You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Systems
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

16 January 2025

The Impact of VR Exhibition Experiences on Presence, Interaction, Immersion, and Satisfaction: Focusing on the Experience Economy Theory (4Es)

and
1
Department of Digital Media Design, College of Arts, Cheongju University, Cheongju 28496, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Media Communication, College of Social Science, Gachon University, Seongnam 13120, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Systems2025, 13(1), 55;https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13010055
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study systematically analyzes and emphasizes the importance of VR exhibition experiences, a relatively under-researched area. It examines the effects of VR exhibition experiences on presence and interaction and the influence of interaction on presence. Additionally, how these factors impact user immersion and satisfaction is explored, and the relationship between exhibition immersion and satisfaction is analyzed. Specifically, this study investigates how virtual exhibition experiences, similar to those in physical galleries, provide a sense of reality, leading to immersion in the artwork and ultimately resulting in satisfaction. The findings reveal that, among the VR exhibition experience factors, entertainment, escapism, and aesthetic experiences positively (+) affected interaction, while educational experiences negatively (−) influenced it. Furthermore, entertainment, escapism, and educational experiences positively influenced presence, whereas aesthetic experiences did not significantly impact it. Interaction significantly affected presence and positively influenced both immersion and satisfaction. Presence positively affected immersion but did not significantly affect satisfaction. Finally, immersion positively affected satisfaction. This study suggests that strategies that enhance interaction and presence are crucial in designing VR exhibition experiences. They also provide an important foundation for future research by systematically analyzing the relationships between presence, interaction, immersion, and satisfaction in VR exhibition experiences.

1. Introduction

Advances in virtual reality (VR) technology have facilitated a new level of immersive experience in art and cultural heritage exhibitions. VR redefines relationships with exhibits by overcoming the limitations of physical space and providing users with new ways of interacting with them [1,2]. This transformation strengthens the relationship between exhibits and users and enriches the exhibition experience through deeper immersion. Museum exhibition experiences through VR are an important research topic as they do not simply provide information but allow users to take an active role in interacting with exhibits and creating their own experiences [3]. Presence refers to a user’s sense of reality within a virtual environment and the sense that they are present in the environment, which is an important factor in increasing engagement [4,5]. Previous studies have demonstrated that interactivity plays an important role in enhancing presence, which, in turn, increases user engagement and satisfaction [1]. For example, Kim et al. [6] analyzed the impact of user interaction on immersion and satisfaction in VR environments and found that immersion was an important mediating factor for satisfaction [4]. These results suggest that strategies for enhancing interactivity are important for designing VR exhibition experiences.
Museum exhibitions utilizing VR technology are significant because, unlike traditional exhibitions, they go beyond the physical environment to provide globally accessible and interactive experiences. Flavián et al. [7] found that immersive technologies, such as VR, lead to a richer and more immersive user exhibition experience [4]. Additionally, Han et al. [8] identified the positive impact of interactivity on user engagement and satisfaction through a user experience model in VR exhibitions [3].
The essence of VR comprises three pillars: presence, interaction, and immersion [9]. Based on existing research, this study aims to systematically analyze the effects of interaction and presence on museum exhibition experiences through VR. By confirming the effects of interaction on presence and examining whether it has a significant impact on immersion and satisfaction, we aim to provide practical implications for designing VR exhibition experiences. In the context of exhibiting artwork, this study makes a significant academic contribution by focusing on whether providing the same level of immersion and satisfaction in a virtual environment as in a physical exhibition is possible.

3. Research Model and Hypothesis Setting

This study divided the experience factors of the virtual exhibition center into entertainment, deviant, educational, and aesthetic experience factors and constructed a research model to test the relationship between interaction, presence, immersion, and satisfaction, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Research model to test the relationship between presence, immersion, and satisfaction. Based on the previous studies, the following research hypotheses were developed: H1: VR exhibit experience factors (entertainment, escape, education, and aesthetics) have a positive effect on interaction. H1-1: Entertainment experiences have a positive effect on interaction. H1-2: Escape experiences have a positive effect on interaction. H1-3: Education experiences have a positive effect on interactions. H1-4: Aesthetic experiences have a positive effect on interaction. H2: VR exhibit experience elements (entertainment, escape, education, and aesthetics) have a positive effect on presence. H2-1: Entertainment experiences have a positive effect on presence. H2-2: Escape experiences have a positive effect on presence. H2-3: Education experiences have a positive effect on presence. H2-4: Aesthetic experiences have a positive effect on presence. H3: Interaction has a positive impact on presence. H4: Interaction has a positive effect on immersion. H5: Interaction has a positive effect on satisfaction. H6: Presence has a positive effect on immersion. H7: Presence has a positive effect on satisfaction. H8: Immersion has a positive effect on satisfaction.

