Next Article in Journal
Refined Analysis of Spatial Three-Curved Steel Box Girder Bridge and Temperature Stress Prediction Based on WOA-BPNN
Next Article in Special Issue
Centralized or Decentralized? Communication Network and Collective Effectiveness of PBOs—A Task Urgency Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Greenhouse Gas Payback Time of Different HVAC Systems in the Renovation of Nordic District-Heated Multifamily Buildings Considering Future Energy Production Scenarios
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Interactive Effects of Communication Network Structure and Organizational Size on Task Performance in Project-Based Organizations: The Mediating Role of Bootleg Innovation Behavior
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/buildings14020414
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Extended Reality (XR) Training in the Construction Industry: A Content Review

by
Shixian Li
1,
Qian-Cheng Wang
2,*,
Hsi-Hsien Wei
1 and
Jieh-Haur Chen
3
1
Department of Building and Real Estate, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom 999077, Hong Kong
2
Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Research Center of Smart Construction, National Central University, Jhongli, Taoyuan 320317, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(2), 414; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14020414
Submission received: 30 November 2023 / Revised: 16 January 2024 / Accepted: 31 January 2024 / Published: 3 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategic Planning and Control in Complex Project Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
As modern information technology advances and equipment devices update, extended reality (XR) technologies, including virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and augmented virtuality (AV) have witnessed an increasing use and application in construction training. This review aims to comprehensively examine the evolution of XR training in the construction domain. To achieve this, a systematic literature review of 74 journal papers from the Scopus database was conducted. This paper outlines the progression of XR training from 2009 to 2023, detailing related technologies like development platforms, display devices, and input devices. The literature review reveals that XR application in construction training spans five main areas: (1) safety management, (2) skill/knowledge acquisition, (3) equipment operation, (4) human–computer collaboration, and (5) ergonomics/postural training. Additionally, this review explores the impact of trainee roles on XR training outcomes and identifies the challenges faced by XR technology in construction training applications. The findings of this literature review are hoped to assist researchers and construction engineering trainers in understanding the latest advancements and challenges in XR, thereby providing valuable insights for future research.

1. Introduction

The construction industry, often referred to as the backbone of urban development [1], necessitates a workforce with skills and adaptability to effectively navigate the intricate challenges inherent in powering social advancement [2] and achieving sustainable development goals [3,4]. Training plays a crucial role in the construction industry, serving as a vital link between theoretical knowledge and practical application. Notably, the advancements in modern information technology have facilitated the rise and widespread adoption of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and related virtual technology in construction training [5]. Some studies also indicate that these technologies, compared to traditional training methods, enhance the effectiveness of training [6,7,8].
The terminology associated with virtual technologies lacks clarity in both academic and industrial contexts, encompassing terms such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and extended reality (XR) [5]. For example, Wedel et al. [9] stated that MR combines VR and AR, while Zhao et al.’s literature review [10] positions MR alongside VR and AR, collectively denoted as XR. To enhance clarity and distinguish these perplexing concepts for the readers, this study incorporates the concept of a “virtuality continuum” proposed by Milgram and Kishino in 1994 [11]. As shown in Figure 1, this conceptual framework effectively distinguishes between AR, augmented virtuality (AV), and VR. Specifically, the concept of AR can be interpreted as overlaying computer-generated digital information onto the real-world environment, creating a seamless integration [12,13]. VR refers to a technology that creates computer-generated simulated environments that users can explore and interact with [13]. In addition, AV blending real-world elements into VR employs real objects as input devices for interaction within the virtual environment during construction training [14]. In this review, XR is utilized as an umbrella term encompassing virtual technologies, including VR, AR, and AV [11].
The benefits of employing extended reality (XR) training in the construction industry are diverse. For example, VR simulations provide a risk-free setting for trainees to immerse themselves in realistic construction scenarios, refining their skills without compromising safety [15,16,17]. These technologies also facilitate collaborative training experiences, allowing professionals to participate in shared virtual environments and overcome geographical distances and disciplinary barriers [18,19]. Furthermore, VR can increase a trainees’ motivation and decrease the cost compared to traditional training methods [19,20,21]. Additionally, AR can aid construction workers in task completion, contributing to reduced task duration and minimizing the likelihood of errors [22].
While XR training offers some advantages compared to traditional methods, it is undeniable that these technologies are still in their early developmental stages and have certain limitations. The creation of training scenarios and the achievement of realism encounters challenges. For example, current devices limit the trainee’s visual perspective [23] with sensory feedback primarily focused on visual and auditory aspects, lacking tactile, olfactory, and other stimuli [24]. Additionally, developing high-quality training content demands a significant investment of both resources and time. Most VR training relies on head-mounted displays (HMD), allowing only one person to undergo training at a time, creating difficulties in scaling up simultaneous training for multiple participants on a larger scale. It is important to note that VR, AR, and AV technologies are different methods during training, although they are often grouped together. Therefore, a comprehensive literature review of XR technology in the construction field is essential. This will provide scholars and practitioners in related domains with background knowledge on XR training, enhancing their understanding of the current development status and the challenges faced in its implementation.
Furthermore, literature reviews pertaining to similar topics are also examined and evaluated in this study. It was revealed that there was a lack of research on the application of XR in the field of construction training. In terms of the review scope, certain reviews take a broader scope, offering a comprehensive examination of research within the entire architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) field, maintaining a general focus but lacking a specific review dedicated to the construction sector [25,26,27,28]. For instance, Zhang et al. [26] utilized a mixed quantitative–qualitative review method, analyzing 206 journal articles to explore research trends and opportunities for VR application in the AEC industry. Other reviews delve into the intersection of education and construction training [29,30]. While education and construction training share a close relationship, they differ in their objectives, with education emphasizing knowledge transfer to students and focusing more on theoretical foundations, while construction training targets workers tasked with complex and hazardous construction site activities, emphasizing practical orientation. Furthermore, some reviews concentrate on construction safety training [31,32,33,34], but construction training extends beyond safety training, encompassing areas such as construction equipment operation [35]. A research gap emerges from these literature reviews, specifically the absence of a critical review focusing on XR technology in the realm of construction training.
To address the research gaps mentioned above, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of extended reality (XR) research pertaining to construction training, encompassing virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and augmented virtuality (AV). The specific objectives include as follows: (1) delineating the current state of development in XR training and associated technology applications; (2) examining the implementation areas of these studies within construction training; (3) investigating the influence of XR training participants on training outcomes; (4) and exploring challenges encountered in the domain of VR, AR, and AV technologies in construction training. The subsequent sections of this paper are structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the review protocol and methodology, including research questions, a systematic literature search strategy, and the data analysis of selected publications. In Section 3, the current research status of XR in construction training is provided, covering an analysis of the identified publications and specific techniques. Section 4 categorizes the application of XR in construction training. Section 5 focuses on the participants in the XR training experiments. Additionally, Section 6 delineates the challenges inherent in XR training. Finally, Section 7 concludes this literature review.

2. Review Protocol and Methodology

The literature review protocol adheres to the guidelines outlined by [36], comprising four essential phases for evaluating a quality literature review: (1) design, (2) conduct, (3) data abstraction and analysis, (4) and structuring and writing the review. As stated by Snyder [36], the design phase necessitates the formulation of a clear and well-motivated research question, followed by the selection of an appropriate review methodology tailored to the research query. It is imperative to establish a transparent search strategy, incorporating relevant search terms, explicit inclusion, and exclusion criteria. This section provides research questions to be addressed and the search strategy to be utilized, in detail.

2.1. Research Questions

As mentioned before, this paper aims to comprehensively understand the research of XR training in the construction domain. The specific research questions that this review paper intends to address are the following:
  • Research Question 1 (Q1): What is the status of XR training in the construction industry?
  • Research Question 2 (Q2): What are the applications of XR training in the construction industry?
  • Research Question 3 (Q3): How do the participants of the XR training experiment have an impact on training results?
  • Research Question 4 (Q4): What are the challenges of XR training faced in the construction industry?

