Comparing Cognitive and Psychological Factors in Virtual Reality and Real Environments: A Cave Automatic Virtual Environment Experimental Study
Source abstract
Abstract
The emergence of Building Information Modelling, Internet of Things, and Cave Automatic Virtual Environments (CAVEs) has created new opportunities for remote monitoring and decision-making in the operational built environment, yet empirical evidence supporting their use as alternatives to on-site observation remains limited. This study evaluates task and human performance in a controlled experiment comparing a CAVE with a real-world setting (n = 26). Situation awareness, workload, anxiety, presence, usability, and user experience were measured across conditions. Participants in the CAVE demonstrated substantially higher situation awareness (M = 92.1%) than those in the real-world condition (M = 56.8%), alongside significantly lower overall workload (NASA-TLX weighted workload = 38.3 vs. 53.8). Anxiety remained consistently low in the CAVE (ΔSTAI = –1.0), whereas participants in the real-world condition exhibited higher baseline anxiety followed by a large reduction during task execution (ΔSTAI = –13.2). The CAVE also elicited high levels of spatial presence, involvement, and realism relative to comparable projection-based systems, while usability ratings (SUS) were above industry benchmarks (M = 74.2). Together, these findings indicate that controlled immersive representations of built environments can support sensemaking and reduce extraneous cognitive load relative to live, uncontrolled on-site observation, with important implications for remote facilities management and operational decision-making.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts · Spatial Cognition and Navigation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
Funding
University of Birmingham
References (58)
Show source-provided references
1. Industrial Cyberphysical Systems: A Backbone of the Fourth Industrial Revolution10.1109/MIE.2017.2648857 ↗
2. (2019). Managing Information with Building Information Modelling (BIM) (Standard No. ISO 19650).
3. Fathi, S., Sabeti, S., Shoghli, O., Heydarian, A., and Balali, V. (2025). Adoption of virtual and augmented reality in the architecture, engineering, construction, and facilities management (AEC-FM): Mixed method analysis of trends, gaps, and solutions. Front. Built Environ., 11.10.3389/fbuil.2025.1580639 ↗
4. Virtual Versus Reality: A Systematic Review of Real-World Built Environment Tasks Performed in CAVEs and a Framework for Performance and Experience Evaluation10.3390/virtualworlds3040028 ↗
5. The CAVE: Audio visual experience automatic virtual environment10.1145/129888.129892 ↗
6. Choueib, A., and Berkman, M.İ. (2024). Comparing Performance and Experience in VR vs. Real-World Through a Puzzle Game. Proceedings of the International Conference on Videogame Sciences and Arts, Leiria, Portugal, 4–5 December 2024, Springer Nature.10.1007/978-3-031-51452-4_6 ↗
7. da Silva Soares, R., Ramirez-Chavez, K.L., Tufanoglu, A., Barreto, C., Sato, J.R., and Ayaz, H. (2024). Cognitive Effort during Visuospatial Problem Solving in Physical Real World, on Computer Screen, and in Virtual Reality. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24030977 ↗
8. Harty, C., and Tryggestad, K. (2012, January 3–5). The Roles of Representations in Building Design: Materiality and Visualisation. Proceedings of the 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, Edinburgh, UK.
9. CAVE for collaborative patient room design: Analysis with end-user opinion contrasting method10.1007/s10055-009-0138-x ↗
10. A Study on Evacuation Behavior in Physical and Virtual Reality Experiments10.1007/s10694-021-01172-4 ↗
11. Being there again—Presence in real and virtual environments and its relation to usability and user experience using a mobile navigation task10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.01.004 ↗
12. Virtual Exertions:Evoking the Sense of Exerting Forces in Virtual Reality Using Gestures and Muscle Activity10.1177/0018720814562231 ↗
13. Pedestrian Crossing Decisions in Virtual Environments: Behavioral Validity in CAVEs and Head-Mounted Displays10.1177/0018720820987446 ↗
14. Heldal, I., Spante, M., and Connell, M. (2006, January 1–3). Are two heads better than one? Object-focused work in physical and in virtual environments. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, Limassol, Cyprus.10.1145/1180495.1180553 ↗
15. Testing Human Errors In Virtual Reality Training10.17973/MMSJ.2022_12_2022128 ↗
16. Dell’Unto, N., Leander, A.M., Dellepiane, M., Callieri, M., Ferdani, D., and Lindgren, S. (November, January 28). Digital reconstruction and visualization in archaeology: Case-study drawn from the work of the Swedish Pompeii Project. Proceedings of the 2013 Digital Heritage International Congress (DigitalHeritage), Marseille, France.10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2013.6743804 ↗
17. Discovering Petra: Archaeological analysis in VR10.1109/MCG.2002.1028725 ↗
18. Shrestha, S., Chakraborty, J., and Mohamed, M.A. (2016, January 6–9). A comparative pilot study of historical artifacts in a CAVE automatic virtual reality environment versus paper-based artifacts. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct, Florence, Italy.10.1145/2957265.2962644 ↗
19. Evaluating the effectiveness of virtual environment displays for reviewing construction 3D models
20. Whisker, V., Baratta, A., Yerrapathruni, S., Messner, J., Shaw, T., Warren, M., and Rotthoff, E. (2003, January 4–7). Using immersive virtual environments to develop and visualize construction schedules for advanced nuclear power plants. Proceedings of the ICAPP, Cordoba, Spain.