4. Method

4.1. Research Subjects and Data Collection

For the study, we selected “Pinnacle of Property: The Uigwe, Records of the State Rites of the Joseon Dynasty”, a 360-degree VR exhibition created by the National Museum of Korea, a representative museum operated by the Korean government, and viewed the exhibition using HMD (Head Mounted Display), which is highly realistic, interactive, and immersive, to meet the purpose of this study.
The study was conducted through a survey targeting 194 students enrolled at C University in Cheongju, Chungcheongbuk-do, South Korea from 12 June to 24 July 2024. Prior to the survey, participants were given instructions on how to operate the device and experience the VR content. They then wore the VR device (Meta Quest 2) and spent approximately 5 min mastering its operation. Once they were ready, participants experienced a VR exhibition (https://www.museum.go.kr/museum/2023/uigwe_virtualtour, accessed on 6 April 2024) thoroughly. After the experience, the purpose and method of the survey were explained, and the questionnaires were distributed. The data were collected using a self-administered survey method, where respondents completed the questionnaires independently.
Out of the 194 participants, responses that were invalid or insincere (e.g., marking all answers in a single column or failing to complete the survey) were excluded, resulting in 181 valid responses used for the final analysis. The experiment was conducted in the same experimental environment as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Experiential scene of a museum experience using VR.
The analysis revealed the following characteristics of the participants: the majority were female (78.6%), significantly higher than males (21.4%), with an average age of 22.3 years. Regarding VR usage experience in the past year, 71.1% had used VR between 1 and 5 times, the highest proportion. Monthly VR usage was less than 2 times for 89.7% of respondents, followed by 3–4 times at 4.1%.
As for the purpose of VR use, gaming accounted for the highest proportion at 92.4%, followed by content development at 3.1%.

4.2. Operational Definitions and Measurement Tools of Variables

4.2.1. VR Experience Factors

For the study, we selected “Pinnacle of Property: The Uigwe, Records of the State Rites of the Joseon Dynasty”, a 360-degree VR exhibition created by the National Museum of Korea, a representative.
This study defined the VR exhibition experience as presented in Table 1 based on the research of Lee and Lee (2023) and Lee and Kim (2018) and refined the items to fit the purpose of this study. Each item was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much).
Table 1. Operational definition of measurement factors.
The answers for each element were as follows. Recreational experience: ① the experience in the virtual space was enjoyable; ② the experience in the virtual space was entertaining; ③ the experience in the virtual space was exciting; and ④ the experience in the virtual space was fun. Educational experience: ① the virtual reality experience was educational; ② I was able to acquire knowledge or skills through the virtual reality experience; ③ I gained new information through the virtual reality experience; and ④ the virtual reality experience stimulated my intellectual curiosity. Deviant experience: ① I felt like I was in a different time and place during the virtual reality experience; ② I felt like I was a different person during the virtual reality experience; ③ I felt like I was out of reality during the virtual reality experience; ④ I forgot about my daily life during the virtual reality experience; and ⑤ I felt like I was in another world during the virtual reality experience. Aesthetic experience: ① the space on the screen was attractive during the virtual reality experience; ② the design on the screen was eye-catching during the virtual reality experience; ③ the items on the screen were eye-catching during the virtual reality experience; and ④ the space on the screen was eye-catching during the virtual reality experience.

4.2.2. Interaction

This study defines interaction based on the description of Lee (2020): “the degree to which certain actions occurred because of the occurrence of an event between a person and a machine under physical conditions”. To measure it, the items used in the studies of Park and Yoo [38] and Park and Kim [39] were modified and supplemented to fit the context of this study. The items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much), with a total of four items. The answers were as follows: ① I was able to make adjustments as I wanted; ② I obtained information and reacted exactly as I typed; ③ I was free to operate as I wanted; and ④ it responded quickly to my commands.

4.2.3. Presence

This study defines presence based on the descriptions of Kim and Bocca [40], Ardura and Artola [41], and So [42]: “the degree to which a person feels as if he or she is present in the exhibition hall when experiencing VR content.” The measurement tool for measuring presence was adapted from the studies of the same authors. Each item was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much). The items were as follows: ① I felt as if I was inside the virtual space; ② I felt as if I was traveling; ③ I felt as if I was immersed in the virtual environment world while I was in the virtual space; ④ I experienced a virtual world and it disappeared as soon as I finished viewing it; ⑤ I felt like I was in a virtual space during the virtual experience; ⑥ I felt like I was in a virtual world during the virtual experience; ⑦ The virtual world was more real and took precedence over the real world during the virtual experience; and ⑧ I was constantly forgetting that I was participating in an experiment during the virtual experience.