2.2. Search Strategy

In this review, Scopus was utilized for literature searches, which is managed by Elsevier Publishing company and contains the metadata for over 82 million documents and more than 1.7 billion references [37]. A preliminary research search was conducted on selected sources using relevant search terms. Since this paper seeks to study the application of extended reality technology in construction training, the search terms were divided into three parts: research technology, target research areas, and target research purpose. The specific search string used to query Scopus was as follows:
TITLE-ABS (“VR” OR “virtual reality” OR “AR” OR “augmented reality” OR “XR” OR “extended reality” OR “MR”) AND TITLE-ABS (construction OR “construction site” OR “construction project” OR “construction management” OR “construction engineering” OR “construction industry”) AND TITLE-ABS (training OR “construction training” OR operation).
The initial search identified 2390 studies, which were then filtered based on publication date, with only studies published between January 2009 and December 2023 being considered. The document type was restricted to journal articles, the publication stage was final, and the language was limited to the English language. To further refine the selected articles, the study also narrowed the scope of subjects to engineering, computer science, social sciences, energy, environmental science, psychology, multidisciplinary, and decision sciences.
Following the initial screening, 506 articles were obtained. The researchers then conducted a cursory full-text reading of the 506 articles to exclude duplicates, articles outside the field of construction industry, articles irrelevant to the training, and articles where the full text was unavailable. Ultimately, a total of 74 articles were selected for an in-depth literature analysis. The database literature screening process is illustrated in Figure 2.

2.3. Data Analysis

The ultimate inclusion of 74 publications undergoes a comprehensive content review. To address the aforementioned research questions, specific data are selected from the chosen articles during the examination of their contents. The data utilized in this study are shown in Table 1.

3. Current Development of XR Training in Construction Industry

3.1. Overview of Identified Publications

Figure 3 illustrates the number of published articles about XR in construction training from 2009 to 2023. The trend in article publications was basically stable from 2009 to 2019, consistently featuring fewer than five articles annually. This pattern may be attributed to the construction industry’s slower adoption of XR technology, trailing behind fields like manufacturing and automated driving. Commencing in 2020, a notable surge in published studies is observed, showing incremental growth throughout the years 2020 to 2023. This substantial increase is postulated to be linked to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic at the close of 2019. The global outbreak impacted the construction industry [38,39], disrupting normal operations and contributing to the surge in remote and online technologies, which thrived amid restrictions on large-scale offline gatherings. The escalating number of publications post-2020 underscores the sustained academic interest in investigating XR training within the construction domain.
Table 2 presents the distribution of the 74 selected journal articles by publication source. Over 33 journals featured articles on XR technology in construction training. The top five journals, ranked by the number of selected articles, were Automation in Construction (14.9%), Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering (12.2%), Advanced Engineering Informatics (8.1%), Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (6.8%), and Safety Science (5.4%). These five journals collectively accounted for approximately half of the total selected articles. The distribution shows that most XR training articles were published in technology-related journals.
As shown in Figure 4, regarding the geographical affiliation of the first author, the United States leads with 38% of published papers. Subsequent to this, South Korea emerges as the second-highest contributor at 11%, followed by China (9%) and Australia (8%). Other countries have made comparatively modest contributions, with none exceeding three publications over the past 15 years.
The percentage of the research on XR technology in construction training is elucidated in Figure 5. VR technology takes the lead, constituting 89% of the applications, followed by AR at 8%, and AV at the lowest, with a mere 3%. This distribution indicates a predominant reliance on VR technology within XR applications for construction training, underscoring its substantial growth over the past 15 years.
Figure 6 depicts the co-occurrence network of author keywords, generated through VOSviewer 1.6.20, providing insights into the thematic content within this research domain. To improve visualization, the minimum occurrence threshold for author keywords was set to two. It is crucial to note that synonymous keywords were consolidated into representative terms. For instance, “VR” encompasses “virtual reality” and “virtual reality (VR)”, and “hazard recognition” is used for both “hazard identification” and “hazard perception”. After this consolidation process, 32 keywords were identified. In Figure 6, the size of the nodes corresponds to the frequency of keyword occurrences, and the thickness of the link between nodes indicates the strength of the relationship between node terms, with thicker lines representing stronger associations. Notably, XR technology in construction training emerges with the highest frequency and total link strength, prominently featuring VR. This underscores VR’s widespread adoption and relative maturity in the current construction training research landscape. Apart from “VR”, prevalent themes include “safety training”, “construction safety”, and “hazard recognition”, emphasizing the collective focus on enhancing construction safety and hazard awareness. Keywords at the periphery of the network graph, such as “human–robot collaboration”, “construction worker”, and “user experience”, although represented by smaller nodes and weaker associations, suggest potential emerging research themes that may evolve in the future and warrant attention.

3.2. XR Training Technology

XR technology is evolving at an unprecedented rate, with tremendous benefits to the research and industry [40]. Access to new display and input devices for the consumer market, offering affordable pricing models, has accelerated the diffusion of XR technology [37]. This sub-section introduces the development platform, display device, and input device of XR technology in construction training.

3.2.1. Development Platform of XR

In the development of XR experience, a commonly employed approach involves the utilization of a game engine or a specialized development platform that has native support for XR. The game engine serves as the heart that encompasses nearly all of the functions and features required to develop a fully realized game [41,42]. It provides developers with a set of tools and functionality to assist and simplify the development, creation, and management of digital games, simulations, or other interactive applications. Modern game engines provide key features to create realistic and immersive virtual environment scenarios, including graphics rendering, physics simulation, scene graphs, audio systems, animation systems, scripting and programming interfaces, and networking functions [41,43]. For example, a graphics rendering system involves rendering objects, textures, lighting, and visual effects to enhance the fidelity of a virtual environment. In a study by Luo et al. [44], it was found that enhancing scenario fidelity significantly improves the sense of presence and usability in forklift safety training for workers. The audio system enables developers to seamlessly integrate and manage sound effects and other audio elements in construction training; Han et al. [45] introduced background sound to enhance immersion in scaffold-based safety training using VR.
Within the realm of XR training for the construction field, Unity and Unreal Engine stand out as the most widely utilized game engines. Unity3D, for example, features multi-platform system support, offering both free and commercial versions. Games developed using the Unity3D game engine can be exported as standalone applications for macOS and MS Windows, consoles such as Xbox and Wii, and smartphones running iOS, Android, Blackberry, and Windows [46]. Moreover, Unity’s asset store comprises an extensive collection of images, 3D models, scripts, sound effects, and complete games, offering developers a time-saving resource [41]. Unreal Engine is renowned for its high-quality rendering effects, featuring a 64-bit color High Dynamic Range (HDR) rendering pipeline in Unreal Engine 4. This pipeline incorporates a diverse range of post-processing effects, including motion blur, depth of field, bloom, and screen space ambient occlusion [41]. In addition, both Unity and Unreal Engine have large communities; support is readily available from a diverse user base, comprising both professional and amateur developers, who actively contribute assistance in the community forums.
Other development platforms are less frequently used in the construction training field, such as WebXR, Oculus First Contact game, Second Life, and Torque 3D engine. WebXR, based on WebGL, enables the creation of XR experiences accessible through web browsers [47]. This approach allows trainees to access simulations with minimal hardware requirements. Dhalmahapatra et al. [48] employed the Oculus First Contact game to instruct users in comprehending the sequence of electric overhead crane operations and addressing potential hazards during work. Users can utilize the Oculus controllers to interact with the virtual agent within the environment. Second Life is not a game or game engine; it is a massive multiplayer 3D virtual world designed for social interactions, where users can meet, chat, play, explore, and build virtual spaces [41]. Hence, Second Life is regarded as a communication platform within the context of construction training, facilitating individuals from diverse geographical locations to engage in concurrent online learning [19]. As Cowan and Kapralos [41] pointed out, Torque 3D, available under the MIT open-source license, is free and supports Windows and major web browsers. It uses TorqueScript scripting language, featuring a syntax similar to C++, to accomplish the majority of the game engine’s functionalities. Table 3 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the XR development platform.

