Theories in XR, 2024

Maxwell Foxman, Shane Burrell

In 2024, articles^[1] in Frontiers in Virtual Reality, Presence, and Virtual Reality called upon theories to refine, test, and elaborate on the usefulness of XR. While this approach drew on standard concepts, such as embodiment and presence, theoretical development and deployment tended to align with the literature on education (e.g., STEM) and training (e.g., medical, public speaking). This shift highlights how XR is increasingly understood as a field-specific medium, rather than having general commercial or entertainment appeal.

Furthermore, each journal supported slightly different theoretical perspectives, even though concepts tended to be deployed with little explanation or critical interrogation, or lacked identifiable theories all together (as in past years). While Frontiers in Virtual Reality tapped theories of embodied cognition, Presence focused on (as expected) theories surrounding presence, along with concepts of embodiment and immersion. By contrast, Virtual Reality incorporated theories such as the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML), Attention Restoration Theory, and the Unified Theory of Use and Acceptance of Technology (UTAUT) to explain various phenomena related to specific specializations.

Overall, the three journals utilized theory to refine contemporary understandings of XR usage, rather than to justify the medium’s applicability, as reported in last year’s volume. The technology appears to be more persistently accepted as a useful tool within many fields where it augmented or supplemented protocols and practices, rather than completely upend existing norms. Theory expanded on particularities or supported specific measures of analysis. For example, in testing the efficacy of an augmented reality (AR) SMARTlab, one article highlighted spatial presence as a vital experiential component and subsequently measured it in a survey (Ismael et al., 2024); the same researchers also referred to UTAUT in their measurements.

“Classic” 20^th century XR concepts from communications scholars (e.g., Biocca, 1992) and theories such as cybersickness (e.g., Teixeira et al., 2024), embodiment theory (e.g., Uhm et al., 2024), the Proteus Effect (Oberdörfer et al., 2024), and digital twins (Feder et al., 2024) also appeared in the corpus. However, in many cases, authors employed these to clarify work in a particular area of expertise. For example, the Proteus Effect provided the basis for better development of virtual shoes (Oberdörfer et al., 2024). Such ideas did not receive significant scholarly scrutiny or critique.

Key Themes: Theories for Learning and Being

Theories within the corpus fell into roughly two camps. Researchers tended to rely on either theories of learning and cognitive development (aligning with training and educational studies) or more staid psychological concepts like embodiment, presence, and immersion.

Learning Theories

Particularly in Frontiers in Virtual Reality, a dominant paradigm surrounded embodied cognition, or “the idea that the nature and development of some cognition is informed by our lived physical reality” (Renata et al., 2024). The concept was broadly applied, including testing the efficacy of virtual lectures for medical students (Neuwirth et al., 2024) and probing how XR could mitigate public speakers’ performance anxiety (Girondini et al., 2024). Such examples showcase the relevance of embodied cognition in training contexts. However, the term itself was not always clearly stated. Suzuki et al. (2024) investigated the differences in training martial arts using a head-mounted display (HMD) versus in-person training methods, employing a between-subjects experimental design. Although their literature review did not expressly detail embodied cognition theory, their findings distinguished the different learning outcomes of in-person and embodied learning techniques and movements. Direct details were sparse, with researchers suggesting things like how “the dynamic mental representation of sensory and proprioceptive information about an individual’s body in space” (Renata et al., 2024) could be appropriate for imagining oneself in a training context.

Other learning theories were drawn from the educational field. For example, the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, which posits that “humans actively engage in cognitive processing of auditory and visual material with different information processing channels that have limited simultaneous processing capability to construct mental representations of their experience” (Laine et al., 2024), was invoked to comprehend XR’s impact on skills training (Laine et al., 2024), children’s learning (Dall’Olio et al., 2024) and even the novelty and implementation of VR (Miguel-Alonso et al., 2024). In these cases, XR was addressed as just another classroom technology. Other theories, such as UTAUT or the Technological Acceptance Model (TAM), were similarly called on to explain levels of adoption in learning and training settings, including medicine (e.g., Alarcon-Urbistondo et al., 2024).

In other cases, theories were advanced to explain how XR would impact the learning process. The Attention Restoration Theory, for instance, suggests “environments facilitate restoration when they minimise attentional demands and create experiences of ‘soft fascination…’ ‘being away…’ ‘extent…’ and ‘compatibility’” (Barton et al., 2024). Researchers have suggested that XR could facilitate this for students, a notion also supported by Stress Reduction Theory (Ladakis et al., 2024). XR was therefore analyzed in terms of deficits and benefits to learners, or how virtual spaces might afford more conducive learning environments.

