Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper argues for a shift in thinking about the potential of immersive realities to serve the needs of introverts and people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Rather than using immersive reality to develop historically important traits and behaviors for successful face-to-face interactions, such as sustained eye contact, the paper suggests that immersive technologies should instead focus on creating virtual environments where introverts and those with ASD could thrive with their pre-existing complements of traits and behaviors. For example, people with ASD could use mute options to create a quieter environment when presenting in virtual spaces. This is a fascinating thesis, with clear ties to the aim and scope of the journal. It is one I think worth pursuing, but I found the defense of the thesis lacking in the paper. Understandably, the paper does not present a new study or data, due to the normative thesis it defends. Instead, the bulk of the paper focuses on reviewing past uses of immersive technologies, the uses that the paper calls into question, with little exploration of the alternative approach for which the paper advocates. Furthermore, the paper paints with a broad brush, drawing on studies of individuals with PTSD, introversion, ASD, social anxiety, and other mental disorders, without acknowledging potential variations across these populations. Indeed, the central concepts of ‘introvert’ and ‘autism spectrum disorder’ are not even defined in the paper. As such, it was hard to see the connection between the wide variety of studies surveyed and the central thesis that immersive reality should be leveraged differently to meet their individual needs. For these reasons, as well as some other concerns, I suggest that the paper be rejected.

 

1. In several places, I struggled to find the citations to support general claims of the paper. For example, on page one the author writes, “While all demographics report being at ease in engaging with avatars in immersive social environments, introverts, and their potential contributions in a wider set of industries and roles, may gain confidence, and practice public speaking,” without any supporting citation. Similarly, the author writes on page 2, “Recent studies have confirmed that the use of avatars in virtual reality reduces anxiety in various populations,” without any supporting citations.
2. On page 2, the author cites Vianez, Marques, and Simões de Almeida, 2022 and Suh and Ahn, 2022, in support of the claim that “introverts, those with social anxiety disorders, PTSD and ASD were better able to engage in social virtual reality more effectively than in person.” As far as I can tell, neither of those publications makes any mention of introversion or ASD. This highlights the need for the author to either generalize their thesis beyond those two groups, or else find other publications that focuses on those specific populations.
3. The “Materials and Methods” section nicely establishes ongoing work to use VR to help train the kinds of social skills needed to succeed in current face-to-face interactions. However, I found myself wondering why this point takes up the bulk of the paper. In fact, the paper plays up the successes of this work, which left me wondering why we should adopt the normative thesis advocated by the author. There is no reason that these prior lines of research should not continue alongside the author’s suggestion that we should strive for a more inclusive metaverse. But a critique of the boundaries of the current approach reviewed in this section would help motivate the author’s thesis.
4. I found the discussion section to be the most enjoyable, as it begins to suggest concrete ways that current VR technologies could be leveraged to address the needs of introverted and ASD populations. I would suggest expanding this discussion, focusing on addressing two questions in particular. 1) How could currently available affordances in VR be repurposed to help individuals thrive in the metaverse? 2) What affordances are not currently available that would be useful in creating a metaverse where these individuals can thrive?

Author Response

1. Citations added to areas noted missing.
2. Alternative sources added to address concern of specifically addressing ASD
3. Clarified the value added and needs assessment for moving away from status quo use of VR to a reevaluation for ASD
4. Two points noted have been clarified in the conclusion.

Reviewer 2 Report

I feel this study is well thought-out and researched. Your work is grounded in academic rigor and opens the door for extensions of this work as the metaverse continues to evolve.

Author Response

No changes requested

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

I was intrigued by your abstract. Indeed, you've written an important paper that is timely and relevant. 

My concern with this paper is the results section. Additional research is required to analyze the new opportunities for introverts to learn through social VR platforms. The references mentioned in this section have no correlation with learning as avatars in immersive learning environments. This section does not report results that are relevant to the paper. Consider how learning in VR is experiential (learning through exploration and reflecting). VR is not well suited for all teaching methods. 

Section 2 should be called Literature Review. It does not describe materials and methods. I think the Lit Review is well done. The literature is relevant and appropriate.

In the Discussion section consider writing about how VR designers should create immersive learning experiences for inclusivity, with meaningful social interaction for both introverts and extroverts. There can easily be trolls and inappropriate social interactions in virtual worlds. There is a wide range of avatar selections within different social VR platforms. What are your recommendations to designers and educators?

The article needs a conclusion.

Author Response

Results section: additional sources and research added to address concern

Section headings can be changed at the discretion of the editor. The title was taken from the template recommended for the special issue.

Conclusion: now addresses how VR designers should approach inclusivity

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the improvements in this version of the paper, particular with regard to citations and support in the review of the existing literature. While the changes in the results section begin to address the issues in my previous review, though I still think further argumentation and support is needed in the results section. Specifically, how do the identified articles support the kind of socialization and design you support in this article, and how do they differ from the approaches highlighted in the review of the extant literature?

Author Response

Clarification in Results section added, including additional citations and how social VR may be used to support issues in online and distance education. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This version is better. I still am confused by the results section, which does not connect to social VR or the metaverse. Why did you select these three particular articles? Perhaps you should consider studies that show where social interaction is lacking in online courses, and how social VR can offer socialization and collaboration opportunities.

 

Author Response

Clarification in Results section added, including additional citations and how social VR may be used to support issues in online and distance education.