3.2.2. Display Device

The effectiveness of XR technology in construction training is influenced by the immersive level of display devices. The immersive level determines the depth of engagement and realism experienced by trainees within the virtual construction environments. Accordingly, XR display devices can be classified into three categories based on their immersive levels: non-immersive display (e.g., 2D display), semi-immersive display (e.g., Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE), Microsoft HoloLens), and immersive display (e.g., Head-Mounted Display (HMD)).
Two-dimensional display devices, such as desktop monitors [54] and mobile screens [52], represent the entry level of XR immersion. While these devices lack the depth and immersive qualities of more advanced options, they remain valuable for certain construction training scenarios. For example, mobile screens, found on smartphones and tablets, offer a portable and accessible XR experience. Gomes Jr et al. [55] used a tablet to detect the equipment from various user perspectives within the industrial scenario. This approach facilitates the real-time incorporation of actual information about these pieces of equipment through AR annotations.
CAVE systems represent a semi-immersive solution for construction training, providing a more engaging experience than 2D displays. CAVEs consist of immersive projection environments where virtual content is displayed on multiple surfaces, creating a room-sized virtual experience [56]. This immersive projection enhances spatial awareness and allows trainees to interact with the virtual construction site on a larger scale [17]. The use of motion tracking and gesture-based input devices further enhance the realism of the training experience [57]. One notable advantage of the CAVE systems, is their ability to facilitate collaborative learning [58]. Multiple trainees can simultaneously participate in the same virtual construction scenario, fostering teamwork and communication. This collaborative aspect makes CAVEs well suited for group training sessions and team-building exercises within the construction industry. In addition, because of the fundamental characteristics of AR technology, which entails superimposing computer-generated content onto the user’s real surroundings, all AR-related display devices cannot offer a completely immersive experience. Consider Microsoft HoloLens as an example. While wearing HoloLens, users can maintain a clear view of their surroundings while concurrently observing holographic images seamlessly integrated into the real-world environment [59].
VR HMDs offer a fully immersive experience by seamlessly integrating virtual content into the trainee’s field of view [60]. These head-worn devices, resembling visors, completely envelop the user’s eyes and ears, creating a deeply immersive environment that isolates users from external stimuli. Offering a first-person perspective, VR HMDs transport trainees to a virtual construction environment, fostering a sense of physical presence [61]. Moreover, VR HMDs enable realistic simulations by tracking the user’s head movements and adjusting the virtual environment accordingly [40,62]. This responsiveness contributes to the authenticity of construction training, enabling trainees to inspect virtual structures, interact with virtual objects, and practice construction tasks with an elevated sense of presence. Therefore, numerous studies chose headset devices for construction training, such as Oculus Rift [6], HTC Vive [63], Samsung Odyssey [64], Oculus Quest [65], and HP Reverb [21] et al.

3.2.3. Input Device

Input devices are the bridge between the physical actions of trainees and their interactions within virtual construction environments, including keyboard and mouse, touch screen, controller/joystick, tracking devices, and specialized input devices. Traditional input devices like keyboards and mouses remain relevant in XR construction training, especially in desktop-based training cases [66]. Touchscreen interfaces extend the reach of XR training to devices such as tablets and interactive displays [35]. Trainees can directly manipulate virtual elements by tapping, swiping, and pinching touch-sensitive screens. Moreover, controllers and joysticks are handheld devices that often include buttons, triggers, and other input mechanisms to facilitate various interactions within the virtual environment [40]. In construction training applications, motion controllers simulate the handling of tools and equipment, allowing trainees to practice tasks ranging from bricklaying to operating heavy machinery [6,8,15]. This can be particularly useful for hands-free interactions and can enhance the overall user experience. Tracking devices, such as sensors and cameras, play a critical role in capturing the real-world movements of trainees. These devices enable accurate positional tracking, allowing XR systems to replicate the trainee’s movements within the virtual environment [8,14,65,67]. In construction training, tracking devices contribute to a high level of realism by ensuring that virtual interactions closely mirror the trainee’s physical actions. Some specialized input devices are also adopted to enhance the training experience, such as operation panels [23], steering wheels [44], and foot pedals [18].

4. XR Application in Construction Training

From the review, XR applications in construction training can be categorized into five groups, including (1) safety training; (2) skill/knowledge acquisition; (3) equipment operation; (4) human–robot collaboration; (5) and ergonomics/postural training. Table 4 represents the distribution of these publications.

4.1. Safety Management

In the realm of construction training, the predominant current research focuses on safety management. Over the past 15 years, 44 papers have been published, constituting 59.5% of the total selected papers. Construction sites pose various risks, such as fall hazards, electrical hazards, objects striking, and hazards related to collapse or caught-in/between situations [24,45]. Ensuring the safety of workers is paramount to the construction industry, and XR technology presents an innovative approach to training that surpasses the traditional methods. Researchers achieve this by devising construction tasks or scenarios that incorporate one or more hazards, allowing safety managers or workers to enhance hazard perception awareness, reduce accidents, or gain sufficient knowledge to respond effectively to hazardous situations [49,68].
XR technology facilitates the development of highly realistic safety simulations, enabling trainees to encounter hazardous scenarios within a controlled virtual environment. Moreover, Trainees can use XR devices to inspect the environment, identify hazards, and make informed decisions on how to address or avoid them. In a study conducted by Rey-Becerra et al. [20], VR was employed to replicate an overhead work scenario on a construction site. Participants, equipped with VR headsets (Pico Neo 3 Pro) and controllers, engaged in three virtual tasks: painting a façade using scaffolding, transporting two boxes on a platform, and installing a camera at the roof’s corner. Throughout the simulation, participants were tasked with selecting the appropriate personal protective equipment and reporting unsafe situations and hazards using a virtual tablet. Another approach, proposed by Wolf et al. [14] involved an AV method to assess trainees’ hazard awareness in a virtual work environment. AV technology allows for the tracking of the user’s hand motion and details of all entities in the virtual world, enabling the user to interact with a virtual angle grinder (with real weight, shape, and function) using their hand. The virtual scenario tasked participants with operating the angle grinder to cut a pipe while ensuring compliance with the prerequisites for themselves and their virtual animated coworkers represented in the simulation.
XR technology also enables dynamic and lifelike emergency response exercises, giving trainees practical experience in responding to critical situations. Wang et al. [46] used BIM and Unity3D to develop a virtual fire training system aimed at enhancing safety evacuation awareness. In addition, following simulated scenarios, XR facilitates in-depth post-incident analysis. Trainees have the opportunity to review their actions, comprehend the repercussions of their decisions, and explore alternative courses of action [87].

4.2. Skill/Knowledge Acquisition

One purpose of construction training utilizing XR technology is to enhance the competencies and expertise of construction workers. In this review, 11 papers, accounting for 14.9% of the total, were dedicated to applications related to skill and knowledge acquisition—the second-largest focus area in construction training.
In construction training, VR can provide trainees with a three-dimensional virtual space, replicating diverse construction sites with different layouts, structures, and spatial challenges. Through VR devices, trainees can interact with and manipulate virtual objects, promoting a deeper understanding of spatial relationships. Conesa et al. [21] developed an immersive shared virtual scenario enabling multiple students to collaborate in building a model. This study’s results demonstrated that VR has the potential to enhance the spatial skills of trainees.
The primary objective of AR training is to augment the skills and knowledge of construction professionals. Notably, in construction assembly tasks, AR proves valuable by offering workers graphical models enriched with contextualized information. This assistance enables them to carry out assembly work more quickly and accurately [109,110]. For instance, Gabajova et al. [96] introduced a virtual training task where trainees were tasked with assembling an industrial plug. Using AR technology through a tablet, the group could access each step of the assembly procedure, resulting in a reduction in the average assembly time compared to providing only a user manual. Similarly, Hou et al. [22] employed AR to embed digitized information into a real-world workspace displayed on a TV monitor. This approach furnished workers with the correct assembly procedure, leading to an enhanced accuracy in completing the pipe assembly by the trainees. AR proves to be a valuable tool in assisting and allowing trainees to practice and refine their assembly skills.
Other construction skills and knowledge can also be gained through XR technology. For example, Goulding et al. [97] employed VR interactive training, enabling trainees to experiment with offsite production work practices within a secure and controlled environment. This approach allows trainees to explore and grasp new methods, processes, and modes of thinking. Furthermore, Osti et al. [98] developed a virtual sector focused on timber-based construction, offering effective training for workers and enhancing the manual skills of young carpenters.