Altogether, this work demonstrates a meaningful theoretical shift in grasping and refining discipline-specific use cases for immersive media. Similar work extended to other fields, such as medicine and pedestrian safety (Peereboom et al., 2024), where, rather than being a panacea, XR was framed as a tool with specific theoretical limitations.

Psychological Theories and Concepts

As stated, “classic” constructs were cited in the corpus, including embodiment, presence, and immersion. For example, Gonzalez-Franco et al. (2024) alluded to the “virtual body is at a visual, motor, and proprioceptive level, substituting [users'] own body and thus participants experience an embodiment illusion.”^[2] Their work focused on implicit bias that can occur when embodying an avatar, another closely aligned concept. Embodiment was consequently also referenced in conjunction with concepts such as ownership (associating the avatar with the self) and agency (control over an avatar) (e.g., Hartfill et al., 2024), as well as the Proteus Effect, all of which explain the psychological impact of interacting with virtual beings.

Likewise, scholars mentioned theories of presence and immersion. Common theories, such as “place illusion,” which refers to the way one believes they are in a virtual environment, are based on personal, physical, and spatial factors (Glenn & Coxon, 2024). Similarly, flow, “where shifts in time awareness and self-consciousness are influenced by engagement, task focus, and difficulty” (Landeck et al., 2024), was discussed in several articles. This theory is particularly beneficial in apprehending how presence occurs. In Landeck et al.'s (2024) work, flow was asserted as a design principle, whereas in other work, it was used to assess the efficacy of a virtual STEM education lab (Solmaz et al., 2024).

These XR theories address underlying mechanisms that may stem from the use of the medium. Theoretical deployment tied closely to media psychology and the potential cognitive and emotional implications. In other words, scholars drew on literature about individual effects to make assumptions about impact.

Beyond these trends, other theories were employed, specifically in the context of scale development. One article combined TAM, UTAUT, and the Theory of Planned Behavior as measures to fathom the adoption of XR in parasitology education (Dekker et al., 2024). Another proposed presence and agency in measures of the acceptance of VR in chronic pain management (Patel & Baker, 2024). In this way, much of the theoretical development stemmed from concepts that were present in the journals over the past few years.

Theoretical Developments

Researchers tended to rely on theories to test the efficacy of specific queries; for example, an article assessing VR as a tool for English language learning suggested, “VR can provide alternative environments for situated learning because it provides an almost limitless variety of virtual contexts that can be designed to give users a sense of ‘being there,’ thus enabling them to apply learning in plausible, unique settings” (Yan et al., 2024).^[3] In this sense, the article situates presence within the context of a broader educational theory (Situated Learning). This specificity extended to other areas, including virtual workplaces (Held et al., 2024) and entertainment spectatorship (Farabbi & Mainardi, 2024).

Nuances of theories were also explored in many systematic and scoping reviews, which concentrated on subjects ranging from virtual therapy (Crowe et al., 2024) to racial prejudice (Higgins et al., 2024). In this work, theory was treated as a metric (and even a variable in some cases) among a group of components meant to expand upon specific subject matters. For instance, in a review of the efficacy of VR games for rehabilitating older adults, flow was included as just one factor to understand Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment across assessed articles (Guzmán et al., 2024). XR theory was not being questioned; instead, it was integrated into broader analyses.

In total, this view highlights the increased normalization of XR. Following the Gartner Hype Cycle, which suggests that any innovation reaches peak of interest, a trough of disillusionment and a slope of enlightenment, it appears that commercial immersive media is steadily reaching the “plateau of productivity” where its acceptance and theoretical advantages are recognized in areas where it is most useful, including and notably education and training

Absences and Future Work

Even as theoretical approaches to XR may be plateauing, critical and cultural viewpoints, as well as broader debates, are lacking. In previous years, we have underscored works that challenge core theoretical assumptions, such as the plausibility illusion (Slater et al., 2022). Such debates were less represented in this work and when broached were nuanced; one of the most theoretically driven pieces in the corpus focused on the multitude of sensory factors that related to how avatars could reduce cybersickness citing a sense of presence, the plausibility illusion and the uncanny valley as all contributing factors (Makani et al., 2024).

