Next Article in Journal
Heritage Education in the Digital Age: An Analysis of Public Perceptions of the Documentary Amato Lusitano: Science and Humanism
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Visualization Infrastructures of 3D Models in a Scientific Contest
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 9
Issue 2
10.3390/heritage9020061
heritage-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Extended Reality Approaches to Cultural Representation: Spatializing the Experience of Traditional Chinese Opera

by
Tianyu Han
1,2,*,
Heitor Alvelos
1,2 and
José Pedro Sousa
3,4
1
Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Porto, 4049-021 Porto, Portugal
2
ID+ Research Institute for Design, Media and Culture, 4050-453 Porto, Portugal
3
Faculty of Architecture, University of Porto, 4150-564 Porto, Portugal
4
Center for Studies in Architecture and Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture, University of Porto, 4150-564 Porto, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2026, 9(2), 61; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9020061
Submission received: 5 December 2025 / Revised: 15 January 2026 / Accepted: 26 January 2026 / Published: 4 February 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

As one of the most representative cultural heritages, traditional Chinese opera is characterized by highly refined symbolic contexts and stylized narrative structures. Nevertheless, the contemporary generation often struggles with its abstract expression and language, leading to declining attendance. In addition, urbanization and digital entertainment have squeezed out its living spaces, increasing demand for more diverse experiences. To address these issues, this study conducts a systematic and thematically categorized review of the literature, exploring how extended reality (XR) reshapes the spatial and experiential representation of opera culture. Drawing upon the reality–virtuality continuum and spatial computing as theoretical foundations, the research investigates the features, workflows, and cultural adaptability of augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR), identifying how each modality of XR supports distinct modes of space generation and audience engagement. Through comparative analysis, we propose three XR-based approaches for reinterpreting Chinese opera: AR for theatrical spaces visualization, VR for performative narratives embodiment, and MR for opera cultural elements superposition. Overall, the research clarifies that XR can be used as a comprehensive medium to enhance replicability and user perception, contributing to the preservation and communication of humanity’s traditional culture.

1. Introduction

Traditional Chinese opera embodies a complex interweaving of architectural spaces, plot scenarios, and role elements. As a performing and cultural system, it relies on the conventions accumulated in the practice of art over the centuries [1], which ultimately contributes to its inclusion in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity [2]. However, contemporary audiences often struggle to interpret the non-intuitive staging structures and highly abstract content, resulting in a decline in participation and aging visitors [3]. Moreover, the acceleration of urbanization and digital media industry has also led to the sharp reduction in its carrier space [4], making people increasingly expectant of whether it could produce diversified experiences [5]. Extended reality (XR), including augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and mixed reality (MR), offers immersive and interactive frameworks capable of solving these challenges by restructuring traditional culture within dynamic scenes [6]. XR combines the virtual visual processing methods of the above three technologies to merge the real world with human–computer interaction (HCI), thereby creating iterative and adaptable environments and providing opportunities for the revival of Chinese opera [7].
To understand this potential, the research draws on a focused narrative review. Peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers were selected from Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore, using keywords related to XR, performance, opera, heritage, and spatial experience. Studies were included if they explored XR technologies in cultural or performative contexts and discussed spatial representation or user experience. Technical studies without cultural relevance and purely commercial applications were excluded. Literature was screened through titles, abstracts, and full-text reviews, with emphasis on thematic connection rather than exhaustive coverage, to facilitate a comparative analysis of AR, VR, and MR in reinterpreting traditional culture and opera.
Specifically, the study first re-examined the reality–virtuality continuum, which positions AR, VR, and MR as graduated states between the physical and digital worlds, highlighting the technological transitions that support hybrid spatial configurations [8]. Complementing this, the examination of spatial computing expands XR beyond content display to multi-sensory interaction in cross-media contexts [9]. Moreover, previous systems such as Sutherland’s head-mounted display (HMD) [10] and Videoplace [11] further demonstrate early attempts to combine real action and virtual information within spatial interfaces, evolving into today’s mature XR devices and workflows. Ultimately, through a comparison of their technical features and application scenarios, the distinct roles of AR, VR, and MR in the field of cultural heritage are summarized: AR supports architectural presentation, VR enables immersive narrative exploration, and MR facilitates multi-layered overlay of elements. By synthesizing these attributes with the current research advances and gaps in XR opera, the study primarily investigates the following questions:
  • How can XR technology create immersive interactive spaces through continuous iterations of generative environments?
  • What distinct perceptual and communicative capacities do AR, VR, and MR offer for cultural experiences?
  • Which representation and spatialization approaches can integrate AR, VR, and MR for the revival of traditional Chinese opera?
This research aims to explore the application of XR technologies into opera and intangible cultural heritage (ICH) by blending multidisciplinary insights from cultural preservation, media studies, and digital spatial design. We therefore propose a systematic perspective for upgrading cultural infrastructure and enhancing the dissemination of traditional culture through XR-based spatial and experiential approaches.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the theoretical foundations of XR through the reality–virtuality continuum and spatial computing. Section 3 compares the technical characteristics and cultural applicability of AR, VR, and MR in traditional culture. Section 4 proposes three XR-based approaches for Chinese opera reinterpretation. Section 5 discusses the implications, limitations, and future empirical validation. Lastly, Section 6 concludes the article.