4.2.4. Immersion

This study defined immersion based on the description of Yoon et al. [43]: “the degree of temporal and spatial immersion in a VR experience.” The tools to measure it are modified from the items used in the studies of Hudson et al. [44], Jennett et al. [45], and Yoon et al. [44]. Each item was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much). The items were as follows: ① I felt disconnected from the outside world while experiencing the VR exhibit; ② I felt completely immersed while experiencing the VR exhibit; and ③ I forgot about things I usually cared about while experiencing the VR exhibit.

4.2.5. Satisfaction

This study defined satisfaction based on the description of Kim and Noh [46]: “the overall degree of satisfaction with the virtual exhibition experience.” The instrument used to measure it was adapted from the studies of Stavrianea and Kamenidou [47], Kim and Noh [46], and Koo and Heo [48]. Each item was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all true, 5 = very true). The answers were as follows: ① overall satisfaction with VR exhibits; ② experiencing VR exhibits was a satisfying experience; and ③ willingness to invest time, money, and effort to experience VR exhibits.

4.3. Validation of Measurement Variables and Reliability

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to verify the validity of the variables and measurement items in this study.
We removed items with low factor loadings and applied modification indices to improve the structural model fit.
We checked convergent and discriminant validity to verify the validity of the measurement variables. First, average variance extracted (AVE) and conceptual reliability (CR) were checked to confirm convergent validity. As presented in Table 2, the AVE value was 0.863~0.938 (≥0.5 is appropriate) and the CR value was 0.959~0.984 (≥0.7 is appropriate), confirming convergent validity.
Table 2. The result of confirmatory factor analysis.
To test discriminant validity, we used the mean variance extracted and squared correlation value. The results of this test are presented in Table 3. The highest correlation was between “immersion” and “satisfaction” with a correlation coefficient of 0.493, and the smallest value of 0.929, the root mean square value of AVE, exceeded it; therefore, discriminant validity was confirmed. Finally, hypothesis testing was conducted centering on the structural model.
Table 3. Results of correlation analysis.

5. Research Result

The results of the structural model analysis for hypothesis testing are as follows: first, the model fit indices are χ2 = 551.405 (df = 442), p = 0.000 (p ≥ 0.05 is desirable), GFI = 0.844 (≥0.80 is acceptable), AGFI = 0.814 (≥0.80 is acceptable), RMR = 0.021 (<0.05 is acceptable), TLI = 0.978 (≥0.90 is acceptable), CFI = 0.981 (≥0.90 is acceptable), and RMSEA = 0.037 (≤0.06 is good), indicating that the model fit indices exceed all recommended values and the model is evaluated as suitable. The hypothesis-testing results according to the research model are presented in Table 4 and Figure 3.
Table 4. Results of the structural equation model.
Figure 3. Result of path estimation.
The results of the path analysis indicate that H1, which states that “VR exhibition experience (entertainment, escapism, education, and aesthetics) has a positive effect on interaction”, was supported for all factors except educational experience. Specifically, entertainment experience (β = 0.172, t = 2.322, p < 0.05), escapism experience (β = 0.332, t = 4.233, p < 0.001), and aesthetic experience (β = 0.190, t = 2.588, p < 0.05) positively influenced interaction (H1-1, H1-2, H1-4). Next, H2, which states that “VR exhibition experience (entertainment, escapism, education, and aesthetics) has a positive effect on presence”, was supported for all factors except aesthetic experience. Specifically, entertainment experience (β = 0.192, t = 2.575, p < 0.05), escapism experience (β = 0.161, t = 1.998, p < 0.05), and educational experience (β = 0.162, t = 2.347, p < 0.05) positively influenced presence (H2-1, H2-2, H2-3). H3, stating that “interaction has a positive effect on presence”, was also supported (β = 0.201, t = 2.114, p < 0.001). Furthermore, H4, stating that “interaction has a positive effect on immersion” (β = 0.177, t = 2.114, p < 0.05), and H5, stating that “interaction has a positive effect on satisfaction” (β = 0.272, t = 3.606, p < 0.001), were both supported. H6, which states that “presence has a positive effect on immersion”, was supported (β = 0.174, t = 2.107, p < 0.05), while H7, stating that “presence has a positive effect on satisfaction”, does not have a significant effect (β = 0.136, t = 1.868, p > 0.05). Finally, H8, which states that “immersion has a positive effect on satisfaction”, was supported (β = 0.201, t = 2.114, p < 0.001).