Additionally, utilizing theory to tackle the broader cultural impact of XR was rare. Focus tended to be on more granular or applied subjects: One piece addressed the potential for privacy threats (Kumarapeli et al., 2024). Another work raised ethical concerns as smart glasses proliferate (Tretter et al., 2024). However, research on broader identity and cultural issues was scarce — one study did tackle gender differences regarding mixed reality multitasking (Abbas & Jeong, 2024). There is a dearth of work by journals that exhibit standard cultural considerations, nor meaningful literature with perspectives from political economy, feminism, and other related theories. This trend has proven true since the inception of Social Grammars of Virtuality, and is expected given the epistemological stances in our corpus. However, underlying this is ongoing view of XR as most useful when supplementing other technologies and practices.

That said, such absences underlie a consistent opportunity for theoretically driven work in the future. This was advocated explicitly in a special issue from the Journal of Media Psychology this year: “The metaverse deserves robust, theory-focused exploration, especially considering that these novel environments could present solutions to contemporary social and behavioral issues” (Beyea et al., 2025). The issue modestly attempted to address this — one article, for example, retheorized AR capabilities (Liao et al., 2025) — but there is still a need for theory to be more at the forefront of XR scholarship.

Along with this, recognizing XR’s influence on culture (and culture’s influence on the technology) seems increasingly necessary. As immersive media is approached more “productively,” culturally situating it in particular professions, fields, and practices remains essential. We found fascinating examples within the corpus that illustrate how XR is present in today’s society; notably, some works explored how it could manage and mitigate near-death experiences. In one article, Ng et al. (2024) reviewed how individuals in palliative care would respond to using an HMD VR experience to show the impact of their lives as they pass on. Additionally, Glowacki (2024) details near-death experiences by simulating hallucinogenic intake in VR. However, such uses occur in critical cultural contexts influenced by different notions of death, spirituality, income, age, gender, and a variety of other factors, which, if properly understood, would only deepen the technology’s benefits. The increased normalization of XR as one communicative tool among many, as well as its further integration into user experience design, artificial intelligence, and commercial media, suggests that scholars should expand applicable theories in the years ahead.

Annotated Bibliography

de Souza, J., & Tartz, R. (2024). Visual perception and user satisfaction in video see-through head-mounted displays: a mixed-methods evaluation. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5(June), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2024.1368721

This study investigated the barriers to the widespread adoption of Extended Reality (XR) head-mounted displays, with a particular focus on device quality and cybersickness issues that impact user experience. The main contribution demonstrates that traditional quantitative measures alone are insufficient for evaluating video see-through HMDs. The mixed-methods approach revealed important insights into user experience that pure performance metrics would miss, such as comfort preferences and subjective quality assessments. This comprehensive evaluation framework provides a more nuanced understanding of XR technology limitations and offers guidance for future improvements in head-mounted display design and development. This article also advances our knowledge of cybersickness and further bridges the known gap in virtual locomotion theory.

Ladakis, I., Filos, D., & Chouvarda, I. (2024). Virtual reality environments for stress reduction and management: a scoping review. Virtual Reality, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-024-00943-y

As a scoping review, Ladakis and colleagues provide an emblematic example of integrating theories from outside of XR research into the analysis of immersive work. The authors recognize the value of virtual reality technologies in educational contexts at the outset but then shift their focus to understanding the nuances of therapeutic benefits. Through the lens of Attention Restoration Theory and Stress Reduction Theory, they highlight that while there is ongoing interest in VR for therapy, actual findings are complicated at the level of identification, particularly with understanding and noting stress levels. This highlights how theoretical concepts can be applied to enhance understanding of XR’s effectiveness in real-world settings.

Lu, H.-P., Chang, Y.-C., & Chen, C.-S. (2024). How to trigger user’s willingness to participate in the metaverse? An exploration of the significant factors of the metaverse. Virtual Reality, 28(2), 1–16.

As the confluence of technologies generally known as the “metaverse” including artificial intelligence, Internet of Things and immersive media, continues to take hold, there is growing interest into how and in what ways users might participate beyond the hype, as well as growing bodies of literature addressing the subject (e.g., Lim et al., 2025). This work tackles the issue head-on, and the findings highlight how predisposition to virtual environments and games (e.g., Second Life and Play-to-Earn) impacts willingness. Further, the work details this through a clear set of media theories, specifically Self-Efficacy Theory and the Theory of Reasoned Action, providing a meaningful basis for future research.

Marto, A., & Gonçalves, A. (2024). A scope of presence-related feelings in AR studies. Virtual Reality, 28(1), 1–14.

Recognizing the continued proliferation of AR devices, this scoping review highlighted the crucial distinction that notions of presence differ significantly in augmented experiences versus those with full occlusion. The article identifies severe limitations in the current research, which primarily focuses on questionnaires and limited scenarios. Notably, it provides valuable and detailed reviews of presence as a theoretical construct, its relation to immersion and telepresence, and includes the concept in measures reviewed..

References

Abbas, S., & Jeong, H. (2024). Unveiling gender differences: a mixed reality multitasking exploration. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4, 1308133.
Alarcon-Urbistondo, P., Perez-Aranda, J., & Casado-Molina, A. (2024). Key determinants of intention to use virtual reality in medical training. Virtual Reality, 28(2), 1–18.
Barton, A. C., Do, M., Sheen, J., & Byrne, L. K. (2024). The restorative and state enhancing potential of abstract fractal-like imagery and interactive mindfulness interventions in virtual reality. Virtual Reality, 28(1), 1–20.
Beyea, D., Foxman, M., Ratan, R., Klebig, B., Leith, A., & Chen, V. H. H. (2025). Metaverse-mediated communication: A call for theory-driven XR research. Journal of Media Psychology, 37(2), 61–63.
Biocca, F. (1992). Communication Within Virtual Reality: Creating a Space for Research. The Journal of Communication, 42(4), 5–22.
Crowe, S. E., Yousefi, M., Shahri, B., Piumsomboon, T., & Hoermann, S. (2024). Interactions with virtual therapists during motor rehabilitation in immersive virtual environments: a systematic review. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2024.1284696
Dall’Olio, L., Amrein, O., Gianettoni, L., & Martarelli, C. S. (2024). The impact of fantasy on young children’s recall: a virtual reality approach. Virtual Reality, 28(1), 1–21.
Dekker, E., Whitburn, D., & Preston, S. (2024). Adoption of immersive-virtual reality as an intrinsically motivating learning tool in parasitology. Virtual Reality, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-024-01016-w
Farabbi, A., & Mainardi, L. (2024). Assessing the impact of stimulation environment and error probability on ErrP EEG response, detection and subject attention: an explorative study. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1433082.
Feder, S., Püschel, A., Şimşek, M., Odenwald, S., Bendixen, A., & Einhäuser, W. (2024). Visual search for hazardous items: using virtual reality (VR) in laypersons to test wearable displays for firefighters. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1252351.
Girondini, M., Frigione, I., Marra, M., Stefanova, M., Pillan, M., Maravita, A., & Gallace, A. (2024). Decoupling the role of verbal and non-verbal audience behavior on public speaking anxiety in virtual reality using behavioral and psychological measures. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1347102.
Glenn, C. P., & Coxon, M. (2024). Individual differences in processing multisensory information predict presence in different virtual reality environments. Virtual Reality, 29(1), 1–17.
Glowacki, D. R. (2024). VR models of death and psychedelics: an aesthetic paradigm for design beyond day-to-day phenomenology. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4, 1286950.
Gonzalez-Franco, M., Steed, A., Berger, C. C., & Tajadura-Jiménez, A. (2024). The impact of first-person avatar customization on embodiment in immersive virtual reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1436752.
Guzmán, D. E., Rengifo, C. F., Guzmán, J. D., & Garcia Cena, C. E. (2024). Virtual reality games for cognitive rehabilitation of older adults: a review of adaptive games, domains and techniques. Virtual Reality, 28(2), 1–17.
Hartfill, J., Bormann, F., Riebandt, K., Kühn, S., & Steinicke, F. (2024). Objective agency measurement of different hand appearances in virtual reality with intentional binding. Virtual Reality, 29(1), 1–13.
Held, N., Soeter, M., van Gent, S., Wiezer, N., Loots, G., & Niamut, O. (2024). Immersive gathering: insights into virtual workplace meetings. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1391662.
Higgins, S., Alcock, S., Aveiro, B. D., Daniels, W., Farmer, H., & Besharati, S. (2024). Perspective matters: a systematic review of immersive virtual reality to reduce racial prejudice. Virtual Reality, 28(3), 1–21.
Ismael, M., McCall, R., McGee, F., Belkacem, I., Stefas, M., Baixauli, J., & Arl, D. (2024). Acceptance of augmented reality for laboratory safety training: methodology and an evaluation study. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1322543.
Kumarapeli, D., Jung, S., & Lindeman, R. W. (2024). Privacy threats of behaviour identity detection in VR. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1197547.
Ladakis, I., Filos, D., & Chouvarda, I. (2024). Virtual reality environments for stress reduction and management: a scoping review. Virtual Reality, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-024-00943-y
Laine, J., Rastas, E., Seitamaa, A., Hakkarainen, K., & Korhonen, T. (2024). Immersive virtual reality for complex skills training: content analysis of experienced challenges. Virtual Reality, 28(1), 1–26.
Landeck, M., Unruh, F., Lugrin, J.-L., & Latoschik, M. E. (2024). Object Motion Manipulation and time perception in virtual reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1390703.
Liao, T., Xu, K., & Bennett, S. M. (2025). Is it time for augmented reality theory?: Identifying challenges and pathways for theoretical development. Journal of Media Psychology, 37(2), 64–76.
Lim, C., Ratan, R., Pandita, S., Foxman, M., Hales, G. E., Liu, H., Lei, Y. S., & Beyea, D. (2025). Openness to the metaverse workplace: Zoom fatigue and metaverse information seeking mediate gender inequities. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2025(1), 8808655.
Makani, A., Saryazdi, R., Givetash, S., & Keshavarz, B. (2024). The presence of an avatar can reduce cybersickness in Virtual Reality. Virtual Reality, 28(4), 163.
Miguel-Alonso, I., Checa, D., Guillen-Sanz, H., & Bustillo, A. (2024). Evaluation of the novelty effect in immersive Virtual Reality learning experiences. Virtual Reality, 28(1), 1–23.
Neuwirth, L. S., Ng, S., Devors, S., Lonjon, N., & Ros, M. (2024). Comparing fourth-year medical students’ procedural surgical skill learning outcomes between third-person point-of-view video lectures and first-person point-of-view immersive virtual reality: a pilot study of surgically implanting a subdermal drain on cadavers. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1408092.
Ng, R., Woo, O. K. L., Eckhoff, D., Zhu, M., Lee, A., & Cassinelli, A. (2024). Participatory design of a virtual reality life review therapy system for palliative care. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1304615.
Oberdörfer, S., Birnstiel, S., & Latoschik, M. E. (2024). Proteus effect or bodily affordance? The influence of virtual high-heels on gait behavior. Virtual Reality, 28(2), 1–19.
Patel, S., & Baker, N. A. (2024). Exploring perspectives on engagement in interactive virtual reality for chronic pain management: insights from a content analysis study. Virtual Reality, 28(4), 1–8.
Renata, A., Guarese, R., Takac, M., & Zambetta, F. (2024). Assessment of embodied visuospatial perspective taking in augmented reality: insights from a reaction time task. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1422467.
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
Solmaz, S., Gerling, K., Kester, L., & Van Gerven, T. (2024). Behavioral intention, perception and user assessment in an immersive virtual reality environment with CFD simulations. Virtual Reality, 28(2), 1–20.
Suzuki, T., Uhde, A., Nakamura, T., Narumi, T., Amemiya, T., & Kuzuoka, H. (2024). Be sensei, my friend: Aikido training with a remotely controlled proxy trainer. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1392635.
Teixeira, J., Miellet, S., & Palmisano, S. (2024). Effects of vection type and postural instability on cybersickness. Virtual Reality, 28(2), 1–18.
Tretter, M., Hahn, M., & Dabrock, P. (2024). Towards a smart glasses society? Ethical perspectives on extended realities and augmenting technologies. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1404890.
Uhm, J.-P., Lee, H.-W., Kim, S., & Han, J.-W. (2024). First-person experience in Virtual reality sport advertisements: Transportation of embodied empathy. Presence, 33, 269–286.
Yan, W., Lowell, V. L., & Yang, L. (2024). Developing English language learners’ speaking skills through applying a situated learning approach in VR-enhanced learning experiences. Virtual Reality, 28(4), 1–23.

1. The three journals examined in this section of the report include Virtual Reality (178 articles across 4 issues), Frontiers in Virtual Reality (105 articles across 2 issues), and Presence: Virtual and Augmented Reality (23 articles across 2 issues, one of which was a thematic issue). Articles were read by the two authors who coded each article for themes based on theories used and met to confirm commonalities in their coding across the corpus. ↑

2. Our emphasis. ↑

3. Our emphasis. ↑