21. A comparative study of assembly planning in traditional and virtual environments10.1109/5326.798768 ↗
22. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems10.1518/001872095779049543 ↗
23. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire10.1162/105474698565686 ↗
24. Learning Science in Virtual Reality Multimedia Environments: Role of Methods and Media10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.598 ↗
25. Human Performance in Immersive Virtual Environments: Effects of Exposure Duration, User Control, and Scene Complexity10.1207/S15327043HUP1504_03 ↗
26. Systematic review of measurement tools to assess surgeons’ intraoperative cognitive workload10.1002/bjs.10795 ↗
27. A multi-measure approach for connecting cognitive workload and automation10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.05.008 ↗
28. Haapalainen Ferreira, E., Kim, S., Forlizzi, J., and Dey, A. (2010, January 26–29). Psycho-Physiological Measures for Assessing Cognitive Load. Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, Copenhagen, Denmark.10.1145/1864349.1864395 ↗
29. State of science: Mental workload in ergonomics10.1080/00140139.2014.956151 ↗
30. Anxiety-Induced Changes in Movement Behaviour during the Execution of a Complex whole-body task10.1080/02724980343000945 ↗
31. The Role of Anxiety in Perceiving and Realizing Affordances10.1207/s15326969eco1803_1 ↗
32. Anxiety–performance relationships in climbing: A process-oriented approach10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00010-9 ↗
33. Situation awareness in anesthesia: Concept and research10.1097/ALN.0b013e318280a40f ↗
34. Workflows and individual differences during visually guided routine tasks in a road traffic management control room10.1016/j.apergo.2017.01.006 ↗
35. Questionnaires for Evaluating Virtual Reality: A Systematic Scoping Review10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100505 ↗
36. Peres, F., Nunes, F., Teixeira, J., Mauricio, C., Conceição, K., and Yoshida, L. (October, January 30). Methods for Evaluating Immersive 3D Virtual Environments: A Systematic Literature Review. Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality, New York, NY, USA.
37. Salinas, D., Muñoz-La Rivera, F., and Mora-Serrano, J. (2022). Critical Analysis of the Evaluation Methods of Extended Reality (XR) Experiences for Construction Safety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19.10.3390/ijerph192215272 ↗
38. Immersion and Coherence: Research Agenda and Early Results10.1109/TVCG.2020.2983701 ↗
39. Wang, D., Peng, Y., Haddouk, L., Vayatis, N., and Vidal, P.-P. (2025). Assessing virtual reality presence through physiological measures: A comprehensive review. Front. Virtual Real., 6.10.3389/frvir.2025.1530770 ↗
40. Using Virtual Reality to Compare Design Alternatives Using Subjective and Objective Evaluation Methods10.1177/1937586719851266 ↗
41. Insta360 (2025, October 10). Insta360 ONE X2—Waterproof 360 Action Camera with Stabilization. Available online: https://www.insta360.com/product/insta360-onex2.
42. (2025, October 10). Fulcro—FULmax | VR | Construction Virtual Reality. Available online: https://fulcro.co.uk/fulmax.
43. Pogmore, A., Davies, R., and Cooke, N. (2024, January 1–5). Development and Application of a VR BIM Digital Twin using Unity, IoT Sensor Data and Cave Automatic Virtual Environment. Proceedings of the 31st International Workshop on Intelligent Computing in Engineering (EG-ICE) 2024, Vigo, Spain.
44. Microsoft (2025, October 10). Buy Xbox Wireless Controller + USB-C Cable—Microsoft Store United Kingdom. Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/d/xbox-wireless-controller-usb-c-cable/8t8kcnb1xs3d.
45. Endsley, M.R. (1988, January 23–27). Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, Dayton, OH, USA.
46. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 ↗
47. Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., and Lushene, R.E. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Consulting Psychologists Press.
48. The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights10.1162/105474601300343603 ↗
49. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS—A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, CRC Press.
50. Sauro, J. (2011). A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, Benchmarks & Best Practices, Measuring Usability LLC.
51. Spielberger, C.D. (1972). Chapter 1—Current Trends in Theory and Research on Anxiety. Anxiety, Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-657401-2.50008-3 ↗
52. Zaccaro, A., Piarulli, A., Laurino, M., Garbella, E., Menicucci, D., Neri, B., and Gemignani, A. (2018). How Breath-Control Can Change Your Life: A Systematic Review on Psycho-Physiological Correlates of Slow Breathing. Front. Hum. Neurosci., 12.10.3389/fnhum.2018.00353 ↗
53. Brysbaert, M. (2011). Basic Statistics for Psychologists, Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-0-230-34592-8 ↗
54. Grier, R.A. (2016, January 19–23). How High is High? A Meta-Analysis of NASA-TLX Global Workload Scores. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA.
55. Field, A. (2017). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, SAGE Publications Ltd.. [5th ed.].
56. Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures with Unequal N’s and/or Variances: A Monte Carlo Study
57. Sauro, J., and Lewis, J.R. (2012). Chapter 8—Standardized Usability Questionnaires. Quantifying the User Experience, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.10.1016/B978-0-12-384968-7.00008-4 ↗
58. Physiological Sensor Technologies in Workload Estimation: A Review10.1109/JSEN.2025.3597329 ↗