6. Results and Discussion

This study explored the intricate relationships between interaction, presence, immersion, and satisfaction within VR exhibition environments, aiming to provide actionable insights for VR designers and researchers. The findings underscore the multifaceted nature of user experiences in VR and reveal the distinct roles played by different experiential factors.
Influence of Experiential Factors on Interaction
The results show that recreational, escapist, and aesthetic experiences significantly enhance interaction. Recreational experiences, by eliciting positive emotions such as joy and curiosity, enable users to engage more actively with VR content. This supports findings by Mandryk et al. (2006) and Tan (2008), highlighting the importance of emotionally driven design in fostering interaction [49,50]. Similarly, escapist experiences, characterized by their ability to transport users out of their daily realities, were found to promote deeper user engagement. This aligns with research by Bai et al. (2021), which indicates that escapist experiences not only immerse users but also encourage proactive participation [51].
Aesthetic experiences enriched the interaction by enhancing users’ sensory engagement. When VR environments are visually appealing and artistically designed, users are more likely to interact with their surroundings in meaningful ways, as suggested by Gotthardt (2023) and Gulhan et al. (2023). These findings highlight the importance of curating visually cohesive and immersive environments that enhance interaction while also contributing to overall user satisfaction [52,53].
However, educational experiences did not significantly impact interaction. This finding is consistent with prior research [54,55], which suggests that overly information-driven content can hinder active engagement. Educational experiences in VR often lack the immediate, sensory stimuli required to sustain interaction, as users tend to prefer more dynamic and exploratory forms of engagement. This calls for a rethinking of educational content design, shifting from passive information delivery to more interactive and experiential approaches.
The Complex Role of Presence
Presence, a key factor in VR experiences, was positively influenced by recreational, escapist, and educational experiences. Recreational experiences heightened presence by fostering user engagement, as found in Rudi (2021) [56]. Escapist experiences, by offering freedom from real-world constraints, contributed to a sense of presence that allowed users to feel fully immersed in the virtual environment [57]. Educational experiences also enhanced presence by improving user focus and cognitive engagement [58].
Interestingly, aesthetic experiences, which positively influenced interaction, did not show a significant effect on presence. This aligns with Wang et al. (2023), who noted that excessive visual stimulation can detract from the user’s ability to feel fully present [59]. This suggests that while aesthetic elements are essential for fostering interaction, their impact on presence may be limited unless carefully moderated.
The findings also reveal the significant role of interaction in enhancing presence. Users who actively engage with VR environments are more likely to experience a heightened sense of realism and immersion. This supports theories by Theodoropoulos et al. (2023) and Jung and Lindeman (2021), emphasizing the importance of interactive elements in creating compelling and believable virtual spaces [60,61].
Interaction, Immersion, and Satisfaction
Interaction emerged as a key driver of both immersion and satisfaction. Enhanced interaction through multisensory feedback and intuitive design not only deepened user engagement but also contributed to a more satisfying experience. These findings align with studies by Zhang and Long (2019) and Chang et al. (2018), which suggest that interaction-rich environments provide users with opportunities for exploration and active participation, leading to greater immersion [62,63].
Immersion has been shown to significantly increase satisfaction. This is because, as previous studies have shown, immersion in a VR environment allows users to experience the virtual world as reality, contributing to increased emotional connection and satisfaction [20] and strengthening the psychological connection between users and content. In addition, a high level of immersion significantly increases user satisfaction, and the quality of immersion varies depending on the sensory feedback and interaction design of the VR content [64]. These results emphasize that it is important to combine multisensory feedback and include narrative and interaction elements to actively encourage users to participate in the virtual environment for immersion and that avoiding overly complex designs and designing VR experiences that allow users to immerse themselves naturally can increase satisfaction.
Balancing Presence and Satisfaction
This study highlights an intriguing paradox: while presence positively influenced immersion, it negatively affected satisfaction when excessive. High levels of presence, by increasing realism, blurred the boundaries between virtual and real environments, which enhanced immersion but occasionally led to user discomfort. This is consistent with findings by Ahn et al. (2014) and Weibel and Wissmath (2011), which suggest that overly realistic experiences in VR can induce fatigue or psychological unease [65,66] This underscores the need for designers to balance realism with user comfort, ensuring that presence enhances rather than detracts from overall satisfaction.
Implications for VR Design
  • The findings offer several practical implications for VR design:
Strategic Use of Experiential Elements
Recreational and escapist elements should be prioritized to enhance interaction and presence, while aesthetic elements should be carefully calibrated to avoid overstimulation.
2.
Reimagining Educational Content
Educational experiences must move beyond passive information delivery to incorporate interactive and sensory-rich features, aligning with user expectations for dynamic engagement.
3.
Designing for Immersion and Satisfaction
Multisensory feedback and narrative integration should be core design strategies to maximize both immersion and satisfaction.
4.
Moderating Presence
Designers must ensure that presence is sufficiently strong to enhance immersion but not so excessive as to cause user discomfort.
Toward a Holistic Understanding of VR Experiences
This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how different experiential factors interact to shape user experiences in VR. It underscores the importance of tailoring VR environments to meet diverse user needs, striking a balance between interaction, presence, and satisfaction. By carefully considering these dynamics, VR designers can create more engaging, immersive, and ultimately satisfying virtual experiences. These insights also provide a foundation for future research aimed at optimizing VR environments across various application domains.

7. Conclusions

This study provides a comprehensive exploration of the interplay between interaction, presence, immersion, and satisfaction in virtual reality (VR) exhibitions, offering critical insights for both theoretical development and practical application in VR design. By focusing on how various experiential factors influence user engagement, the findings contribute to the growing body of research aimed at optimizing VR environments for more meaningful and satisfying user experiences.
The results underline the pivotal role of interaction as a mediator in the relationship between user experiences and outcomes. Recreational, escapist, and aesthetic experiences emerged as significant contributors to interaction. Recreational experiences enhanced interaction through emotional engagement, demonstrating that entertainment-driven elements are fundamental in fostering user involvement. Escapist experiences offered a sense of liberation from real-world constraints, further amplifying user participation. Aesthetic experiences enriched the virtual environment, intensifying both the frequency and depth of user interaction. These findings suggest that VR exhibition designers should strategically integrate these experiential elements to create environments that actively engage users.
In contrast, educational experiences presented a more nuanced dynamic. While they failed to significantly influence interaction, they positively contributed to presence by enhancing focus and comprehension. This highlights the dual nature of educational content in VR; it can deepen cognitive engagement when effectively designed but risks being counterproductive if overly information-heavy or passively structured. This divergence emphasizes the need for educational content in VR to be interactive and sensory-rich, ensuring alignment with user expectations for dynamic engagement.
Presence demonstrated a complex role, serving as both an enhancer of flow and a potential detractor from satisfaction when excessive. Higher levels of presence significantly boosted immersion by blurring the boundaries between virtual and real environments, aligning with theories of environmental realism and cognitive absorption. However, the negative impact of excessive presence on satisfaction underscores the psychological and physiological limits of user tolerance for hyperrealistic experiences. This finding challenges the conventional assumption that maximizing presence is universally beneficial, suggesting instead that a balanced approach is essential to prevent discomfort or fatigue.
Immersion, as a mediator between presence and satisfaction, revealed itself as a critical determinant of positive user outcomes. Deep flow elicited heightened emotional responses, leading to increased satisfaction. The strong alignment of these findings with Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory suggests that VR experiences designed to sustain a seamless flow state can significantly enhance user enjoyment and perceived value.
Practically, this study underscores the necessity of multisensory and narrative-driven design strategies in VR exhibitions. Interaction should be optimized through engaging and intuitive interfaces that integrate sensory feedback and compelling narratives. Designers must carefully moderate aesthetic elements to avoid overstimulation and maintain user focus. Furthermore, educational content must transition from passive information delivery to formats that encourage exploration and interactivity, ensuring its compatibility with other experiential elements.
From a broader perspective, this study highlights the intricate balance required between presence, immersion, and satisfaction in VR environments. While presence enriches the user experience by enhancing realism and engagement, excessive presence can inadvertently detract from satisfaction. Immersion, on the other hand, consistently reinforces satisfaction by deepening the user’s emotional and cognitive involvement. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring VR experiences to meet diverse user needs, emphasizing flexibility and adaptability in design.
However, despite these meaningful results, the study has the following limitations.
First, because it focused on art exhibitions, it is difficult to generalize to various types of VR exhibitions (e.g., historical exhibitions, educational exhibitions, etc.). The effects of interaction and presence on user immersion and satisfaction may differ in VR exhibitions with different themes or forms. Future studies need to expand the research results by encompassing various types of exhibitions.
Second, although the results of the study showed that educational experiences had a negative effect on interaction, there is a lack of specific reasons or in-depth analysis for this. This does not provide a deeper understanding of how educational experiences are connected to interaction. Future studies need to identify the reasons why educational experiences had a negative effect on interaction.
Third, this study measured presence, interaction, immersion, and satisfaction through a questionnaire, but it lacked various methodological approaches, including physiological responses or behavioral data in addition to these subjective evaluations. In future studies, if more objective and precise analyses are conducted through physiological data (e.g., heart rate, brain waves) generated during VR experiences in addition to the questionnaire, it is expected that more effective VR exhibition experiences can be provided.
Fourth, this study approached VR positively by applying its framework to museum exhibitions and derived meaningful results. However, it is clear that VR also has limitations as a virtual medium, and issues such as high costs, technical complexity, and accessibility were not explored in depth.
Therefore, we hope that this study will be used as basic data to overcome these limitations in follow-up studies and verify the relationships between various variables related to VR exhibition experiences.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C. and J.S.; investigation, S.C.; methodology, S.C.; software, S.C.; supervision, J.S.; validation, S.C.; writing—original draft, S.C.; writing—review and editing, S.C. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Li, J.; Wider, W.; Ochiai, Y.; Fauzi, M.A. A Bibliometric Analysis of Immersive Technology in Museum Exhibitions: Exploring User Experience. Front. Virtual Real. 2023, 4, 1240562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cheng, L.; Xu, J.; Pan, Y. Investigating User Experience of VR Art Exhibitions: The Impact of Immersion, Satisfaction, and Expectation Confirmation. Informatics 2024, 11, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hu, X.; Wang, P.H. Virtual Reality in Museum: Exploring the User Experience of Exhibition Narrative. In Intelligent Human Systems Integration (IHSI 2024); AHFE International: Orlando, FL, USA, 2024; Volume 119, pp. 656–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yang, L.; Cheng, N.; Jiang, P.; Noriega, P. Virtual Museums: State of the Artz, Trends, and Challenges. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Washington, DC, USA, 29 June–4 July 2024; Springer Nature: Cham Switzerland, 2024; pp. 226–237. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baradaran Rahimi, F.; Boyd, J.E.; Eiserman, J.R.; Levy, R.M.; Kim, B. Museum Beyond Physical Walls: An Exploration of Virtual Reality-Enhanced Experience in an Exhibition-Like Space. Virtual Real. 2022, 26, 1471–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kim, M.J.; Lee, C.K.; Jung, T. Exploring Consumer Behavior in Virtual Reality Tourism Using an Extended Stimulus-Organism-Response Model. J. Travel. Res. 2020, 59, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Flavián, C.; Ibáñez-Sánchez, S.; Orús, C. The Impact of Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality Technologies on the Customer Experience. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Han, D.I.; tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T. User Experience Model for Augmented Reality Applications in Urban Heritage Tourism. J. Herit. Tour. 2018, 13, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lee, J.; Kim, M.; Kim, J. A Study on Immersion and VR Sickness in Walking Interaction for Immersive Virtual Reality Applications. Symmetry 2017, 9, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rahimi, F.B.; Boyd, J.; Levy, R.; Eiserman, J. New Media and Space: An Empirical Study of Learning and Enjoyment Through Museum Hybrid Space. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2020, 28, 3013–3021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Choi, K.; Nam, Y. Do Presence and Authenticity in VR Experience Enhance Visitor Satisfaction and Museum Re-Visitation Intentions? Int. J. Tour. Res. 2024, 26, e2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shahab, H.; Mohtar, M.; Ghazali, E.M.; Rauschnabel, P.; Geipel, A. Virtual Reality in Museums: Does It Promote Visitor Enjoyment and Learning? Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2022, 39, 3586–3603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Man, S.; Gao, Z. Digital Immersive Interactive Experience Design of Museum Cultural Heritage Based on Virtual Reality Technology. J. Electron. Imaging 2022, 32, 011208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zidianakis, E.; Partarakis, N.; Ntoa, S.; Dimopoulos, A.; Kopidaki, S.; Ntagianta, A.; Ntafotis, E.; Xhako, A.; Pervolarakis, Z.; Kontaki, E.; et al. The Invisible Museum: A User-Centric Platform for Creating Virtual 3D Exhibitions with VR Support. Electronics 2021, 10, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hsu, T.; Liang, H. Museum Engagement Visits with a Universal Game-Based Blended Museum Learning Service for Different Age Groups. Libr. Hi Tech. 2021, 40, 1226–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lee, H.; Jung, T.H.; tom Dieck, M.C.; Chung, N. Experiencing immersive virtual reality in museums. Inf. Manag. 2020, 57, 103229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, J.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, S.; Feng, L.; Morrison, A.M. Effect of display methods on intentions to use virtual reality in museum tourism. J. Travel. Res. 2024, 63, 314–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pine, B.J.; Gilmore, J.H. Welcome to the Experience Economy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 76, 97–105. [Google Scholar]
  19. Holbrook, M.B.; Hirschman, E.C. The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. J. Consum. Res. 1982, 9, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Slater, M.; Wilbur, S. A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE): Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1997, 6, 603–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pine, B.J.; Gilmore, J.H. The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre and Every Business a Stage; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kang, S.; Suh, E.; Chung, N. The Moderating Role of Technology Acceptance in Consumer Engagement: VR Exhibition Experiences. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 121, 68–76. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jeong, S.; Fiore, A.; Niehm, L.S.; Lorenz, F.O. The Role of Experiential Value in Online Shopping: The Impacts of Product Presentation on Consumer Responses Towards an Apparel Website. Internet Res. 2009, 19, 105–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, J.; Nie, J.; Ye, J. Evaluation of Virtual Tour in an Online Museum: Exhibition of Architecture of the Forbidden City. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0261607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Blunden, J. Adding ’Something More’ to Looking: The Interaction of Artefact, Verbiage, and Visitor in Museum Exhibitions. Vis. Commun. Q. 2020, 19, 45–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Macdonald, S. Interconnecting: Museum Visiting and Exhibition Design. CoDesign 2007, 3, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chirico, A.; Lucidi, F.; Laurentiis, M.D.; Milanese, C.; Napoli, A.; Giordano, A. Virtual Reality in Health System: Beyond Entertainment. A Mini-Review on the Efficacy of VR During Cancer Treatment. J. Cell Physiol. 2016, 231, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Seol, Y.; Joo, C. Presence Experience; Effect of the Experiential Exhibition Content. Korean Inst. Smart Media 2024, 13, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pimentel, D.; Kalyanaraman, S.; Lee, Y.; Halan, S. Voices of the Unsung: The Role of Social Presence and Interactivity in Building Empathy in 360 Video. New Media Soc. 2021, 23, 2230–2254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gorini, A.; Capideville, C.S.; Leo, G.; Mantovani, F.; Riva, G. The Role of Immersion and Narrative in Mediated Presence: The Virtual Hospital Experience. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kim, M.; Lee, J.; Jeon, C.; Kim, J. A Study on Interaction of Gaze Pointer-Based User Interface in Mobile Virtual Reality Environment. Symmetry 2017, 9, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, H.A.; Kim, I.T. The Effect of Smart Tourism Virtual Reality (VR) Experience Factors on Tourism Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention: Focused on the Moderating Effect of Presence. J. Tour. Leis. Res. 2019, 31, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kim, H.R.; Yoon, S.Y. The Effect of Presence Experience in Virtual Reality Sports Classes on Pleasure, Flow, and Intention to Participate in Sports Activities. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. Korea 2023, 40, 268–276. [Google Scholar]
  34. Oh, H.; Fiore, A.M.; Jeoung, M. Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications. J. Travel. Res. 2007, 46, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Radder, L.; Han, X. An Examination of the Museum Experience Based on Pine and Gilmore’s Experience Economy Realms. J. Appl. Bus. Res.(JABR) 2015, 31, 455–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Choi, K.S.; Nam, Y.J. A Study on the Influence of VR Experience and the Perception of Service Quality on Museum Visitors’ Satisfaction and Revisit Intention. Tour. Res. 2022, 37, 57–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lee, M.R.; Lee, H.S. The Effect of Brand Experience in the Metaverse on Consumer Attitude. Korean Assoc. Broadcast. Telecommun. Stud. 2023, 37, 73–108. [Google Scholar]
  38. Park, M.; Yoo, J. Effects of Perceived Interactivity of Augmented Reality on Consumer Responses: A Mental Imagery Perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 52, 101912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Park, H.J.; Kim, E.Y. The Impact of Haptic Mental Imagery Induced by Virtual Reality Interactivity on Dual Shopping Values. J. Home Econ. Res. 2023, 27, 63–74. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kim, T.; Biocca, F. Telepresence via Television: Two Dimensions of Telepresence May Have Different Connections to Memory and Persuasion. J. Comp-Mediat. Commun. 1997, 3, JCMC325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rodríguez-Ardura, I.; Meseguer-Artola, A. E-learning continuance: The impact of interactivity and the mediating role of imagery, presence and flow. Inf. Manag. 2016, 53, 504–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. So, Y.H. The Impact of Presence Experience on the Resolution of Virtual Reality Devices. J. Korea Content Assoc. 2019, 19, 393–401. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yoon, N.; Lee, H.K.; Lee, Y.-J. The Effect of VR Store Vividness on Immersion and User Satisfaction. J. Korean Soc. Cloth. Text. 2021, 45, 559–572. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hudson, S.; Matson-Barkat, S.; Pallamin, N.; Jegou, G. With or Without You? Interaction and Immersion in a Virtual Reality Experience. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 459–468. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jennett, C.; Cox, A.L.; Cairns, P.; Dhoparee, S.; Epps, A.; Tijs, T.; Walton, A. Measuring and Defining the Experience of Immersion in Games. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2008, 66, 641–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kim, J.H.; Noh, Y.H. A Study on the Effects of Virtual Content Experience Attributes on Flow, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intention: Focused on AR, VR, and Metaverse Content. Cult. Converg. 2022, 44, 165–183. [Google Scholar]
  47. Stavrianea, A.; Kamenidou, I.E. Memorable Tourism Experiences, Destination Image, Satisfaction, and Loyalty: An Empirical Study of Santorini Island. EuroMed J. Bus. 2021, 17, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Koo, W.I.; Heo, I.J. The Effects of VR Tourism Experience on Perceived Risk Areas on Satisfaction, Immersion, and WOM. FoodService Ind. J. 2024, 20, 321–337. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mandryk, R.; Quinn, K.; Calvert, T. Using Psychophysiological Techniques to Measure User Experience with Entertainment Technologies. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2006, 25, 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tan, E. Entertainment Is Emotion: The Functional Architecture of the Entertainment Experience. Media Psychol. 2008, 11, 28–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bai, Z.; Yao, N.; Mishra, N.; Chen, H.; Wang, H.; Magnenat-Thalmann, N. Enhancing Emotional Experience by Building Emotional Virtual Characters in VR Volleyball Games. Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds 2021, 32, e2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gotthardt, K.; Rakoczy, K.; Tallon, M. Can Virtual Art Touch Your Heart?—The Impact of Virtual Reality Art on Affect Considering Individual Characteristics and Aesthetic Experiences. Empir. Stud. Arts 2023, 43, 319–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gulhan, D.; Durant, S.; Zanker, J. Aesthetic Judgments of 3D Arts in Virtual Reality and Online Settings. Virtual Real. 2023, 27, 573–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vats, S.; Joshi, R. The Impact of Virtual Reality in Education: A Comprehensive Research Study. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland; Nagpur, India, 2023; pp. 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lin, X.P.; Li, B.B.; Yao, Z.N.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, M. The Impact of Virtual Reality on Student Engagement in the Classroom—A Critical Review of the Literature. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1360574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Rudi, J. Designing Soundscapes for Presence in Virtual Reality Exhibitions: A Study of Visitor Experiences. Visit. Stud. 2021, 24, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tsita, C.; Satratzemi, M.; Pedefoudas, A.; Georgiadis, C.; Zampeti, M.; Papavergou, E.; Tsiara, S.; Sismanidou, E.; Kyriakidis, P.; Kehagias, D.; et al. A Virtual Reality Museum to Reinforce the Interpretation of Contemporary Art and Increase the Educational Value of User Experience. Heritage 2023, 6, 4134–4172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lee, K.; Oh, S. The Users’ Intention to Participate in a VR/AR Sports Experience by Applying the Extended Technology Acceptance Model (ETAM). Healthcare 2022, 10, 1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, M.; Lee, J.; Liu, S.; Hu, L. The Role of Emotional Responses in the VR Exhibition Continued Usage Intention: A Moderated Mediation Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Theodoropoulos, A.; Stavropoulou, D.; Papadopoulos, P.; Platis, N.; Lepouras, G. Developing an Interactive VR CAVE for Immersive Shared Gaming Experiences. Virtual Worlds 2023, 2, 162–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jung, S.; Lindeman, R. Perspective: Does Realism Improve Presence in VR? Suggesting a Model and Metric for VR Experience Evaluation. Front. Virtual Real. 2021, 2, 693327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lv, H.; Zhang, J.; Long, H. Research on the Development of Virtual Pavilion Based on Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Virtual Reality and Intelligent Systems (ICVRIS), Jishou, China, 14–15 September 2019; pp. 62–64. [Google Scholar]
  63. Chang, H.-L.; Hu, H.-C.; Wang, K.; Tsaih, R.; Pu, L. How Design Features Lead to Visitors’ Visit Intention Through Virtual Reality Experience: The Case of National Palace Museum. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Yokohama, Japan, 26–30 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
  64. Shin, D. How does immersion work in augmented reality games? A user-centric view of immersion and engagement. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2019, 22, 1212–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ahn, S.J.; Bailenson, J.N.; Park, D. Short- and Long-Term Effects of Embodied Experiences in Immersive Virtual Environments on Environmental Locus of Control and Behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 39, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Weibel, D.; Wissmath, B. Immersion in Computer Games: The Role of Spatial Presence and Flow. Int. J. Comput. Games Technol. 2011, 282345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Stages of Systems Engineering: An Analysis and Characterization of Systems Engineering Approaches
Previous
The Mechanism of Entrepreneurial Resource Bricolage on Entrepreneurial Behavior in Underdeveloped Regions
Next