4.3. Equipment Operation

XR technology has also been implemented in construction equipment training, with a total of 10 studies (13.5%) reviewing its use. Primarily within VR environments, XR replicates the controls and functionalities of authentic construction machinery. This innovation allows trainees to engage in hands-on practice with equipment like excavators, forklifts, and cranes within a secure environment, eliminating the potential dangers associated with using actual machinery [18]. Virtual training not only provides a risk-free setting but also yields cost savings by mitigating expenses such as fuel consumption and equipment rental [30]. XR simulations enable trainees to acquaint themselves with equipment interfaces, hone precise maneuvers, and cultivate the skills essential for secure and efficient equipment operation. The training modules further allow for a progressive learning approach, enabling trainees to advance through various difficulty levels. This structured progression ensures that trainees master basic controls before tackling more intricate tasks, facilitating a systematic and effective skill development process.
Liu et al. [18] introduced a multi-user excavator teleoperating system that uses two joysticks and two pedals to simulate a real excavation experience. This system can facilitate collaborative work between an excavator operator and a signaler. Pooladvand et al. [100] created a crane simulation system within a virtual reality environment. This system automatically produced lifting objects and obstacles, incorporating comprehensive lift studies and a crane path planning system for real-time evaluation. It assessed the safety and feasibility of comprehensive lift planning in real time, providing crane operators and lift engineers with experience comparable to actual operation. Other small equipment like drones [101] and angle grinders [99] can also be trained using VR. These studies demonstrated the promising potential of XR for diverse equipment operating training.

4.4. Human–Robot Collaboration

As robotics become increasingly integrated into construction processes, XR facilitates training scenarios involving human–robot collaboration. Recent research has successfully merged VR with robotic systems, creating a seamless environment for data sharing and interaction [63]. In a study by Ye et al. [104], a comprehensive robot-assisted motor training system was introduced to enhance expert motor skills through a keyhole welding training task. The system recorded the movement process of expert motor skills using haptic feedback from the robotic system. The recorded data were then played back to the trainee through perceptual learning, enabling them to comprehend the movement pattern through proprioception. The system offered features such as repetition, pausing, and adjusting training speed, thereby aiding novices in mastering motor skills. Another instance of human–robot collaboration is highlighted in a study by Adami et al. [7]. The researchers investigated whether participation in virtual training with 25 trainees remote operating a demolition robot could enhance trust in the robot, self-efficacy, mental load, and situational awareness. The results demonstrated that VR training significantly improved cognitive factors compared to traditional face-to-face training. Consequently, the utilization of VR technology for training human–robot collaboration holds immense potential for the future.

4.5. Ergonomics/Postural Training

XR implementations in ergonomics/postural training are comparably limited, comprising only two journal articles. Nonetheless, in the construction industry, maintaining proper ergonomics and posture is critical to preventing musculoskeletal injuries, reducing the risk of injury, and improving overall health [111]. XR technology proves valuable in simulating the postures adopted by construction workers during their daily tasks. It not only evaluates these postures but also fosters proper ergonomic awareness and posture, thereby mitigating the risk of injuries associated with repetitive tasks or awkward postures. For example, Akanmu et al. [67] developed a cyber-physical postural training system that leverages VR technology to integrate virtual environments with physical architectural resources, such as wood. In this system, trainees utilized wearable sensors (IMUs) and a Vive tracker to ascertain their position and posture within the virtual environment. As trainees engaged in wood frame construction, the system captured data on body part rotations for analysis. Subsequently, it delivered instructional material aimed at promoting safe posture, thus enhancing the overall effectiveness of postural training. Although XR has minimal application in construction training, this technology provides a platform to create a safer and healthier working environment in the construction industry.

5. Participants of XR Training Experiments

XR training experiments encompass a diverse range of participants, primarily classified into two categories: students and construction professionals. Students typically come from disciplines associated with construction, such as construction engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering. On the other hand, construction professionals encompass various roles, including welders, concrete workers, rebar workers, carpenter workers, electric construction site workers, operators, safety managers, project managers, site managers, and safety inspectors. In Figure 7, among the 74 publications obtained for this review, 23 articles exclusively featured students, representing 31% of the total, while an equivalent number of articles concentrated on the involvement of construction professionals. Furthermore, 18 articles (24%) showcased a mixture pattern, with participants including both student and construction professional roles. Notably, the identity of the participants remained unspecified in 10 articles, constituting 14%.
Numerous studies have observed variations in training outcomes for trainees who are either students or working professionals. For example, Eiris et al. [54] conducted an experiment involving 38 construction students and 38 construction professionals, comparing a 360 degree panorama with a virtual reality safety training platform featuring four hazards. The results revealed that students perceived the 360 degree panorama as more realistic than the virtual reality environment, whereas construction professionals did not discern a significant difference. In addition, Adami et al. [63] undertook a study with 25 construction workers and 25 graduated construction engineering students, focusing on demolition robot operation training. The findings indicated that students exhibited greater knowledge acquisition, while workers demonstrated higher levels of trust and self-efficacy in the robot. Consequently, the effectiveness of XR training appears to be role-specific within the construction domain, suggesting the need for customized training content and methodologies tailored to distinct roles.
The outcome of XR training is also influenced by the trainee’s experience. For instance, in a safety training study by Yu et al. [74], 40 novice and 40 experienced workers underwent virtual construction site training involving 17 hazardous scenarios. The results indicated that novices exhibited significantly higher safety learning gains compared to their experienced counterparts. Such comparisons between novice and experienced workers offer valuable insights into the adaptability of XR training for individuals at various stages of their careers.
Some researchers have focused on the linguistic background of the trainees who participated in the XR training experiment. Afzal and Shafiq [50], for instance, employed BIM-based VR technology to conduct safety training focused on fall hazards in a multilingual setting in the United Arab Emirates. To mitigate the impact of language differences, participants in the training opted for a construction hierarchy, enabling them to discuss, address, and explain primary risks to on-site workers who did not share a common language. Understanding how participants communicate in virtual environments is crucial for designing XR training experiences that facilitate clear and effective interactions.
The diverse demographic composition of experiment participants engaged in XR training introduces a multifaceted dimension to the evaluation of its effectiveness. The characteristics of the study sample selected for XR training play a vital role in influencing the ultimate training effect and impacting the overall validity of the study’s findings. To ensure the broader applicability of XR training outcomes, researchers should carefully consider participants’ features throughout the evaluation process. In addition to the trainee’s identity, work experience, and language background, other factors merit consideration, such as the gender and age of the trainees, their previous experience with XR training, etc. Additionally, it is important to consider the sample size, as a sample that is too small may fail to adequately represent a diverse group of individuals. Considering the characteristics of XR experimental participants can enhance the depth of analysis, providing a more nuanced understanding of factors influencing XR training.

