (2023). Using interpretative phenomenological analysis to gain a qualitative understanding of presence in virtual reality. Virtual Reality, 27(2), 1173–1185.
Kirollos, R., & Merchant, W. (2023). Comparing cybersickness in virtual reality and mixed reality head-mounted displays. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1130864
Lachmair, M., Fischer, M. H., & Gerjets, P. (2022). Action-control mappings of interfaces in virtual reality: A study of embodied interaction. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.976849
Langer, S. K. (1953). Feeling and form. Routledge and Kegan Paul London.
Latoschik, M. E., & Wienrich, C. (2022). Congruence and plausibility, not presence: Pivotal conditions for XR experiences and effects, a novel approach. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3, 694433.
Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as Theatre (Reprint edition). Addison-Wesley Professional.
Lin, J., & Latoschik, M. E. (2022). Digital body, identity and privacy in social virtual reality: A systematic review. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.974652
Lin, Y., Lan, Y., & Wang, S. (2023). A method for evaluating the learning concentration in head-mounted virtual reality interaction. Virtual Reality, 27(2), 863–885.
Maneuvrier, A., Nguyen, N.-D.-T., & Renaud, P. (2023). Predicting VR cybersickness and its impact on visuomotor performance using head rotations and field (in)dependence. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1307925
Martingano, A. J., Duane, J.N., Brown, E., & Persky, S. (2023). Demographic differences in presence across seven studies. Virtual Reality, 27(3), 2297–2313.
Miller, N., Desnoyers-Stewart, J., Stepanova, E. R., Kitson, A., Bizzocchi, J., & Riecke, B. E. (2023). Sipping the virtual elixir: An autoethnographic close reading of Ayahuasca Kosmik Journey, a self-transcendent virtual experience. Virtual Creativity, 12(1), 27–44.
Mosco, V. (2023). Into the Metaverse: Technical Challenges, Social Problems, Utopian Visions, and Policy Principles. Javnost - The Public, 30(2), 161–173.
Murphy, D., & Skarbez, R. (2022). What do we mean when we say “presence”? Presence , 171–190.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847.
Palmisano, S., Allison, R. S., Teixeira, J., & Kim, J. (2023). Differences in virtual and physical head orientation predict sickness during active head-mounted display-based virtual reality. Virtual Reality, 27(2), 1293–1313.
Radhakrishnan, U., Chinello, F., & Koumaditis, K. (2023). Investigating the effectiveness of immersive VR skill training and its link to physiological arousal. Virtual Reality, 27(2), 1091–1115.
Ramadan, Z. (2023). Marketing in the metaverse era: toward an integrative channel approach. Virtual Reality, 1–14.
Reaver, K. (2023). Augmented reality as a participation tool for youth in urban planning processes: Case study in Oslo, Norway. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1055930
Ristor, R., Morélot, S., Garrigou, A., & N’ Kaoua, B. (2023). Virtual reality for fire safety training: study of factors involved in immersive learning. Virtual Reality, 27(3), 2237–2254.
Rundel, S., & De Amicis, R. (2023). Leveraging digital twin and game-engine for traffic simulations and visualizations. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1048753
Sadeghi, S., Daziano, R., Yoon, S.Y., & Anderson, A. K. (2023). Affective experience in a virtual crowd regulates perceived travel time. Virtual Reality, 27(2), 1051–1061.
Sakuma, H., Takahashi, H., Ogawa, K., & Ishiguro, H. (2023). Immersive role-playing with avatars leads to adoption of others’ personalities. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1025526
Scheiding, R. (2023). Designing the Future? The Metaverse, NFTs, & the Future as Defined by Unity Users. Games and Culture, 18(6), 804–820.
Slater, M. (2017). Implicit Learning Through Embodiment in Immersive Virtual Reality. In D. Liu, C. Dede, R. Huang, & J. Richards (Eds.), Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education (pp. 19–33). Springer Singapore.
Slater, M., Banakou, D., Beacco, A., Gallego, J., Macia-Varela, F., & Oliva, R. (2022). A Separate Reality: An Update on Place Illusion and Plausibility in Virtual Reality. In Frontiers in Virtual Reality (Vol. 3). https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.914392
Souchet, A. D., Lourdeaux, D., Pagani, A., & Rebenitsch, L. (2023). A narrative review of immersive virtual reality’s ergonomics and risks at the workplace: cybersickness, visual fatigue, muscular fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload. Virtual Reality, 27(1), 19–50.
Takac, M., Collett, J., Conduit, R., & De Foe, A. (2023). A cognitive model for emotional regulation in virtual reality exposure. Virtual Reality, 27(1), 159–172.
Tu, X., Autiosalo, J., Ala-Laurinaho, R., Yang, C., Salminen, P., & Tammi, K. (2023). TwinXR: Method for using digital twin descriptions in industrial eXtended reality applications. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1019080
Ustun, A. B., Karaoglan-Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2022). Educational UTAUT-based virtual reality acceptance scale: a validity and reliability study. Virtual Reality. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00717-4
Valls-Ratés, Ï., Niebuhr, O., & Prieto, P. (2023). Encouraging participant embodiment during VR-assisted public speaking training improves persuasiveness and charisma and reduces anxiety in secondary school students. Frontiers Virtual Real., 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1074062
Voinescu, A., Petrini, K., Stanton Fraser, D., Lazarovicz, R.A., Papavă, I., Fodor, L. A., & David, D. (2023). The effectiveness of a virtual reality attention task to predict depression and anxiety in comparison with current clinical measures. Virtual Reality, 27(1), 119–140.
Whittaker, L. (2023). Onboarding and offboarding in virtual reality: A user-centred framework for audience experience across genres and spaces. Convergence, 13548565231187329.
Wong, E. Y.C., Hui, R. T.Y., & Kong, H. (2023). Perceived usefulness of, engagement with, and effectiveness of virtual reality environments in learning industrial operations: the moderating role of openness to experience. Virtual Reality, 1–17.

1. Some of the publications cited are from 2022 but meaningfully appeared in journals published this year (e.g., Presence). ↑

2. It is worth noting that some authors would cite this work but not reference it directly and/or include it among broader reviews and meta-analyses. ↑