2. From Reality–Virtuality Continuum to Spatial Computing

Milgram and Kishino’s reality–virtuality continuum provides a framework for understanding how digital technologies mediate between physical and digital environments through progressive convergence (Figure 1) [8]. It places each modality of XR into a continuous spectrum rather than as isolated categories, thereby highlighting the significance of flexible transitions and hybrid configurations in spatial and experiential design. Through consistent adoption and development, XR systems are conceptualized as dynamic combinations of real and virtual elements that transcend fixed technological states [12]. Therefore, within this continuum, AR augments physical environments with digital information [13], MR enables interaction between virtual objects and physical space through occlusion and passthrough mechanisms [14], and VR represents the fully virtual endpoint in which user experience is entirely computer-generated [15].
While the reality–virtuality continuum remains influential, it primarily addresses visual combination and does not fully account for embodied interaction or multisensory engagement. Each phase emphasizes the fusion of real and virtual content but offers limited insight into how users perceive, navigate, and act across interwoven environments. For cultural communication and heritage-related applications, this constraint becomes particularly noteworthy, as relevant interpretation is shaped not only through digital vision, but also relies on bodily behavior, object manipulation, and narrative interplay. This gap indicates the need for an expanded conceptual approach that focuses on spatial representation and experience.
Spatial computing responds to this requirement by extending XR beyond visualization toward integrated processes of sensing, recognition, mapping, and instant feedback [9,16]. Early precedents of this methodology can be found in pioneering systems such as Sutherland’s HMD known as The Sword of Damocles, which linked visual output directly to head movement and spatial orientation (Figure 2) [10], and Krueger’s Videoplace (Figure 3), which enabled mutual responsiveness between human movement and projected digital imagery through real-time detection [11]. The CAVE (Cave Automatic Virtual Environment) system further developed such trajectory by embedding users within room-scale immersive environments (Figure 4) [17]. It established early forms of spatially situated interaction by merging motion tracking with stereoscopic projection.
With the evolution of sensing technologies and computational capacity, spatial computing has become central to contemporary XR systems. Processes such as localization, coordinate alignment, and environmental reconstruction now constitute the technical core of AR, VR, and MR applications, enabling devices such as Microsoft HoloLens 2 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA), Meta Quest Pro (Meta Platforms, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA), and Apple Vision Pro (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) (Figure 5) to support continuous interaction across physical and digital spaces [18]. Within this context, XR is no longer limited to two-dimensional augmentation or immersion, but acts as a multi-dimensional interface that incorporates surround perception with user responses. Ultimately, this transformation endows XR with the characteristics of spatial comprehension and embodied engagement, laying a crucial foundation for its application in cultural heritage preservation and dissemination.

3. Comparison of Adaptability of XR to User Experience in Traditional Culture

In the continuous evolution of XR technology, the seamless combination of physical and digital environments represents an advanced phase where real and virtual components converge. This state can be described using the concept of Phygital as an extension of XR, which is a key approach to interpreting culture within the context of growing experiential demands [19]. Especially for cultural heritage with spatial attributes, the specific method of representation is based on the distinct technical features and application scenarios of AR, VR, and MR.

3.1. AR: Auxiliary Presentation for Architectural Heritage

AR was initially developed to improve manual efficiency by presenting digital items onto physical environments, replacing traditional templates and paper-based drawings [20]. With subsequent technological development, AR has advanced into a medium capable of integrating images, text, and audio, thereby supporting scene understanding [9]. Technically, AR system interactions are view-based, which rely on basic types consistent with the user’s operational routines, such as visual or touch inputs [21]. Environmental sampling and device pose tracking further establish state references between real spaces and virtual content. The render layer outputs additive visual overlays, resulting in an AR world in which auxiliary and lightweight information is anchored to and dependent on the tangible realm [13]. As shown in Figure 6, this process is driven by the continuous iteration of multiverses.
AR is thus suited to digital reconstruction and interpretation in architectural heritage [22]. By overlaying virtual recreations onto existing structures, AR allows people to access hidden details, component system, and temporal transformations that are difficult to perceive through physical observation alone [23]. This capacity is especially valuable for damaged or culturally layered sites, where AR can simultaneously present the current conditions and historical states [6]. For example, visitors could explore the evolution of the heritage tower space through a mobile AR application [24]. Moreover, AR has been applied in conservation and restoration workflows by enabling alternative design strategies to be previewed directly within real workplaces. These include façade replacement, material selection, structural reinforcement, and color reproduction, reducing physical intervention while improving decision-making accuracy [25].
Architectural representation practices based on AR have yielded positive results in enhancing both public engagement and education. By reducing reliance on static displays that often fail to fully convey intangible information, this technology integrates spatial constructs with background and craftsmanship knowledge [26]. Fundamentally, however, AR’s core operation is to augment the tangible world by embedding digital objects within it, rather than replacing it. Although AR appeared later than VR, it does not pursue full immersion. Hence, it is more often applied to aid in the presentation of complex components, thereby creating experiences that are particularly effective in attracting young and non-specialist audiences.

3.2. VR: Immersive Roaming for Panoramic Scenarios

VR creates fully computer-generated environments that embed audiences within digital spaces, often conceptualized through the dimensions of interaction, immersion, and imagination [15]. Early VR research emphasized the synchronization of head movement with visual perspective, laying the foundation for spatial perception [10]. Situated at the end of the reality–virtuality continuum, VR differs from AR by replacing physical surroundings with simulated conditions, thereby prioritizing scene-based organization of the presence experience [27]. The VR workflow centers on the interface interaction through controller feedback or virtual UI, rather than spatial recognition. Through inertial signals and continuous user motion tracking to update the position and orientation, while bandwidth streaming ensures the real-time transmission and coordination of system states. In the end, entirely synthetic visual information is produced through rendering techniques, which is independent and self-contained, thus substituting real experiences. Together, these processes establish an immersive perception. Figure 6 illustrates how the VR system integrates these parts to generate objects and complete tasks, maintaining a cycle of response.
In cultural dissemination and exhibition contexts, VR is primarily applied in panoramic roaming and immersive exploration. By remapping existing environments into embodied cloud-based spaces, VR allows users to shift viewpoints freely and access cultural content at multiple spatial scales, enhancing both comprehension and engagement [28,29]. Interactive actions for scaling, rotating, and repositioning virtual exhibits and 3D models further promote active learning, while point-of-interest triggers (e.g., panels, videos, and special effects) enable autonomous browsing of contextual information [30]. These characteristics have also been applied to scenario-based cultural games, where narrative tasks reinforce immediate cognition and memory [31]. For instance, players can experience virtual historical landmarks along pre-planned walking routes [32]. Through maximizing presence, VR brings realistic visuals to archeology and heritage studies, balancing cultural richness with storytelling appeal.
VR presents diverse scenes from offline real objects to online digital segments and is hence frequently employed in navigation environments that require high simulation. For cultural institutions, a convenient and highly adaptable strategy for cultural presentations can be implemented through VR, while for audiences, it offers the opportunity of participation in cultural projects at anytime and anywhere. By providing cross-platform personalized access, VR ultimately ensures the integrity of the experience [33].