6. Challenges of XR Training

This paper presents a comprehensive review of 74 articles on XR training in construction published between 2009 and 2023. Although the application of XR technology in the field of construction training is becoming more and more widespread and shows the advantages and great research potential of this technology, it is undeniable that it is still in the early stage of XR technology development. Therefore, analyzing the main obstacles and challenges that exist in current XR training technology can help researchers understand the issues that they may face when conducting research on XR technology in the construction training domain.
As shown in Table 5, this paper describes the challenges faced by VR, AR, and AV technologies in the application of construction engineering training. VR consists of nine main aspects:
  • Visual interface design: The current equipment constrains the trainee’s visual perspective, and overcoming this limitation to attain a more extensive and panoramic view poses a challenge.
  • Motion capture technique: Current motion capture technologies come with calibration challenges, and the precision of captured positions is not sufficient.
  • Content development: Creating high quality and relevant VR training content specific to the construction industry can be time consuming and resource intensive. Developing realistic simulations, 3D models, and interactive scenarios that accurately represent construction processes and hazards requires expertise and collaboration between subject matter experts, instructional designers, and VR developers.
  • Multi-sensory: The current sensory feedback primarily involves visual and auditory stimuli; incorporating additional sensory feedback can enhance the alignment of the virtual world with the real world.
  • Health and safety: Ensuring the safety of trainees during VR simulations is crucial. Designing VR training experiences that accurately replicate real-world construction hazards and safety protocols while maintaining a safe training environment can be challenging. It is essential to strike a balance between realistic training scenarios and minimizing the risk of physical or psychological harm to trainees.
  • Assessment method: Most VR training assessments rely on questionnaires to gauge effectiveness, yet this evaluation method depends on the subjective sentiments of the trainees.
  • Scalability and accessibility: Ensuring accessibility for workers with diverse backgrounds, abilities, and language proficiency can be a challenge that requires careful consideration during VR training development.
  • Long-term effect: Most VR training evaluates short-term effectiveness, whereas the ultimate goal of training is for trainees to acquire a skill or knowledge over the long term.
  • Skill requirement: Mastering VR technology demands highly specialized skills and can prove challenging for many individuals.
Challenges of AR technology application in the field of construction include two aspects: (1) Health and safety: AR training should prioritize safety by accurately representing construction hazards and safety protocols. Prolonged use of head-mounted displays can cause visual discomfort for trainees. (2) Tracking technique: It is challenging to track motion in unprepared environments. Regarding challenges in AV technology, creating a high-fidelity environment with multiple participants and well-designed training assistant content proves to be difficult.

7. Conclusions

The purpose of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive overview of research on extended reality (XR) technology training in the construction industry. This study was conducted by systematically searching the relevant literature over a period of 15 years, from 2009 to 2023, resulting in 74 journal articles. This literature review first describes the selected publications as a whole and then shows the technology of XR including its development platform, display device, and input device. Regarding the application of XR training in the construction industry, it can be categorized into the following five categories: (1) safety management (2) skill/knowledge acquisition (3) equipment operation (4) human–robot collaboration (5) ergonomics/postural training. In addition, this study also investigated the challenges faced in the implementation of XR in construction training applications. The specific challenges encountered in VR, AR, and AV training applications were presented separately.
This study contributes to three main areas. Firstly, it provides an overview of the current state of XR technology (VR/AR/AV) and its applications in construction training, offering insights into the latest developments. Secondly, this review also delves into the identity characteristics of XR trainees, marking the first such analysis in the literature and exploring their potential impact on XR training experimental results. Lastly, through a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature, this study identifies challenges encountered in XR training within the construction industry. This information provides audiences with insights into the current obstacles in XR training development and hopes to offer guidance for future advancements in this field.
It is essential to acknowledge its limitations. First, the focus on XR technologies exclusively within the realm of construction training may inadvertently neglect broader applications within the construction industry. Additionally, the sourcing of 74 journal articles solely from the Scopus database may have resulted in the omission of pertinent literature from other databases, potentially limiting the comprehensiveness of the findings. Moreover, while the three facts of XR technology are introduced, it is imperative to recognize that this may not capture the entirety of the expansive XR landscape. While recognizing certain limitations, it is expected that the findings presented in this review serve as a valuable reference for fellow researchers in their respective fields.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L., H.-H.W. and Q.-C.W.; methodology, S.L.; software, S.L.; validation, S.L., Q.-C.W., H.-H.W. and J.-H.C.; resources, S.L. and Q.-C.W.; data curation, S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.L.; writing—review and editing, S.L., Q.-C.W., H.-H.W. and J.-H.C.; visualization, S.L.; supervision, H.-H.W. and J.-H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors acknowledge the support for this research by the Department of Building and Real Estate of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University under Project: P0044823 (1-WZ2E). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Niazi, G.A.; Painting, N. Significant factors causing cost overruns in the construction industry in Afghanistan. Procedia Eng. 2017, 182, 510–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Moshood, T.D.; Adeleke, A.Q.; Nawanir, G.; Ajibike, W.A.; Shittu, R.A. Emerging challenges and sustainability of industry 4.0 era in the Malaysian construction industry. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2020, 4, 1627–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, Q.C.; Yu, S.N.; Chen, Z.X.; Weng, Y.W.; Xue, J.; Liu, X. Promoting additive construction in fast-developing areas: An analysis of policies and stakeholder perspectives. Dev. Built Environ. 2023, 16, 100271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liu, X.; Yang, D.; Arentze, T.; Wielders, T. The willingness of social housing tenants to participate in natural gas-free heating systems project: Insights from a stated choice experiment in the Netherlands. Appl. Energy 2023, 350, 121706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rauschnabel, P.A.; Felix, R.; Hinsch, C.; Shahab, H.; Alt, F. What is XR? Towards a framework for augmented and virtual reality. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 133, 107289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Albeaino, G.; Eiris, R.; Gheisari, M.; Issa, R.R. DroneSim: A VR-based flight training simulator for drone-mediated building inspections. Constr. Innov. 2022, 22, 831–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Adami, P.; Rodrigues, P.B.; Woods, P.J.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Soibelman, L.; Copur-Gencturk, Y.; Lucas, G. Impact of VR-based training on human–robot interaction for remote operating construction robots. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2022, 36, 04022006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jacobsen, E.L.; Solberg, A.; Golovina, O.; Teizer, J. Active personalized construction safety training using run-time data collection in physical and virtual reality work environments. Constr. Innov. 2022, 22, 531–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wedel, M.; Bigné, E.; Zhang, J. Virtual and augmented reality: Advancing research in consumer marketing. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2020, 37, 443–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhao, X.; Zhang, M.; Fan, X.; Sun, Z.; Li, M.; Li, W.; Huang, L. Extended Reality for Safe and Effective Construction Management: State-of-the-Art, Challenges, and Future Directions. Buildings 2023, 13, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Milgram, P.; Kishino, F. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994, 77, 1321–1329. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dunleavy, M.; Dede, C. Augmented reality teaching and learning. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 735–745. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ahmed, S. A review on using opportunities of augmented reality and virtual reality in construction project management. Organ. Technol. Manag. Constr. Int. J. 2018, 10, 1839–1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wolf, M.; Teizer, J.; Wolf, B.; Bükrü, S.; Solberg, A. Investigating hazard recognition in augmented virtuality for personalized feedback in construction safety education and training. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2022, 51, 101469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Su, X.; Dunston, P.S.; Proctor, R.W.; Wang, X. Influence of training schedule on development of perceptual–motor control skills for construction equipment operators in a virtual training system. Autom. Constr. 2013, 35, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dias Barkokebas, R.; Li, X. VR-RET: A Virtual Reality–Based Approach for Real-Time Ergonomics Training on Industrialized Construction Tasks. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2023, 149, 04023098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sacks, R.; Perlman, A.; Barak, R. Construction safety training using immersive virtual reality. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2013, 31, 1005–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, D.; Kim, J.; Ham, Y. Multi-user immersive environment for excavator teleoperation in construction. Autom. Constr. 2023, 156, 105143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Le, Q.T.; Pedro, A.; Park, C.S. A social virtual reality based construction safety education system for experiential learning. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2015, 79, 487–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rey-Becerra, E.; Barrero, L.H.; Ellegast, R.; Kluge, A. Improvement of short-term outcomes with VR-based safety training for work at heights. Appl. Ergon. 2023, 112, 104077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Conesa, J.; Mula, F.J.; Bartlett, K.A.; Naya, F.; Contero, M. The Influence of Immersive and Collaborative Virtual Environments in Improving Spatial Skills. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hou, L.; Wang, X.; Truijens, M. Using augmented reality to facilitate piping assembly: An experiment-based evaluation. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2015, 29, 05014007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ki, J.S. Interactive training simulator for aerial working platform in a virtual environment. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2011, 19, 733–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, W.; Huang, H.; Solomon, T.; Esmaeili, B.; Yu, L.-F. Synthesizing personalized construction safety training scenarios for VR training. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2022, 28, 1993–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tastan, H.; Tong, T. Immersive virtual reality in AECO/FM to enhance education: Systematic literature review and future directions. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2023, 31, 1465–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Kang, S.-C.; Al-Hussein, M. Virtual reality applications for the built environment: Research trends and opportunities. Autom. Constr. 2020, 118, 103311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wen, J.; Gheisari, M. Using virtual reality to facilitate communication in the AEC domain: A systematic review. Constr. Innov. 2020, 20, 509–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Spitzer, B.O.; Ma, J.H.; Erdogmus, E.; Kreimer, B.; Ryherd, E.; Diefes-Dux, H. Framework for the use of extended reality modalities in AEC Education. Buildings 2022, 12, 2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tan, Y.; Xu, W.; Li, S.; Chen, K. Augmented and Virtual Reality (AR/VR) for Education and Training in the AEC Industry: A Systematic Review of Research and Applications. Buildings 2022, 12, 1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, P.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Chi, H.-L.; Wang, X. A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Zoleykani, M.J.; Abbasianjahromi, H.; Banihashemi, S.; Tabadkani, S.A.; Hajirasouli, A. Extended reality (XR) technologies in the construction safety: Systematic review and analysis. Constr. Innov. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Salinas, D.; Muñoz-La Rivera, F.; Mora-Serrano, J. Critical analysis of the evaluation methods of extended reality (XR) experiences for construction safety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moore, H.F.; Gheisari, M. A review of virtual and mixed reality applications in construction safety literature. Safety 2019, 5, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kassem, M.; Benomran, L.; Teizer, J. Virtual environments for safety learning in construction and engineering: Seeking evidence and identifying gaps for future research. Vis. Eng. 2017, 5, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, Z.; Wong, M.O.; Pan, W. Virtual reality enhanced multi-role collaboration in crane-lift training for modular construction. Autom. Constr. 2023, 150, 104848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Trindade, N.V.; Ferreira, A.; Pereira, J.M.; Oliveira, S. Extended reality in AEC. Autom. Constr. 2023, 154, 105018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Muñoz-La Rivera, F.; Mora-Serrano, J.; Oñate, E. Virtual reality stories for construction training scenarios: The case of social distancing at the construction site. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2021, 205, 37–47. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ogunnusi, M.; Hamma-Adama, M.; Salman, H.; Kouider, T. COVID-19 pandemic: The effects and prospects in the construction industry. Int. J. Real Estate Stud. 2020, 14, 120–128. [Google Scholar]
  40. Anthes, C.; García-Hernández, R.J.; Wiedemann, M.; Kranzlmüller, D. State of the art of virtual reality technology. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, 5–12 March 2016; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  41. Cowan, B.; Kapralos, B. An overview of serious game engines and frameworks. In Recent Advances in Technologies for Inclusive Well-Being: From Worn to Off-Body Sensing, Virtual Worlds, and Games for Serious Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 15–38. [Google Scholar]
  42. Thorn, A. Game Engine Design and Implementation; Jones & Bartlett Publishers: Sudbury, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gregory, J. Game Engine Architecture; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  44. Luo, Y.; Ahn, S.; Abbas, A.; Seo, J.; Cha, S.H.; Kim, J.I. Investigating the impact of scenario and interaction fidelity on training experience when designing immersive virtual reality-based construction safety training. Dev. Built Environ. 2023, 16, 100223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Han, Y.; Yang, J.; Diao, Y.; Jin, R.; Guo, B.; Adamu, Z. Process and outcome-based evaluation between virtual reality-driven and traditional construction safety training. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2022, 52, 101634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, B.; Li, H.; Rezgui, Y.; Bradley, A.; Ong, H.N. BIM based virtual environment for fire emergency evacuation. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 589016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bao, L.; Tran, S.V.-T.; Nguyen, T.L.; Pham, H.C.; Lee, D.; Park, C. Cross-platform virtual reality for real-time construction safety training using immersive web and industry foundation classes. Autom. Constr. 2022, 143, 104565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dhalmahapatra, K.; Maiti, J.; Krishna, O. Assessment of virtual reality based safety training simulator for electric overhead crane operations. Saf. Sci. 2021, 139, 105241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rokooei, S.; Shojaei, A.; Alvanchi, A.; Azad, R.; Didehvar, N. Virtual reality application for construction safety training. Saf. Sci. 2023, 157, 105925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Afzal, M.; Shafiq, M.T. Evaluating 4d-bim and vr for effective safety communication and training: A case study of multilingual construction job-site crew. Buildings 2021, 11, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Arain, F.M.; Burkle, M. Learning construction project management in the virtual world: Leveraging on second life. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. (ITcon) 2011, 16, 243–258. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhao, D.; McCoy, A.; Kleiner, B.; Feng, Y. Integrating safety culture into OSH risk mitigation: A pilot study on the electrical safety. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2016, 22, 800–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhao, D.; Lucas, J. Virtual reality simulation for construction safety promotion. Int. J. Inj. Control Saf. Promot. 2015, 22, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Eiris, R.; Gheisari, M.; Esmaeili, B. Desktop-based safety training using 360-degree panorama and static virtual reality techniques: A comparative experimental study. Autom. Constr. 2020, 109, 102969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gomes, D.L., Jr.; dos Reis, P.R.J.; de Paiva, A.C.; Silva, A.C.A.; Braz, G., Jr.; Gattass, M. An approach for construction of augmented reality systems using natural markers and mobile sensors in industrial fields. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2017, 12, 507–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Manjrekar, S.; Sandilya, S.; Bhosale, D.; Kanchi, S.; Pitkar, A.; Gondhalekar, M. CAVE: An emerging immersive technology—A review. In Proceedings of the 2014 Uksim-Amss 16th International Conference on Computer Modelling and Simulation, Cambridge, UK, 26–28 March 2014; pp. 131–136. [Google Scholar]
  57. Perlman, A.; Sacks, R.; Barak, R. Hazard recognition and risk perception in construction. Saf. Sci. 2014, 64, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. de Back, T.T.; Tinga, A.M.; Nguyen, P.; Louwerse, M.M. Benefits of immersive collaborative learning in CAVE-based virtual reality. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Coppens, A. Merging real and virtual worlds: An analysis of the state of the art and practical evaluation of Microsoft Hololens. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1706.08096. [Google Scholar]
  60. Concannon, B.J.; Esmail, S.; Roduta Roberts, M. Head-mounted display virtual reality in post-secondary education and skill training. Front. Educ. 2019, 4, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. John, N.W.; Pop, S.R.; Day, T.W.; Ritsos, P.D.; Headleand, C.J. The implementation and validation of a virtual environment for training powered wheelchair manoeuvres. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2017, 24, 1867–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Norouzi, N.; Bölling, L.; Bruder, G.; Welch, G. Augmented rotations in virtual reality for users with a reduced range of head movement. J. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. Eng. 2019, 6, 2055668319841309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Adami, P.; Singh, R.; Rodrigues, P.B.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Soibelman, L.; Copur-Gencturk, Y.; Lucas, G. Participants matter: Effectiveness of VR-based training on the knowledge, trust in the robot, and self-efficacy of construction workers and university students. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2023, 55, 101837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shringi, A.; Arashpour, M.; Golafshani, E.M.; Dwyer, T.; Kalutara, P. Enhancing Safety Training Performance Using Extended Reality: A Hybrid Delphi–AHP Multi-Attribute Analysis in a Type-2 Fuzzy Environment. Buildings 2023, 13, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Abotaleb, I.; Hosny, O.; Nassar, K.; Bader, S.; Elrifaee, M.; Ibrahim, S.; El Hakim, Y.; Sherif, M. An interactive virtual reality model for enhancing safety training in construction education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2023, 31, 324–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fernández, A.; Muñoz La Rivera, F.; Mora Serrano, J. Virtual reality training for occupational risk prevention: Application case in geotechnical drilling works. Int. J. Comput. Methods Exp. Meas. 2023, 11, 55–63. [Google Scholar]
  67. Akanmu, A.A.; Olayiwola, J.; Ogunseiju, O.; McFeeters, D. Cyber-physical postural training system for construction workers. Autom. Constr. 2020, 117, 103272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Choi, D.; Seo, S.; Park, H.; Hong, T.; Koo, C. Forecasting personal learning performance in virtual reality-based construction safety training using biometric responses. Autom. Constr. 2023, 156, 105115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Patil, K.R.; Bhandari, S.; Agrawal, A.; Ayer, S.K.; Perry, L.A.; Hallowell, M.R. Analysis of YouTube Comments to Inform the Design of Virtual Reality Training Simulations to Target Emotional Arousal. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2023, 149, 04023077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cheng, J.-Y.; Gheisari, M.; Jeelani, I. Using 360-Degree Virtual Reality Technology for Training Construction Workers about Safety Challenges of Drones. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2023, 37, 04023018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shringi, A.; Arashpour, M.; Dwyer, T.; Prouzeau, A.; Li, H. Safety in Off-Site Construction: Simulation of Crane-Lifting Operations Using VR and BIM. J. Archit. Eng. 2023, 29, 04022035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yoo, J.W.; Park, J.S.; Park, H.J. Understanding VR-based construction safety training effectiveness: The role of telepresence, risk perception, and training satisfaction. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shringi, A.; Arashpour, M.; Golafshani, E.M.; Rajabifard, A.; Dwyer, T.; Li, H. Efficiency of VR-Based Safety Training for Construction Equipment: Hazard Recognition in Heavy Machinery Operations. Buildings 2022, 12, 2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yu, W.-D.; Wang, K.-C.; Wu, H.-T. Empirical comparison of learning effectiveness of immersive virtual reality–based safety training for novice and experienced construction workers. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2022, 148, 04022078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Getuli, V.; Capone, P.; Bruttini, A.; Sorbi, T. A smart objects library for BIM-based construction site and emergency management to support mobile VR safety training experiences. Constr. Innov. 2022, 22, 504–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Huang, D.; Wang, X.; Liu, J.; Li, J.; Tang, W. Virtual reality safety training using deep EEG-net and physiology data. Vis. Comput. 2022, 38, 1195–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Seo, H.J.; Park, G.M.; Son, M.; Hong, A.-J. Establishment of virtual-reality-based safety education and training system for safety engagement. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Comu, S.; Kazar, G.; Marwa, Z. Evaluating the attitudes of different trainee groups towards eye tracking enhanced safety training methods. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2021, 49, 101353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Xu, Z.; Zheng, N. Incorporating virtual reality technology in safety training solution for construction site of urban cities. Sustainability 2020, 13, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nykänen, M.; Puro, V.; Tiikkaja, M.; Kannisto, H.; Lantto, E.; Simpura, F.; Uusitalo, J.; Lukander, K.; Räsänen, T.; Heikkilä, T. Implementing and evaluating novel safety training methods for construction sector workers: Results of a randomized controlled trial. J. Saf. Res. 2020, 75, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Jeelani, I.; Han, K.; Albert, A. Development of virtual reality and stereo-panoramic environments for construction safety training. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1853–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Choi, M.; Ahn, S.; Seo, J. VR-Based investigation of forklift operator situation awareness for preventing collision accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 136, 105404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Shi, Y.; Du, J.; Ahn, C.R.; Ragan, E. Impact assessment of reinforced learning methods on construction workers’ fall risk behavior using virtual reality. Autom. Constr. 2019, 104, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lu, X.; Davis, S. Priming effects on safety decisions in a virtual construction simulator. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 273–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bosché, F.; Abdel-Wahab, M.; Carozza, L. Towards a mixed reality system for construction trade training. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2016, 30, 04015016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Albert, A.; Hallowell, M.R.; Kleiner, B.; Chen, A.; Golparvar-Fard, M. Enhancing construction hazard recognition with high-fidelity augmented virtuality. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 04014024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Teizer, J.; Cheng, T.; Fang, Y. Location tracking and data visualization technology to advance construction ironworkers’ education and training in safety and productivity. Autom. Constr. 2013, 35, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Li, H.; Chan, G.; Skitmore, M. Multiuser virtual safety training system for tower crane dismantlement. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2012, 26, 638–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Guo, H.; Li, H.; Chan, G.; Skitmore, M. Using game technologies to improve the safety of construction plant operations. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 48, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Shelton, B.E.; Scoresby, J.; Stowell, T.; Capell, M.R.; Alvarez, M.A.; Coats, K.C.C. A Frankenstein approach to open source: The construction of a 3D game engine as meaningful educational process. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2010, 3, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alzarrad, A.; Miller, M.; Chowdhury, S.; McIntosh, J.; Perry, T.; Shen, R. Harnessing Virtual Reality to Mitigate Heat-Related Injuries in Construction Projects. CivilEng 2023, 4, 1157–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Qin, Y.; Bulbul, T. Electroencephalogram-based mental workload prediction for using Augmented Reality head mounted display in construction assembly: A deep learning approach. Autom. Constr. 2023, 152, 104892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Beh, H.J.; Rashidi, A.; Talei, A.; Lee, Y.S. Developing engineering students’ capabilities through game-based virtual reality technology for building utility inspection. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2022, 29, 2854–2877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bolkas, D.; Chiampi, J.D.; Fioti, J.; Gaffney, D. First assessment results of surveying engineering labs in immersive and interactive virtual reality. J. Surv. Eng. 2022, 148, 04021028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Habibnezhad, M.; Shayesteh, S.; Jebelli, H.; Puckett, J.; Stentz, T. Comparison of ironworker’s fall risk assessment systems using an immersive biofeedback simulator. Autom. Constr. 2021, 122, 103471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gabajová, G.; Furmannová, B.; Medvecká, I.; Grznár, P.; Krajčovič, M.; Furmann, R. Virtual training application by use of augmented and virtual reality under university technology enhanced learning in Slovakia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Goulding, J.; Nadim, W.; Petridis, P.; Alshawi, M. Construction industry offsite production: A virtual reality interactive training environment prototype. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2012, 26, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Osti, F.; de Amicis, R.; Sanchez, C.A.; Tilt, A.B.; Prather, E.; Liverani, A. A VR training system for learning and skills development for construction workers. Virtual Real. 2021, 25, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Jelonek, M.; Fiala, E.; Herrmann, T.; Teizer, J.; Embers, S.; König, M.; Mathis, A. Evaluating Virtual Reality Simulations for Construction Safety Training: A User Study Exploring Learning Effects, Usability and User Experience. i-com 2022, 21, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Pooladvand, S.; Taghaddos, H.; Eslami, A.; Nekouvaght Tak, A.; Hermann, U. Evaluating mobile crane lift operations using an interactive virtual reality system. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sakib, M.N.; Chaspari, T.; Behzadan, A.H. Physiological data models to understand the effectiveness of drone operation training in immersive virtual reality. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2021, 35, 04020053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ito, M.; Funahara, Y.; Saiki, S.; Yamazaki, Y.; Kurita, Y. Development of a cross-platform cockpit for simulated and tele-operated excavators. J. Robot. Mechatron. 2019, 31, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kim, B.; Kim, C.; Kim, H. Interactive modeler for construction equipment operation using augmented reality. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2012, 26, 331–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ye, Y.; Zhou, T.; Du, J. Robot-assisted immersive kinematic experience transfer for welding training. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2023, 37, 04023002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Shayesteh, S.; Ojha, A.; Liu, Y.; Jebelli, H. Human-robot teaming in construction: Evaluative safety training through the integration of immersive technologies and wearable physiological sensing. Saf. Sci. 2023, 159, 106019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wang, X.; Liang, C.-J.; Menassa, C.C.; Kamat, V.R. Interactive and immersive process-level digital twin for collaborative human–robot construction work. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2021, 35, 04021023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Adami, P.; Rodrigues, P.B.; Woods, P.J.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Soibelman, L.; Copur-Gencturk, Y.; Lucas, G. Effectiveness of VR-based training on improving construction workers’ knowledge, skills, and safety behavior in robotic teleoperation. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2021, 50, 101431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Gogouvitis, X.V.; Vosniakos, G.-C. Construction of a virtual reality environment for robotic manufacturing cells. Int. J. Comput. Appl. Technol. 2015, 51, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kwiatek, C.; Sharif, M.; Li, S.; Haas, C.; Walbridge, S. Impact of augmented reality and spatial cognition on assembly in construction. Autom. Constr. 2019, 108, 102935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yang, Z.; Shi, J.; Jiang, W.; Sui, Y.; Wu, Y.; Ma, S.; Kang, C.; Li, H. Influences of augmented reality assistance on performance and cognitive loads in different stages of assembly task. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ahankoob, A.; Charehzehi, A. Mitigating ergonomic injuries in construction industry. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 2013, 6, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 14 00414 g001
Figure 1. Reality-virtuality continuum.
Figure 1. Reality-virtuality continuum.
Buildings 14 00414 g001
Buildings 14 00414 g002
Figure 2. The literature screening process.
Figure 2. The literature screening process.
Buildings 14 00414 g002
Buildings 14 00414 g003
Figure 3. Number of publications from 2009 to 2023.
Figure 3. Number of publications from 2009 to 2023.
Buildings 14 00414 g003
Buildings 14 00414 g004
Figure 4. Distribution of publications by country.
Figure 4. Distribution of publications by country.
Buildings 14 00414 g004
Buildings 14 00414 g005
Figure 5. The percentage of VR/AR/AV applications in construction training.
Figure 5. The percentage of VR/AR/AV applications in construction training.
Buildings 14 00414 g005
Buildings 14 00414 g006
Figure 6. Author keyword co-occurrence network.
Figure 6. Author keyword co-occurrence network.
Buildings 14 00414 g006
Buildings 14 00414 g007
Figure 7. Percentage of participants involved in the experiments.
Figure 7. Percentage of participants involved in the experiments.
Buildings 14 00414 g007
Table 1. Data adopted for content analysis.
Table 1. Data adopted for content analysis.
DataDescriptions
Publication yearThe year of publications, from 2009 to 2023
Publication sourceThe Journals that feature the chosen publications
CountryThe first author’s country where the selected publication originated
The adoption of XR technology The XR technology employed in the selected publications, including VR, AR, AV
KeywordThe author keywords of the selected publications
XR technologyThe XR technology in the selected publications, including development platforms, display devices, and input devices
XR applicationCategories of XR application in construction training in the selected publications
ParticipantsThe roles of participants in XR training experiments in the selected publications
ChallengesThe challenges stated in XR training in the selected publications
Table 2. Distribution of the selected journal articles by publication source.
Table 2. Distribution of the selected journal articles by publication source.
Journal TitleNumber of Selected Articles
Automation in Construction11
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering9
Advanced Engineering Informatics6
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management5
Safety Science4
Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management3
Construction Innovation3
Buildings3
Applied Sciences2
Computer Applications in Engineering Education2
International Journal of Computers Communications and Control2
Sustainability2
Accident Analysis and Prevention2
Applied Ergonomics1
CivilEng1
Construction Management and Economics1
Developments in the Built Environment1
Education Sciences1
Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction1
i-com1
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies1
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics1
International Journal of Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements1
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion1
Journal of Architectural Engineering1
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management1
Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications1
Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics1
Journal of Safety Research1
Journal of Surveying Engineering1
Scientific World Journal1
Virtual Reality1
Visual Computer1
Total74
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of the XR development platform.
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of the XR development platform.
Development PlatformAdvantagesDisadvantagesApplication Example
Unity Engine
  • Large and user-friendly community support
  • Wide range of supported platforms
  • Offers pre-built assets and plugins by the Asset Store
  • Supports Cross-platform development
  • Slightly lower graphical fidelity compared to Unreal Engine
  • Primarily uses C#, unfriendly to developers preferring other languages
[18,44,49]
Unreal Engine
  • High-quality graphics and realistic rendering
  • Powerful visual scripting with Blueprints
  • Robust community and support
  • Includes built-in VR development tools
  • Features a steeper learning curve compared to some other engines
  • Some tasks may require C++, posing challenges for non-programmers
[16,50]
WebXR
  • Allows creating VR experiences accessible via web browsers
  • Compatible with VR headsets supporting WebXR
  • Limited to certain browsers and devices
[47]
Oculus First Contact Game
  • Designed to be an introductory experience, accessible for beginners in VR development.
  • Provides access to Oculus-specific features
  • Optimized performance for Oculus devices
  • Exclusive to Oculus hardware
[48]
Second Life
  • Excels in creating vast, user-generated virtual worlds
  • Designed to be user-friendly for content creation in its virtual environment
  • Not as robust as professional game engines in complex virtual world
[19,51]
Torque 3D Engine
  • Open-source (MIT), allowing developers to modify and customize the engine
  • Supports multiple platforms for greater flexibility
  • Smaller community compared to Unity and Unreal, potentially resulting in fewer resources and support
[52,53]
Table 4. The distribution of publications characterized by XR application in construction training.
Table 4. The distribution of publications characterized by XR application in construction training.
XR Training ApplicationRepresentative StudiesNO. of Studies
Safety management[8,14,17,19,20,24,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,52,53,54,57,64,65,66,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91]44
Skill/knowledge acquisition[21,22,51,55,92,93,94,95,96,97,98]11
Equipment operation[6,15,18,23,35,99,100,101,102,103]10
Human-robot collaboration[7,63,104,105,106,107,108]7
Ergonomics/postural training[16,67]2
Total 74
Table 5. Challenges of XR training application in the construction industry.
Table 5. Challenges of XR training application in the construction industry.
XR TechnologyXR Training Application ChallengesDescriptionReferences
VRVisual interface designThe design of the visual interface may prioritize situational comprehensiveness over realism in recent studies[18]
Trainees’ view is limited, and they cannot accurately understand their situation.[23]
Motion capture techniqueMotion capture technique requires cumbersome calibration before each new task trial.[18]
Moton tracking is not accurate enough.[83]
Content developmentTraining contents inconsistent with real-time life cause confusion among participants.[99]
Factors like wind, weather, temperature, lighting, and visibility, are not adopted.[100,101]
The problem remains of how to measure the task complexity and its impact.[15]
Multi-sensoryImprove the training experience by adding haptic, locomotion, and auditory feedback, etc.[24,106]
Health and safetyVR-based training may have physical side effects[8,24,48,107]
Tasks requiring dexterity, involving high force, sudden changes in force, large accelerations, or rapid movements carry a risk of injury.[104]
Assessment methodThe measurement of the questionnaire is subjective.[20,44,80]
Negative emotions are not measured during training.[45]
Scalability and accessibilityEnsuring training accessibility for workers with diverse backgrounds, abilities, and language proficiency can be a challenge[20,72]
Long-term effectLack of research on the long-term effect of training results[45,53,70,74,81,87,106]
Skill requirementThe development process requires special skills and extra effort.[19,99]
ARHealth and safetyProlonged use of head-mounted displays can cause visual discomfort for trainees[55]
Tracking techniqueMarkerless tracking and 3D feature-based tracking are not yet fully developed for application, particularly on mobile devices.[22]
AVContent developmentLack of multi-user virtual environment with varying degrees of assistance in achieving training objectives[14]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, S.; Wang, Q.-C.; Wei, H.-H.; Chen, J.-H. Extended Reality (XR) Training in the Construction Industry: A Content Review. Buildings 2024, 14, 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14020414

AMA Style

Li S, Wang Q-C, Wei H-H, Chen J-H. Extended Reality (XR) Training in the Construction Industry: A Content Review. Buildings. 2024; 14(2):414. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14020414

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Shixian, Qian-Cheng Wang, Hsi-Hsien Wei, and Jieh-Haur Chen. 2024. "Extended Reality (XR) Training in the Construction Industry: A Content Review" Buildings 14, no. 2: 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14020414

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop