A Concept at Work: A Review of Motivations, Operationalizations, and Conclusions in VR Research about Presence

Research Background and Issues

• What problems or challenges did the authors identify?

  1. Although "presence" is a core concept in virtual reality (VR) research, researchers often lack clarity in measuring and interpreting this concept.
  2. Key issues include why presence needs to be measured, how to select appropriate scales, and how to derive theoretical contributions from research findings.
  3. There is widespread uncertainty and variability in the definition of presence, the choice of measurement scales, and the alignment between scales and research objectives.

• Why is this issue important?

  1. Presence is widely used in the evaluation of VR systems, encompassing areas such as user experience (UX), technology validation, and behavioral change.
  2. A lack of clear motivation, reliable measurement methods, and proper interpretation of results could hinder theoretical advancements in VR research and even impact its practical applications.
  3. There is currently no consensus on the operationalization of presence and its relationship with other constructs (e.g., emotions, engagement, task performance), which poses a challenge to the cumulative progress of the field.

• Research Motivation and Related Work

  • Presence is a critical metric for evaluating user experience and technological efficacy in VR systems. Although this concept has been studied for over 30 years, researchers have yet to establish consistent operational methods.
  • Previous literature reviews have mostly focused on the definition of presence or technical aspects. The authors aim to review 288 research papers published in 2023 to focus on the measurement and application of "presence" in practice, revealing practical issues, research motivations, operationalization methods, and conclusions.

Solutions

• What methods or solutions did the authors propose?

  1. Conduct a systematic review of 288 VR research papers published in 2023 that measure presence, analyzing research motivations, operationalization methods, and conclusions.
  2. Summarize the main motivations behind the selection, modification, and use of measurement scales, and explore how different studies operationalize presence.
  3. Provide recommendations to researchers for more appropriate use of presence measurement scales and propose key directions for future research.

• What is innovative about this solution?

  1. The study examines the practical application of presence measurement in VR research rather than solely discussing theoretical frameworks, focusing on research motivations, reasons for scale selection and use, and their scientific validity.
  2. The data collection is limited to the most recent year (2023), reflecting the current state and cutting-edge practices in the field.
  3. The study offers practical improvement suggestions and future research directions based on real-world issues, bridging theory and practice more closely.

• What are the implementation steps and key techniques used?

  1. Data Collection: Gather VR research papers containing the keyword "presence" from multiple databases (Web of Science, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, etc.).
  2. Screening and Classification: Exclude irrelevant literature (e.g., non-VR or non-quantitative studies) based on predefined criteria and analyze the remaining 288 papers.
  3. Coding and Analysis:
     • Code research motivations (e.g., reasons for measuring presence).
     • Code specific operationalization methods for presence (e.g., which scales were used, modifications made, psychometric validation).
     • Code research conclusions (e.g., whether presence is treated as a causal variable or if theoretical reflections were conducted).
  4. Summary and Recommendations: Propose research suggestions and future directions based on the review findings.

Research Findings

• What specific findings were obtained?

  1. Research Motivations: Most studies use presence as a tool to validate user experience or evaluate interaction technologies, but often lack a theoretical foundation for why presence is measured; only 34% of papers reported clear motivations.
  2. Scale Selection and Usage:
     • Presence measurement primarily relies on self-report questionnaires (IPQ, PQ, and SUS are the most commonly used).
     • More than two-thirds of the studies modified existing scales but rarely provided theoretical justifications or conducted psychometric validation for these modifications.
     • Only 25% of studies performed reliability or validity testing of the scales.
  3. Conclusions and Theoretical Reflections:
     • Most studies focus on "what factors influence presence," with few exploring how presence interacts with other variables.
     • Only a small number of studies linked their findings to existing theoretical frameworks.

• What advantages does it have compared to existing solutions?

  • This review comprehensively analyzes the entire process from research motivation to data interpretation, rather than merely discussing the scales themselves.
  • It offers more practice-oriented improvement suggestions, such as how to enhance the rationality of scale selection and the scientific validity of conclusions.

• What were the experimental or evaluation results?

  • The review revealed that the lack of explicit reporting on the rationale for scale modifications and insufficient psychometric validation are common issues in current VR research.
  • More than half of the studies exhibit operationalization issues in measuring and interpreting presence, which may undermine the credibility and theoretical contributions of the research.

• Limitations and Future Directions

  1. Limitations:
     • The study focuses only on questionnaire methods for measuring presence, without delving into other methods (e.g., physiological signals).
     • The data is limited to 2023, potentially overlooking practical insights from earlier significant studies.
     • The actual research motivations may be underestimated due to reliance on explicitly stated content in the documents.
  2. Future Directions:
     • Conduct meta-analyses on presence to establish standardized reference values.
     • Provide more specific decision-support tools (e.g., decision trees) to guide researchers in selecting and applying measurement tools.
     • Explore the interactions between presence and other constructs (e.g., task performance) to advance theoretical development.

Conclusion

This study enhances our understanding of the current state and challenges surrounding the core concept of presence in VR research. By systematically summarizing existing issues and proposing recommendations, the authors provide a blueprint for more scientifically studying and applying "presence," while highlighting opportunities for improvement and future research directions.