3.3. MR: Spatial HCI for Multi-Layered Overlay

MR occupies an intermediate position between AR and VR, allowing real and virtual elements to coexist and interact within a shared spatial framework [8]. Unlike AR, which primarily represents explanatory information, MR enables real-time mapping of scenes, empowering audiences to freely switch in and out of the converged environment [34,35]. This also distinguishes MR from immersive VR settings, which isolate people from enclosed space. Under such attributes, interaction is organized through spatial human–computer engagement, facilitating multimodal manipulation within physical context and directly affecting digital objects [36,37]. In the mediation layer, volumetric acquisition captures the three-dimensional properties within the perceptual boundary, while world-frame tracking maintains a stable spatial positioning across superimposed domains; distributed alignment further synchronizes data sources and system states. The render layer outputs a hybrid composition where various elements are highly correlated and interplay [38]. Through this process, the MR system combines AR’s overlay capabilities with VR’s immersive features to form intertwined worlds (Figure 6).
The contribution of MR to traditional culture lies in its integration of multi-layered historical data into physical sites through intuitive HCI [39]. By detecting real-world geometric structures and selectively overlapping digital information, MR allows people to actively choose and relate cultural artifacts within a coherent spatial context [40]. This interactive approach encourages experiential engagement to historical narratives or locations, enabling audiences to participate in cultural materials within specific scopes through situated activities rather than passive observation [41]. Compared with static visualizations, such environments have been shown to sustain attention more effectively, notably when combined with narrative processes or virtual guide systems [42]. In addition, workflows that transform traditional cultural assets into scalable, compatible formats further demonstrate the feasibility of representing complex cultural components through this technology [43]. Beyond that, with spatial projection and holographic display, MR also embeds historical annotations, performative cues, and symbolic elements directly into reality settings, forming a platform that links users, devices, and spaces [34].
Consequently, MR applications in cultural heritage increase both the repeatability of experiences and memorable impressions, thereby improving users’ satisfaction and strengthening cultural identity [44]. By combining multi-layered sections with multi-modal interactions, MR supports more diversified and accessible modes of cultural experience services. Building on the complementary technical features of AR and VR, MR creates captivating ways for learning and exploration through filtered environmental data collection and multi-sensory intervention [36].

3.4. Technical Comparison

To explore the similarities and differences in AR, VR, and MR technical performance, an interpretive comparison was conducted. Based on their respective workflows (Figure 6), the key findings have been summarized across six dimensions (Table 1).
AR, VR, and MR differ primarily in how they organize space, interaction, and immersion. AR augments physical environments with digital overlays, offering limited interaction and low immersion with relatively low technical complexity. VR replaces the physical world with a fully virtual environment, enabling high immersion and virtual embodiment at the cost of disconnecting users from real-world contexts. MR integrates real and virtual elements in collaborative spaces through real-time spatial mapping and multimodal interaction. It supports situated embodiment and moderate to high levels of immersion while requiring greater technical complexity. Overall, the distinctions between these nodes directly determine the cultural scenarios corresponding to each technology.

3.5. Application Comparison

According to the technical comparisons, Table 2 presents a comparative analysis in ICH applications, mainly including deployment focus and constraints.
AR mainly enhances the presentation and visualization of culture-related spatial constructs, with an emphasis on accessibility and structural clarity rather than emotional resonance, while employing external tangible references including architectural layouts and remains. VR brings immersive roaming and narrative embodiment, strengthening historical reenactment while reducing connections to live and site-specific authenticity, leading to its primary use for viewing and remote participation. MR achieves the convergence of layered cultural elements through situated interaction but risks scattered cognitive overload, restricting its application to controllable conditions such as museums or experimental exhibitions.
In summary, AR, VR, and MR are not substitutes but form a complementary structure across different cultural levels, experiential depths, and communication objectives. By incorporating the unique features of diverse technologies, it points toward a cultural design system adaptable to traditional Chinese opera.

4. Three XR-Based Approaches for Spatial Representation and Experience of Traditional Chinese Opera

Drawing on comparative analysis of AR, VR, and MR and their distinct roles in opera performance, this study proposes three approaches to spatial representation and experience in traditional Chinese opera: AR theatrical spaces visualization, VR performative narratives embodiment, and MR cultural elements superposition (Figure 7).

4.1. Visualization of Theatrical Spatial Typology Through AR

Dancing in Cyberspace, created by Julie Martin in 1994, is recognized as the first AR theater production [45]. It showed how performers could control body-sized virtual objects in real time, generating the sense of being immersed in an environment shaped by these elements. Nowadays, this technology is employed in more diverse expressive types of performing arts, especially those represented by traditional opera.
Whether through real-time dynamic alignment of actors with virtual effects to trigger visuals based on movement trajectories [46], or the use of volumetric capture for 3D playback on various platforms to prototype operas [47,48], AR is one of the usage technologies for live operas and stages. One of the common deployment scenarios involves achieving audience engagement through physical media sources. For example, AR applications enable users to scan materials such as playbills or books to overlay digital information and gain more knowledge about operatic culture [49,50]. Similarly, AR-enhanced gifts bridge traditional opera and real life, transforming cultural communication into a tool for emotional exchange among public [51]. In addition, the integration of AR platforms such as social media allows audiences to experience opera remotely using smartphones or tablets [52]. This portability and socialization reflect how AR opera is expanding beyond the stage into mobile environments.
While several AR interpretations of opera performances exist, relatively few investigations have been focused on large-scale performative spaces, particularly in relation to public participation through the visualization of theater architecture [23]. In China, opera venues are carriers of local culture and folk activities; this reflects both the living conditions of the people and the continuous evolution of buildings. Over thousands of years of development, this type of space formed a distinct architectural typology, the opera stage, which has historically been widespread in both rural and urban environments [53]. With increasing population migration, such spaces in cities diminished, while countryside areas were also constrained, eventually leading to a large number of them being damaged by nature or destroyed by humans [4]. This further underscores the necessity of accuracy and accessibility in spatialization processes to deliver experiences that transcend temporal and geographical boundaries. Therefore, exploring the typology of theatrical space with AR visualization is an approach to represent and reshape Chinese opera.

4.2. Embodiment of Performative Narratives Through VR

VR opera can be seen as an extension of virtual theater and multimedia interactive theater, operating within a fully synthetic performance environment [54,55]. Beyond innovating methods of viewing and performance, VR for traditional opera now facilitates rehearsal and creation, presence perception, and virtual communities, thereby taking operatic practice beyond the physical stage.
On the one hand, combining the spatialized audio-visual system with the interactive design allows designers to simulate historical repertoires rapidly and with minimal disruption in VR [56]. It is applied in opera composition settings, where choreography, lighting renderings, and multiplayer synchronization can be shared on digital platforms for online collaboration, reducing both costs and environmental impact [57]. On the other hand, by reconstructing entire opera scenes through VR modeling technology, scattered parts such as roles and costumes become combinable into a unified whole, offering audiences a more complete and realistic experience [58,59]. Furthermore, while both AR and VR provide social channels for people, VR provides unique attributes such as real-time social group discussions and sharing [60], which also emphasizes individual agency and virtual identity customization [61].
From a functional perspective, opera has long conveyed social realities while expressing aspirations for an ideal life, which is why it is often regarded as a key achievement of human civilization. Even when transformed into other media forms, opera’s theatricality and narrative remain its central source of appeal [62]. Thus, it can be seen from the above discussion that the narrative in traditional opera still needs further exploration, especially in terms of clearly conveying abstract plots and stories from Eastern culture. Regarding traditional Chinese opera, plots were largely created collectively by artists or literati, frequently adapted from folktales and historical legends. This process of aggregation, transplantation, and thematic interchangeability is highly prominent, directly portraying social realities, evoking emotional resonance in viewers as they interpret personal memories. Nevertheless, such profound meaning is often expressed through the principle of “combining the real and the imaginary, conveying spirit through intention” [1], which creates barriers for ordinary audiences to understand. At this point, the embodied nature of VR provides a basis to recreate opera culture through the reconstruction and deconstruction of performative narratives.

4.3. Superposition of Opera Cultural Elements Through MR

Due to technological constraints, MR’s distinction from AR and VR has always remained blurred, resulting in limited previous advancements related to opera spaces, and often difficult to separate from scenes based on the other two technologies. In recent years, with the emergence of advanced devices such as Meta Quest Pro (Meta Platforms, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA) or Apple Vision Pro (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA), and concepts such as Metaverse and Digital Twins [63], the term MR has gradually returned to the public discourse. The current focus of this technology has primarily been on the viewing richness of traditional opera through virtual streaming and visual enhancement [64,65]; immersive performances that enhance presence through triggered sensory interactions [66]; and explorations of MR’s multilayered fusion potential, which connects opera’s libretto and people’s behavior to foster interpretation [67].
Consequently, both MR, as well as AR and VR, are mainly used to digitize opera at the meso- or macro-scale. This underscores the necessity of narrowing the scope and examining specific nodes. Examples of such trends in the dissemination of details within traditional Chinese opera include the extraction of facial makeup through computer graphics processing [68], performance–action interaction supported by motion capture and matching algorithms [69], and AI-driven analysis of singing and music [70].
Yet, despite these iterative studies and their algorithmic variations, the direct relationship between the most fundamental components of opera and MR is not apparent. Whether it is roles and stories, or props and scenarios, the performance’s programmatic and synthetic systems are defining features of Chinese opera. In this context, the various sections in the plot development are built upon an interconnected, hierarchical model rather than existing in isolation. Specifically, typical characters create ways for cultural identification, paragraph-based narratives build a visual and structural framework, and symbolic objects and stage settings provide platforms for expression [53]. Thence, when MR intervenes in the reorganization of opera, it not only reassembles these fragmented components into complete multi-layer spaces but also enables the introduction of diverse interaction methods. In other words, the ultimate goal is to allow audiences to engage in embedded dialogs with specific opera cultural elements through the superposition of this technology.

5. Discussion

5.1. AR, VR, and MR in Opera Reinterpretation

Comparative studies of AR, VR, and MR demonstrates that each technical route of XR has its own advantages and constraints in reinterpreting traditional culture. AR, grounded in surface recognition and spatial matching, excels at revealing architectural heritage that may be inaccessible. It is suitable for auxiliary presentations, so that the audience can visualize diverse information and their relationships without replacing structural components each time. VR, as a fully immersive technology, provides an effective way for embodied virtual roaming, enabling users to perceive atmospheres through embodied interaction. Its capabilities for panoramic display support the holistic reshaping of abstract plots and stories. MR bridges the strengths of both AR and VR by supporting dynamic overlays in the real world. People could interact with multiple layers featuring specific symbols in superposition through spatial human–computer cooperative manipulation while receiving contextual feedback. Taken together, these tools facilitate deeper comprehension, especially for systems like Chinese opera where meaning is constructed through stylized structures and complex artifacts.
Beyond their individual characteristics, such strategies collectively define XR as a convergent platform for cultural communication, not just a digital enhancement, which restructures how traditional opera is interpreted and perceived. The three proposed approaches, namely AR for theatrical spatial typology, VR for performative narratives, and MR for opera cultural elements, extend the reality–virtuality continuum and lay a conceptual foundation for the establishment of operatic representation. They show how XR supports both overall spatial composition and detailed cultural analysis, thereby fostering multi-sensory perception and cultural continuity.
In addition, the application of AR, VR, and MR to opera suggests broader implications for cultural heritage management and digital heritage policy. XR technologies enable heritage institutions to extend the preservation of opera beyond physical sites, enabling broader access to intangible cultural heritage. For theatrical venues, AR, VR, and MR offer synergistic solutions to expand audience engagement and dissemination while maintaining the primacy of live performance. At the policy level, they call for a transformation from archival digitization toward experience-oriented digital heritage development, promoting the advancement of cultural infrastructures and interdisciplinary dialog.

5.2. Limitations

As a review-based and concept-driven study, this paper has several limitations. First, the scope of the review is deliberately selective, focusing on spatial representation, digital interaction, and user experience within cultural and opera studies related to XR. While this emphasis enhances conceptual clarity and comparative analysis, it may exclude technical implementations or alternative applications that do not meet the selected criteria. Second, by centering on traditional Chinese opera as a case of ICH, the findings cannot be directly generalized to other performance traditions with different cultural structures or modes of dissemination. Finally, although the presented AR, VR, and MR-based systems demonstrate distinct spatial and experiential reinterpretation patterns, the analysis relies primarily on literature synthesis and theoretical comparison rather than empirical user studies; consequently, their effectiveness has not yet been validated through systematic experimentation or audience evaluation.

5.3. Future Empirical Validation

To address these limitations, future research will seek empirical verification through the development and testing of three XR spatial prototypes corresponding to the proposed approaches. We will employ modeling tools, game engines, and HMDs to ensure the richness and stability of the operating procedures for each technology. Furthermore, by recruiting young people, we aim to establish a fundamental user testing group to improve experimental efficiency. The implementation methods are as follows.
An AR prototype will reconstruct a vanished Chinese ancient opera stage, investigating how external environments enhance interest in traditional opera. AR postcards containing basic information and digital models will serve as one of the primary media for visualizing this building. Audiences can use their smartphones to scan the QR code and align the AR model with the floor plan (Figure 8).
The VR spatial prototype will be developed using a representative Chinese opera repertoire as a case study. By mapping performance settings based on the plot, a virtual environment will be established to examine how immersive narrative scenarios and embodied experiences influence users’ comprehension of operatic context and storytelling. By embedding this scene into a VR headset, people can explore the entire panoramic space (Figure 9).
Third, an MR prototype will focus on a typical type of Chinese opera facial makeup, virtualizing it and superimposing it onto the physical structures. It will emphasize free navigation and positioning recognition, establishing a browsing and manipulation framework to evaluate how MR supports engagement with layered cultural elements. After extracting the basic shape of the facial makeup, abstract spaces will be designed where participants can interact with digital graphics (Figure 10).
Overall, the entire development and validation process will ultimately be an evolution of user experience that progresses from large-scale to small-scale spaces, and from cultural overview to detailed specifics. As shown in Table 3, while each prototype improves cultural accessibility, it remains limited in performance immediacy and representation continuity. Consequently, rather than a single solution, XR functions as an internally interactive media framework for traditional opera across diverse digital formats.

6. Conclusions

Framed through the case of Chinese opera, this study demonstrates that XR has emerged as a mode of perception reshaping how ICH is organized, institutionalized, and sustained in contemporary media contexts. The comparative analysis shows that AR primarily supports the visualization and interpretation of operatic spaces through contextual augmentation, VR enables the embodied experience of performative narratives through immersive environments, and MR integrates layered cultural elements through spatial interactions between virtual and physical realms.
By systematically examining these differentiated technical and application features, the research contributes a structured approach to cultural representation that integrates spatial experience, narrative engagement, and interactive interpretation. This framework acknowledges that the digital experience of cultural heritage is not merely a technological output, but rather a balance between representational fidelity and sensory perceptibility. By addressing cognitive barriers through the coordinated deployment of XR modalities, it could broaden audience reach, accommodate diverse needs, and ensure that the medium enhances rather than distracts from the essence of cultural performances.
In summary, these findings advance current discussions in traditional culture by clarifying how XR can enhance user experience, enrich cultural communication strategies, and inform the development of more immersive and interactive heritage spaces. By transitioning the preservation of ICH from an artifact-centric showcase model to a human-centered design paradigm, this approach provides references for constructing scenarios that embody both technical robustness and cultural authenticity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.H.; methodology, T.H., H.A. and J.P.S.; software, T.H.; validation, T.H.; formal analysis, T.H.; investigation, T.H.; resources, T.H., H.A. and J.P.S.; data curation, T.H.; writing—original draft preparation, T.H.; writing—review and editing, H.A. and J.P.S.; visualization, T.H.; supervision, H.A. and J.P.S.; project administration, T.H.; funding acquisition, T.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a PhD scholarship from FCT–Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (reference: 2025.04169.BD) and national funds through FCT–Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the scope of project UIDB/04057/2025.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Yu, N. Life as opera: A cultural metaphor in Chinese. In Advances in Cultural Linguistics; Sharifian, F., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 65–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. UNESCO. Peking Opera. 2010. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/peking-opera-00418 (accessed on 21 August 2025).
  3. Yang, Y.; Lei, T. The inheritance and future development direction prediction of opera culture based on cloud communication under the background of big data. J. Sens. 2022, 2022, 1910766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, X.; Zhang, A.; Xu, J.; Ma, R. Documentation and inheritance of ancient opera stage based on multidisciplinary approach and digital technology. Buildings 2022, 12, 977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Heim, C. Audience as Performer: The Changing Role of Theatre Audiences in the Twenty-First Century; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bekele, M.K.; Pierdicca, R.; Frontoni, E.; Malinverni, E.S.; Gain, J. A survey of augmented, virtual, and mixed reality for cultural heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2018, 11, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Çöltekin, A.; Lochhead, I.; Madden, M.; Christophe, S.; Devaux, A.; Pettit, C.; Lock, O.; Shukla, S.; Herman, L.; Stachoň, Z.; et al. Extended reality in spatial sciences: A review of research challenges and future directions. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Milgram, P.; Takemura, H.; Utsumi, A.; Kishino, F. Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Telemanip. Telepresence Technol. 1994, 2351, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Balakrishnan, S.; Hameed, M.S.S.; Venkatesan, K.; Aswin, G. Interaction of spatial computing in augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2021 7th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), Coimbatore, India, 19–20 March 2021; pp. 1900–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sutherland, I.E. A head-mounted three dimensional display. In Proceedings of the December 9–11, 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I, San Francisco, CA, USA, 9–11 December 1968; pp. 757–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Krueger, M.W.; Gionfriddo, T.; Hinrichsen, K. VIDEOPLACE-An artificial reality. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ’85, San Francisco CA, USA, 14–18 April 1985; pp. 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Skarbez, R.; Smith, M.; Whitton, M.C. Revisiting Milgram and Kishino’s reality-virtuality continuum. Front. Virtual Real. 2021, 2, 647997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Azuma, R.T. A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 1997, 6, 355–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Billinghurst, M.; Kato, H. Collaborative mixed reality. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Mixed Reality; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999; pp. 261–284. [Google Scholar]
  15. Burdea, G.C.; Coiffet, P. Virtual Reality Technology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pangilinan, E.; Lukas, S.; Mohan, V. Creating Augmented and Virtual Realities: Theory and Practice for Next-Generation Spatial Computing; O’Reilly Media: Newton, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cruz-Neira, C.; Sandin, D.J.; DeFanti, T.A.; Kenyon, R.V.; Hart, J.C. The CAVE: Audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Commun. ACM 1992, 35, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schumacher, P. The metaverse as opportunity for architecture and society: Design drivers, core competencies. Archit. Intell. 2022, 1, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mele, C.; Russo-Spena, T. The architecture of the phygital customer journey: A dynamic interplay between systems of insights and systems of engagement. Eur. J. Mark. 2022, 56, 72–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Caudell, T.P.; Mizell, D.W. Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 7–10 January 1992; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1992; Volume 2, pp. 659–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Carmigniani, J.; Furht, B.; Anisetti, M.; Ceravolo, P.; Damiani, E.; Ivkovic, M. Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2011, 51, 341–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ramtohul, A.; Khedo, K.K. Augmented reality systems in the cultural heritage domains: A systematic review. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2024, 32, e00317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Güleç Özer, D.; Nagakura, T.; Vlavianos, N. Augmented reality (AR) of historic environments: Representation of Parion Theater, Biga, Turkey. A/Z ITU J. Fac. Archit. 2016, 13, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liang, J.; Zeng, G.; Li, Y.; Dong, Y. ARTimeTravel: Understanding spatial changes in heritage sites over time through web-based augmented reality serious games. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama, Japan, 26 April–1 May 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Boboc, R.G.; Băutu, E.; Gîrbacia, F.; Popovici, N.; Popovici, D.-M. Augmented reality in cultural heritage: An overview of the last decade of applications. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chung, N.; Lee, H.; Kim, J.-Y.; Koo, C. The role of augmented reality for experience-influenced environments: The case of cultural heritage tourism in korea. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 627–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Steuer, J. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. J. Commun. 1992, 42, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gong, Q.; Zou, N.; Yang, W.; Zheng, Q.; Chen, P. User experience model and design strategies for virtual reality-based cultural heritage exhibition. Virtual Real. 2024, 28, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. 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]
  30. Gonizzi Barsanti, S.; Caruso, G.; Micoli, L.L.; Covarrubias Rodriguez, M.; Guidi, G. 3D visualization of cultural heritage artefacts with virtual reality devices. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2015, XL-5/W7, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pei, W.; Lo, T.T.S.; Guo, X. Integrating virtual reality and interactive game for learning structures in architecture: The case of ancient Chinese dougong cognition. Open House Int. 2023, 48, 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Villena Taranilla, R.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R.; González-Calero, J.A.; López Cirugeda, I. Strolling through a city of the Roman Empire: An analysis of the potential of virtual reality to teach history in primary education. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022, 30, 608–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wohlgenannt, I.; Simons, A.; Stieglitz, S. Virtual reality. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2020, 62, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Speicher, M.; Hall, B.D.; Nebeling, M. What is mixed reality? In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Craig, A.B. Understanding Augmented Reality: Concepts and Applications; Newnes: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaplan, A.D.; Cruit, J.; Endsley, M.; Beers, S.M.; Sawyer, B.D.; Hancock, P.A. The effects of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality as training enhancement methods: A meta-analysis. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2021, 63, 706–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Mann, S.; Nolan, J.; Wellman, B. Sousveillance: Inventing and using wearable computing devices for data collection in surveillance environments. Surveill. Soc. 2002, 1, 331–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pan, Z.; Cheok, A.D.; Yang, H.; Zhu, J.; Shi, J. Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Comput. Graph. 2006, 30, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. 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]
  40. Plecher, D.A.; Wandinger, M.; Klinker, G. Mixed reality for cultural heritage. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Osaka, Japan, 23–27 March 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, F.; Guo, X.; Lo, T. MR game for historical experience: A study on the interplay between tangible and intangible heritage in Chaozhou ancient town. In Proceedings of the eCAADe 2021, Novi Sad, Serbia, 8–10 September 2021; University of Novi Sad; pp. 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ioannides, M.; Magnenat-Thalmann, N.; Papagiannakis, G. (Eds.) Mixed Reality and Gamification for Cultural Heritage; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rahaman, H.; Champion, E.; Bekele, M. From photo to 3D to mixed reality: A complete workflow for cultural heritage visualisation and experience. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019, 13, e00102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bae, S.; Jung, T.H.; Moorhouse, N.; Suh, M.; Kwon, O. The influence of mixed reality on satisfaction and brand loyalty in cultural heritage attractions: A brand equity perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aggarwal, R.; Singhal, A. Augmented reality and its effect on our life. In Proceedings of the 2019 9th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), Noida, India, 10–11 January 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, Y.; Shen, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhu, Z.; Ma, P. Interactive spatial augmented reality system for Chinese opera. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH ’19: Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques Conference, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 28 July 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Helin, K.; Reyes-Lecuona, A.; Runde, C. Creating Opera Utilising Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Technologies; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland: Espoo, Finland, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Marasco, A.; Balbi, B.; Icolari, D. Augmented La Traviata: Remediating opera through augmented reality technology. Int. J. Art Cult. Des. Technol. 2018, 7, 41–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nicholas, M.J.; Daffara, S.C.; Paulos, E. Expanding the design space for technology-mediated theatre experiences. Des. Interact. Syst. Conf. 2021, 2021, 2026–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Xiao, M.; Chen, Y.; Huang, H. The impact of interactive AR technology on the communication of intangible cultural heritage-Case study of Chaozhou opera in China. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2023), San Francisco, CA, USA, 20–24 July 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xu, N.; Chen, Y.; Ma, T.; Mao, Q.; Huang, X.; Zhou, H.; Sun, X. LanternOperAR: Integrating gamification and visualization to engage with Yue opera in a hybrid gift. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage, Darmstadt, Germany, 16–18 September 2024; Eurographics Association: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kelly, S.; Cordingley, S.; Nolan, P.; Rhemann, C.; Fanello, S.; Tang, D.; Osborn, J.; Busch, J.; Davidson, P.; Debevec, P.; et al. AR-ia: Volumetric opera for mobile augmented reality. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2019 XR, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 17–20 November 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lovrick, P. Chinese Opera: Images and Stories; UBC Press: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  54. Saltz, D.Z. Live media: Interactive technology and theatre. Theatre Top. 2001, 11, 107–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dixon, S. A history of virtual reality in performance. Int. J. Perform. Arts Digit. Media 2006, 2, 23–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rose, T.; Klein, E.; Teixeira, F.F.L.A. Self-experiential prototyping for augmented and virtual reality opera creation. Chroma J. Australas. Comput. Music. Assoc. 2023, 39. Available online: https://journal.computermusic.org.au/chroma/article/view/10 (accessed on 25 January 2026).
  57. Parthenios, P.; Karagianni, A.; Geropanta, V.; Tzortzakakis, A.; Kalimeris, S.; Dania, P.; Delintadakis, C. A collaborative virtual reality platform for opera rehearsal: Designing for performing arts. In Proceedings of the eCAADe 2023, Graz, Austria, 20–23 September 2023; Graz University of Technology; pp. 681–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jiang, Y.-P.; Su, C.; Li, X.-C. Virtual reality technology for the digital dissemination of traditional Chinese opera culture. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2025, 41, 2600–2614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, Z.Y.; Yang, C. Research on the display of VR animation technology in the cultural communication of “Méi School” art of Peking opera: Illustrated by the case of the image of Mu Guiying in the stone carving Lady General Mu Takes Command at the north end in Wangfeng Terrace of Nanshan Temple. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Information and Education Innovations (ICIEI 2023), Manchester, UK, 13–15 April 2023; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2023; pp. 152–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lee, S.; Viola, I.; Rossi, S.; Guo, Z.; Reimat, I.; Ławicka, K.; Striner, A.; Cesar, P. Designing and evaluating a VR lobby for a socially enriching remote opera watching experience. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2024, 30, 2055–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Striner, A.; Halpin, S.; Röggla, T.; Cesar, P. Towards immersive and social audience experience in remote VR opera. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences, Virtual, 21–23 June 2021; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Attard, J. Opera Cinema: A New Cultural Experience; Bloomsbury Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  63. Aloqaily, M.; Bouachir, O.; Karray, F.; Al Ridhawi, I.; El Saddik, A. Integrating digital twin and advanced intelligent technologies to realize the metaverse. IEEE Consum. Electron. Mag. 2023, 12, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lucas, J.-F.; Cornish, T.; Margolis, T. To a cultural perspective of mixed reality events: A case study of event overflow in operas and concerts in mixed reality. N. Rev. Hypermedia Multimed. 2012, 18, 277–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Weijdom, J. Mixed Reality and the Theatre of the Future: Arts and New Technologies; IETM—International Network for Contemporary Performing Arts: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  66. Vasilakos, A.V.; Wei, L.; Nguyen, T.H.D.; Thien Qui, T.C.; Chen, L.C.; Boj, C.; Diaz, D.; Cheok, A.D.; Marentakis, G. Interactive theatre via mixed reality and ambient intelligence. Inf. Sci. 2008, 178, 679–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, G.; Lu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Qian, Y.; Zhao, H.; Liu, D. Application of mixed reality technology in education with the case of a Huangmei opera cultural education system. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Educational Informatization (CSEI), Xinxiang, China, 12–14 June 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yan, M.; Xiong, R.; Shen, Y.; Jin, C.; Wang, Y. Intelligent generation of Peking opera facial masks with deep learning frameworks. Herit. Sci. 2023, 11, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhao, H.; Ding, Y.; Yu, B.; Jiang, C.; Zhang, W. Design and implementation of Peking opera action scoring system based on human skeleton information. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 232, 01026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chen, Q.; Zhao, W.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, Y. The sustainable development of intangible cultural heritage with AI: Cantonese opera singing genre classification based on CoGCNet model in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heritage 09 00061 g001
Figure 1. Reality–virtuality continuum. Source: [8].
Figure 1. Reality–virtuality continuum. Source: [8].
Heritage 09 00061 g001
Heritage 09 00061 g002
Figure 2. The HMD: The Sword of Damocles, a prototype introduced by Ivan Sutherland in 1968. Source: [10].
Figure 2. The HMD: The Sword of Damocles, a prototype introduced by Ivan Sutherland in 1968. Source: [10].
Heritage 09 00061 g002
Heritage 09 00061 g003
Figure 3. Videoplace: (a) equipment and principles; (b) interactive process. Source: https://aboutmyronkrueger.weebly.com (accessed on 18 May 2025).
Figure 3. Videoplace: (a) equipment and principles; (b) interactive process. Source: https://aboutmyronkrueger.weebly.com (accessed on 18 May 2025).
Heritage 09 00061 g003
Heritage 09 00061 g004
Figure 4. The CAVE: (a) equipment and principles; (b) updated interactive space. Source: [17]; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_automatic_virtual_environment (accessed on 18 May 2025).
Figure 4. The CAVE: (a) equipment and principles; (b) updated interactive space. Source: [17]; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_automatic_virtual_environment (accessed on 18 May 2025).
Heritage 09 00061 g004
Heritage 09 00061 g005
Figure 5. XR devices: (a) Microsoft Hololens 2; (b) Meta Quest Pro; (c) Apple Vision Pro. Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/hololens (accessed on 24 August 2025); https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro (accessed on 24 August 2025); https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro (accessed on 24 August 2025).
Figure 5. XR devices: (a) Microsoft Hololens 2; (b) Meta Quest Pro; (c) Apple Vision Pro. Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/hololens (accessed on 24 August 2025); https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro (accessed on 24 August 2025); https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro (accessed on 24 August 2025).
Heritage 09 00061 g005
Heritage 09 00061 g006
Figure 6. The AR, VR, and MR workflow. Source: the authors.
Figure 6. The AR, VR, and MR workflow. Source: the authors.
Heritage 09 00061 g006
Heritage 09 00061 g007
Figure 7. Three XR-based approaches for traditional Chinese opera. Source: the authors.
Figure 7. Three XR-based approaches for traditional Chinese opera. Source: the authors.
Heritage 09 00061 g007
Heritage 09 00061 g008
Figure 8. (a) The reconstructed ancient stage; (b) AR postcard user testing. Source: the authors.
Figure 8. (a) The reconstructed ancient stage; (b) AR postcard user testing. Source: the authors.
Heritage 09 00061 g008
Heritage 09 00061 g009
Figure 9. (a) The virtual opera narrative scenario; (b) VR roaming user experience. Source: the authors.
Figure 9. (a) The virtual opera narrative scenario; (b) VR roaming user experience. Source: the authors.
Heritage 09 00061 g009
Heritage 09 00061 g010
Figure 10. (a) The extracted facial makeup elements and their interactive content; (b) MR gesture interaction user testing. Source: the authors.
Figure 10. (a) The extracted facial makeup elements and their interactive content; (b) MR gesture interaction user testing. Source: the authors.
Heritage 09 00061 g010
Table 1. Technical comparison of AR, VR, and MR.
Table 1. Technical comparison of AR, VR, and MR.
DimensionAugmented Reality (AR)Virtual Reality (VR)Mixed Reality (MR)
Spatial configurationPhysical space with digital overlaysFully virtual, computer-generated spaceHybrid space with real–virtual coexistence
Relation to realityAugments existing environmentsReplaces physical environmentsIntegrates and interacts with physical environments
Environmental perceptionCamera-based recognition and trackingMinimal perception of real worldContinuous spatial mapping and depth sensing
Interaction featuresLimited interaction, mainly based on visual or touch inputsInteraction within virtual environments through interfacesMultimodal, real-time spatial interaction across human and computer
Embodiment and immersionPartial embodiment, low immersionFull virtual embodiment, high immersionSituated embodiment, context-dependent immersion
Technical complexityLowMediumHigh
Table 2. Application comparison of AR, VR, and MR.
Table 2. Application comparison of AR, VR, and MR.
TechnologyPrimary Application FocusLimitationsTrade-OffsContextual Constraints
Augmented reality (AR)Architectural presentation and structural visualizationLimited storyline and emotional depthAccessibility over immersionDependent on external references
Virtual reality (VR)Immersive roaming and narrative embodimentLoss of live, site-specific authenticityImmersion over physical realityPrimarily applicable in remote settings
Mixed reality (MR)Multi-layered spatial interaction and element superpositionFragmented and unfocused contentBalance of realism and immersionRestricted to controlled real environments
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of XR spatial prototypes in reinterpreting traditional Chinese opera.
Table 3. Advantages and disadvantages of XR spatial prototypes in reinterpreting traditional Chinese opera.
Spatial PrototypesAdvantagesDisadvantages
AR visualized postcards of the reconstructed ancient stageEnhances interest through external environmentsLimited to general cultural overviews without representing actual dimensions
VR embodied plots of the representative repertoireImproves comprehension of storytelling and operatic contextRestricted to panoramic experiences within headsets
MR superposed layers of the typical facial makeupEnables interaction with stacked cultural elementsConfined to compact spaces and optimized, abstract aspects
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

Han, T.; Alvelos, H.; Sousa, J.P. Extended Reality Approaches to Cultural Representation: Spatializing the Experience of Traditional Chinese Opera. Heritage 2026, 9, 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9020061

AMA Style

Han T, Alvelos H, Sousa JP. Extended Reality Approaches to Cultural Representation: Spatializing the Experience of Traditional Chinese Opera. Heritage. 2026; 9(2):61. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9020061

Chicago/Turabian Style

Han, Tianyu, Heitor Alvelos, and José Pedro Sousa. 2026. "Extended Reality Approaches to Cultural Representation: Spatializing the Experience of Traditional Chinese Opera" Heritage 9, no. 2: 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9020061

APA Style

Han, T., Alvelos, H., & Sousa, J. P. (2026). Extended Reality Approaches to Cultural Representation: Spatializing the Experience of Traditional Chinese Opera. Heritage, 9(2), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage9020061

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop