Supporting Sound Accessibility by Exploring Sound Augmentations in Virtual Reality

Extended-Reality Technologies: An Overview of Emerging Applications in Medical Education and Clinical Care.

Primary school students often find it difficult to differentiate two dimensional and three-dimensional geometric shapes. Taking advantage of the ability of Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) to visualize 3D objects, we evaluate the potential of VR and AR technologies for teaching the lesson of geometric solids to primary school children. To the best of our knowledge there are no previous cases in the literature describing a comparative evaluation of VR and AR technologies in education, and more specifically in the field of mathematics for primary school children. An experimental evaluation was staged to test the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: VR and AR applications make the teaching of mathematics more interactive and interesting and they also contribute to a more efficient learning and understanding of mathematical concepts. Hypothesis 2: The use of VR applications is more effective when compared to AR applications for mathematics teaching activities. For the needs of the experimental evaluation, we designed a lesson plan comprised of three activities: Classification of shapes into solid or plane shapes, identification of solid shapes appearing in a typical city environment, and classification of solid shapes. The lesson plan was implemented based on the traditional method that utilizes printed material, three related VR and three AR applications. The developed VR and AR applications for the current research do not require specialized equipment. For the AR applications, the users only need to use their mobile device or tablet and for VR applications they only need to use a mobile phone and low-cost virtual reality glasses. As part of the study 30 fourth, fifth and sixth class primary school students were divided equally into the control group who used the traditional teaching method, and the AR and VR groups who used AR and VR applications respectively. Participants were provided with questionnaires before (pre-test) and after the test (post-test) to measure factors such as user attention, presence, enjoyment, science knowledge, auditory knowledge, and visual knowledge. According to the results, new technologies in education in the form of virtual and augmented reality improve interactivity and student interest in mathematics education, contributing to more efficient learning and understanding of mathematical concepts when compared to traditional teaching methods. No significant difference was observed between virtual and augmented reality technologies with regards to the efficiency of the methods that contribute to the learning of mathematics, suggesting that both virtual and augmented reality display similar potential for educational activities in Mathematics. Based on statistical evidence Hypothesis 1 was accepted and Hypothesis 2 was rejected. The current research is one of the first attempts ever to compare VR and AR technologies for Mathematics teaching activities in primary school. The findings of our research can provide valuable feedback to educators and developers who plan to use or develop VR or AR technologies for educational activities. Given that these days VR and AR applications, like the ones used in the experimental evaluation, do not require highly specialized equipment, the introduction of AR and VR based activities both for in-class and extra curriculum activities provide a promising way for more efficient Mathematics training activities.

Previous studies from our institution have demonstrated the value of pharmacology educational games in promoting recall practice and topic interest necessary for medical students to learn pharmacology. At our institution, pharmacology and other basic science topic games are embedded into curricular activities, in-class, faculty facilitated team competitions, and self-learning modules (SLMs). Little work has been done to assess student perceptions of virtual versus in-class games, despite the fact that developing effective virtual pharmacology learning tools has become essential due to curricular changes adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal of this pilot study was to survey students on their perceptions and preferences for in-class, faculty facilitated games vs. virtual electronic games. Since we hypothesized that students’ perceptions of feedback would differ between in-class and virtual games, we additionally surveyed students on their preferences for enriched auditory vs. simple text feedback within virtual games. Methods An end of module survey was sent to all students in a second-year medical school (M2) systems course (N=110 total, 70% participated) to get a broad class perceptive. A subset of M2's (N=14) volunteered to beta test pharmacology virtual trivia games with feedback that ranged from plain text answers to enriched auditory feedback performed by actors (varied genders, ages, personalities) and feedback from a trusted pharmacology instructor offering coaching and praise similar to classroom feedback. Results Approximately 70% of students reported using the games and answered survey items, with most affirming (reported as % agreeing/strongly agreeing) that virtual and in-class games promoted active learning (80%), integrated basic and clinical concepts (84%), and stimulated thinking (84%). About 60% preferred participating in or watching videos of in-class games with auditory feedback from instructors. Of those with a preference, 50% preferred Trivia while 25% preferred Jeopardy. Of the 14 students beta testing virtual trivia games, most agreed (83%) that the virtual games increased pharmacology interest and promoted active learning, though fewer than 25% preferred enriched auditory feedback from actors over simple written text. A majority (61%) agreed that hearing the voice of a trusted professor was beneficial. Conclusion Most M2 students used game-based methods and highly valued either in-class team or virtual games for promoting topic interest, active learning, and integration. Students valued coaching and auditory feedback from a trusted professor in either classroom or virtual games. However, most students preferred simple text feedback over auditory, unless the feedback voice was the pharmacology instructor's. Thus, virtual pharmacology educational games with simple feedback designs appear to be engaging virtual teaching tools for pharmacology learning in the age of COVID and beyond.

User Experience and Engagement in the Reality–Virtuality Continuum: A Special Issue Guest Editorial

The article is devoted to the problem and features of the use of virtual and augmented reality at general school. The integration of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) in educational environment has opened up new possibilities for engaging and immersive learning experiences. This paper aims to explore the features of participants' interaction within an educational context using VR and AR technologies. To achieve the purpose of our study and also to clarify the problem of determining the features of interaction models of participants in the educational process of a general education institution using virtual and augmented reality we used the following methods: systematic and comparative analysis of pedagogical, psychological, philosophical and sociological works, methodological and specialized literature; analysis of the pedagogical experience of using virtual and augmented reality in general school; synthesis and generalization to formulate the main points of the study; interpretation of the research results. A research study was conducted in a general educational institution, where an educational project using virtual and augmented reality was developed and implemented. The purpose of the project was to investigate the issues surrounding the interaction among participants in the educational process when utilizing these technologies. The results of the questionnaire showed the following: the participants' interaction in the educational process with the use of VR needs improvement, methodological recommendations and research on the organization of this environment for various purposes, such as, for example, students' research of new educational material, performance of laboratory work, joint work of students on research, instructions for the teacher's activities in working with students in VR, etc.; the participants’ interaction in the educational process with the use of AR is best understood by teachers and students, they use both ready-made AR technologies and personally created ones. We concluded that the use of virtual and augmented reality technologies in the educational process provides a wealth of teaching and learning resources that can enhance the learning experience and free participants from limitations in time and space. However, the effective organization of interaction between participants in the educational process using VR and AR requires careful consideration of educational space and pedagogical and methodological recommendations.

Reality for Cybernauts Sergio Sismondo Introduction: virtual reality as a metaphysical laboratory Virtual reality (VR) is a wonderfully successful misnomer. To the extent that VR is reality, there is little virtual about it. I should qualify those claims right away: virtual reality is virtual in the derivative sense in which “virtual” has come to be a synonym for computer-based, but that sense is a result rather than a precondition of VR’s cultural success. VR has provided a path from an old meaning of “virtual” to a new one. The old meaning, what we could call virtual(1), is: in effect, but not actual. The meaning that is new to the last decades of the 20th century is virtual(2): simulated on or mediated by a computer. Many cybernauts have realized that VR is not merely virtually(1) real—an oxymoron?—and therefore are arguing that it is virtual(2) reality, real but computer-based. In so doing they have not merely added a new meaning to the term “virtual,” but have revamped talk of reality. At a time when skeptical humanists and others are more and more cautious about reality, VR enthusiasts are giving new life to words like “real” and “reality,” using them constantly, and with a variety of meanings. The best VR is described as “really real” and is contrasted with “real reality,” yet neither phrase fully makes sense without at least some confusion about meanings of “real.” At the same time, some cyberphiles and cybercritics have been proclaiming the death of reality. If we could create environments that have the look and feel that we expect from everyday reality, what is left of the “real” thing? Why should we care about it? Michael Heim says that “with its virtual environments and simulated worlds, cyberspace is a metaphysical laboratory, a tool for examining our very sense of reality” (83). Heim may be right that cyberspace—or in my case VR—is a metaphysical laboratory, but his laboratory is largely unbuilt. Currently-available VR, for example, is more crude as a metaphysical laboratory than are our imaginations, literature, and thought experiments. For my purposes the limitations of existing VR are unimportant: my intention here is, following Heim, to use VR to examine “our very sense of reality,” but in that I want to look at our use of the term “reality” and the presuppositions of that use. Along the way I take issue with some of the wilder claims about VR’s effects on reality. Although there is no one consistent picture of reality implicit in talk about VR, there are at least some common images. Some of those images are exactly what are needed to revamp talk of reality, and some are misguided. Some VR talk, for example, reinforces an impoverished sense of reality in its dominating images of levels and degrees; my preferred images are more chaotic and multi-dimensional. In order to show why we should prefer some images of reality, in the second half of this essay I put forward a general account of reality talk. That account makes space for (though does not guarantee) the reality of VR, and much more besides. For my project here we do not have to be full-fledged cybernauts. That is a good thing, because this essay is written by yet another interloper into VR. I haven’t made the tours of labs where systems like RB2 (“Reality Built for Two”) or gadgets like the DataGlove have been developed. I spend little of my time browsing Mondo 2000, and have tested out only the most publicly available virtual environments, computer games like “Doom,” and high-tech video games like “Dactyl Nightmare.” Donning the latter’s 3-D video helmet and battling its schematic pterodactyls even put me off-balance and made me slightly nauseous. All of that should place me as a text-based critic whose access to VR and cyberculture is largely through the guidance of texts. Therefore my text displays many signs of my interloper status, in the form of references to the canonizers and the canonized agents of the history of VR. The virtualization of reality? Our point is thus a very elementary...

Virtual reality technologies have given rise to a new breed of space travel, enabling touring of cosmic environments without leaving the Earth. These tours democratize participation in space tourism and expand its itineraries – reproducing while also altering the practices of tourism itself. The chapter explores the ways in which they alter modes of establishing "authentic" tourism destinations and experiences, rendering outer space into a stage for the performance of space travel, while themselves facilitating novel avenues for its social organization and technological assertion. Virtual space tourism not only reflects the progression and metamorphoses in tourist practice and production but also has the potential to influence both the aspirations and prospects of our space futures. Keywords Virtual reality Experience Media technologies Touring Simulation Citation Damjanov, K. and Crouch, D. (2019), "Virtual Reality and Space Tourism", Space Tourism (Tourism Social Science Series, Vol. 25), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1571-504320190000025007 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2019 Emerald Publishing Limited Introduction During 2016, NASA's Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Florida offered the public exclusive tours of Mars. Rather than launching its visitors into orbit and space-shipping them to the neighboring planet, its exhibition space was transformed into a Martian landscape. However, there was no rusty red dust covering the ground, the hazy pink skies did not appear overhead, and there was no sudden drop in temperature or atmospheric pressure. Instead, the room became part of the virtual reality (VR) installation Destination: Mars (2016). Visitors were individually fitted with a headset which enabled them to "walk into" a realistic 3D simulation of the red planet. Wearing the Microsoft HoloLens, they were able to experience an augmented or mixed reality in which a virtual rendition of imagery collected by the sensory apparatus of the Curiosity rover was overlaid upon the layout of the exhibition space, allowing them to experience the sensation of moving through an alien environment. This was enabled by the adaptation of software called OnSight, originally co-developed by Microsoft and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to support Curiosity's operations by aiding the rover's command in analyzing terrain and determining pathways. The sightseers followed Curiosity's tracks and were led through several Martian sites by a digital holographic projection of astronaut Buzz Aldrin and rover driver Erisa Hines from Jet Propulsion Laboratory; they toured the key scientific activities and discoveries that make it possible for the visitors to "be there." Through Destination: Mars terrestrial space tourists shared an "immersive" interaction with the landscape of another planet (see Chapter 2 for discussion of terrestrial space tourism). While unique, this experience of touring places in outer space from the Earth is becoming increasingly common; this VR attraction set on Mars signposts far wider developments in VR technologies, in the practice and production of tourism and in the nature of space travel. Destination: Mars is just one of the many virtual tours that feature outer space in their itineraries. There is an increasing host of VR packages that offer forms of tourism set beyond the globe. They span a range of destinations, proposing journeys across our solar system and beyond – from a 3D Virtual Tour of the International Space Station to StarTracker VR – Mobile Sky Map (2016), which enables its user to "dive into a 3D star field" (2016, n.p.). Generated from the imagery and data gathered through the enterprise of space exploration, these tours combine diverse virtual interfaces with equipment such as goggles and headsets, wands, data gloves, and head-mounted displays to provide immersive simulations of environments in which to move, see, and interact with virtual artefacts. A range of them can be accessed through desktop computers, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and gaming consoles at home or while on move. Others are presented at public forums for group experiences such as Destination: Mars, or Lockheed Martin's Mars Experience (2017), which transformed a school bus into a setting for a trip to Mars, its windows acting as the screens through which to experience a virtual journey on the red planet. Increasingly "out there" in their varied forms, these virtual tours not only register a popular interest in outer space, but also suggest the emergence of a distinct form of space tourism – one which harnesses the intermediation of technologies, the synthesizing possibilities of VR, and our collective aspiration toward outer space. The proliferation of these remote space tours emerges from ongoing developments in VR technologies. Since hesitant beginnings in the late twentieth century, VR technology has grown significantly in scale. Advances in hardware and software – in particular the rise of affordable domestic headsets such as Google Cardboard, Microsoft HoloLens, HTC Vive, Samsung Gear VR, and Oculus Rift – have brought VR to the masses, providing what they describe as "fully immersive" experiences "with realistic graphics, directional audio and HD haptic feedback" (HTC Vive, n.d., n.p.). Propelled by ever-present market forces, the consumption of virtual realities has become an everyday activity for many, with "reaches far beyond gaming and entertainment" (Scolaro, 2016, n.p.), and it is anticipated that consumer spending on VR will grow from "$108.8 million in 2014 to $21.8 billion worldwide by 2020" (Ewalt, 2015, n.p.). The virtual tour has thus far emerged as one of the most noteworthy and popular forms of VR application; tourism industries themselves increasingly incorporate them in order to market their products, to inspire consumers, and to enhance their experience of certain destinations. However, VR is used not only as a means of attracting visitors to museums, galleries, noteworthy places and panoramas, or particular hotels and resorts, but also as a form of tourism itself. Its purview is to give a preview of a destination, and also to enable an intrinsic kind of "armchair" travel. VR tours have increased not only the overall numbers of those who can be considered "tourists", but also the display of destinations exponentially – their synthetic worlds now even take the users to locations that they would otherwise be unable to visit, places which are expensive, dangerous, or impossible to reach. It is no surprise, then, that outer space is one of the key directions being taken by the evolving courses of virtual tourism. It is an inhuman environment, financially and logistically inaccessible to most, and thus far very few have toured it. Set in outer space, the VR tour promises the experience of traveling its expanses while never leaving the Earth. As a means of exploring the cosmos, it might thus also indicate the evolution of space travel, in general, and of space tourism in particular. The design of these armchair tours emerges from transactions between the hard-science and creative industries which gather around the exotica of outer space to provide novel, virtual modes of its exploration. VR technologies are prominently used for astronaut-training simulations and a range of space activities such as scientific research, planning, and aerospace engineering. For example, a HoloLens aboard the ISS is used to "provide virtual aid to astronauts" (NASA, 2015, n.p.), augmenting procedures with holographic images superimposed onto objects the astronaut is interacting with and allowing those on the Earth to "see from an astronaut's point-of-view and send them drawings and other visual instructions on how to complete tasks" (Franzen, 2016, n.p.). NASA has developed various VR applications designed to advance and bolster space endeavors, such as systems that assist "scientists in planning rover drives and even holding meetings on Mars" and make "studying Martian geology as intuitive as turning your head and walking around" (NASA, 2017a, 2017b, n.p.). These virtual advances in outer space are increasingly finding their way into public culture. Destination: Mars (2016), for instance, was not only adapted from the VR set-up used in Mars operations, but after its time as an attraction in Florida, it was further re-developed into a freely available application – Access Mars: A WebVR Experiment (2017), which now allows "anyone with an Internet connection [to] take a guided tour of what […] scientists experience" (NASA, 2017a, 2017b, n.p.). Part of an interest in outer space and its exploration more broadly – transposed from the fields of science to the marketplace – such products have, in other words, opened up the cosmos as a public tourist domain. Combining educational and entertainment content with the novelty of virtual environments, they contribute to the gradual domestication of outer space and the socialization of its exploration – moving space tourism from the province of the very few, into the realm of the masses. VR tours set in outer space are the outcome of ongoing innovations in informatics, media, and communication technologies that have been profoundly altering the domain of tourism. Facilitating the production, circulation, and consumption of tourist sights and experiences, these developments have not only complemented, but also increasingly constituted, the registers of travel. These technologic conditions have created a situation in which tourist experiences are no longer only contained within classic modes of travel but also exist as an experience of "simulated mobility through the incredible fluidity of multiple signs and electronic images" (Urry, 1995, p. 148). As part of this, VR augments tourism. The VR experience is equated with tourist experiences, contributing to a more general movement which conflates real and representational spaces, meaning places are not "fixed or given", but "emerge as 'tourist places'" when they are "assembled" or "produced through networked mobilities of capital, persons, objects, signs and information" – as "places to play" (Urry & Larsen, 2011, p. 119). At the same time, VR tours of space extend the arena of tourism beyond the confines of the globe, affording the experience of space travel for all. As part of the new socio-spatial interface that complicates distinctions between home and away, the presence and the absence, authentic and staged (Hannam, Butler, & Paris, 2014), they amplify the metamorphoses that technologic advances have conferred upon tourist modes and suggest the prospective forms they may take. The effects of VR space tourism are many and varied, and their repercussions are yet to be established. VR itself is still an emerging medium, and extraterrestrial tours still an undeveloped manner of travel. However, our primary aim in this chapter is to review the recent and current forms of virtual space tours in their nascent stages, to chart their proliferation and growing sophistication by providing examples of their different manifestations, emphases, and the range of locations they include in their itineraries. We consider how these synthetic spaces transpose the practice of touring into outer space, explore how virtual space travel might influence the constitution of our "touristic" disposition, and suggest some of the changes that VR space tours appear to introduce into the broad motivations undergirding our desire to "go beyond." Outlining the range of "immersive" experiences offered to VR space tourists, we suggest that this medium not only appears to widen the stage upon which we are able to perform the role of tourist – elongating its acquisitive gaze and complicating its prerequisites of physical presence – but also contributes to the greater mapping of outer space as a tourist site. We close with a brief consideration of the potential limitations and future possibilities of virtual tourism in outer space, reflecting upon the ways in which these tours technologically extend the tourist into the spectacle of space exploration as well as reveal a social and organizational capacity to influence the direction of space tourism and also our collective aspirations in outer space – to determine, in other words, the very conditions of how we approach, arrange, conquer, or acquire, new places to travel. Virtual Reality Experiences of Space Tourism Accelerations of interest and investment in progressing the itineraries of space tourism and the capacity and applications of VR technologies have rendered outer space into an infinitively travelable site. While the journeys of the very few tourists who have ventured beyond the globe have consisted mostly of visits to the ISS, the affordances of VR are permitting space travel into myriad other destinations, supplying tours of popular celestial bodies such as the Moon and Mars or more exotic locations such as the planet "40 light years away" featured in NASA VR: On the Surface of Planet TRAPPIST-1d (2017, n.p.). VR technologies have the potential to change not only the entertainment industries, information consumption, and the mobility of the masses, but also the way we interact with the world. If on the Earth, virtual travel enables "transcending geographical and often social distance through information and communications technology" (Szerszynski & Urry, 2006, p. 116), set in outer space, it "transcends" the terrestrial geographies of this world, redefining the ambits of tourism and our relationship with outer space. VR space tours compound the novelties of a virtual environment and space travel; this amalgam, in which both form and content appear new and different, gives birth to a tourist who is part of a "culture of flows" and the hybrid "spaces of 'in-betweenness'" (Rojek & Urry, 1997, p. 11). However, the question that continues to undergird "virtual tourism" (and the idea of simulated travel and movement more generally) concerns the authenticity of the experience itself; as a setting, outer space only further complicates this uncertain and undecided purview. What we know of the experience of space travel can only be garnered from the limited records of people who can claim first-hand experience, but what we do know of outer space is that it is essentially an inhuman environment, a place in which our presence is both restricted to temporary sojourns and necessarily sustained by technology, where all humans are in effect tourists. By crafting an interpretation of outer space based upon the wealth of techno-scientific data generated through its observation and exploration, VR tours strive to simulate a realistic sense of presence "out there", attempting to bring their audiences as closely as possible to the cosmos without having to leave the Earth. But there are limits to this, and there are as yet no "genuine" replications of inhuman space environments as VR experiences. While a VR gaming simulation like Adr1ft (2016) might realistically recreate the "nauseating" and enclosed sensation of floating in zero gravity in a spacesuit, it disregards most of the physics and atmospheric effects of outer space – which ultimately undercuts the illusion of real presence that it sets out to establish. Similarly, Destination: Mars (2016) makes it possible to "walk on Mars" in the steps of rovers without the need for oxygen or any thought given to the effects of radiation or a different surface gravity; the authenticity of the experience wavers at the realization that Mars is a place where we cannot be without technological artifice. Yet, it is perhaps also the realization of this utter reliance upon technologies that returns a certain authenticity to the prosthetic VR experience. While travel in outer space means surrounding yourself in a "bubble" of mediating technologies, touring in VR is an immersion in a technologically created digital environment. In this sense, VR technology could be a suitable substitute for real space travel; technological necessity makes the experience of one continuous with the other. That said, VR space tours are nonetheless consistently concerned with their own presentation or performance of a "real" experience. What the VR industry categorizes under the de facto term experiences are packaged and presented as interactive real-time simulations. For example, a variety of space apps offered through Oculus like Hello Mars (2017) and its rendition of the "7 minutes of terror" landing sequence "created strictly based on NASA's public data & research" (Oculus, 2018a), Solar System (2015) in which one "can almost feel the structure of distant planets and moons under the feet" (Oculus, 2018b, n.p.), or Discovering Space 2 (2017), which lets one "[e]xperience the mood and atmosphere of worlds far away from home" (Oculus, 2018c, n.p.) – are all (among many others) marketed as in some way "realistic" experiences. This authenticity is, however, produced through their design – the hardware and software that they rely upon becoming a necessary part of the equation, influencing questions of perception, imitation, and reality. These mimetic environments are increasing in sophistication, becoming more precise, more accurate, but also more able to trick the eyes and mind, and at the same time, they are becoming more accepted as legitimate sites of social practice and authentic interaction. If the "touristic consciousness is motivated by its desire for authentic experiences" (MacCannell, 2013, p. 101), then the consciousness of the VR tourist complicates our conceptions of what is authentic and reopens questions of what is "real" experience. It is an experience of travel that occurs only through the simulation of presence and interaction with a synthetic environment, and while tourists might these their experiences there will for be they perhaps for authentic experiences, and (MacCannell, 2013, p. While their authenticity might be (MacCannell, 2013, p. VR tours nonetheless a distinct form of what as the of p. with and physical – but also not the of the – the forms of authenticity that VR tourism are to both activity and than the or the of certain p. The authenticity in the VR experience of space itself – and the of a experience, our sense of presence is through As the experience of as authentic is not an that or from the experience of a out there" pp. the experience with particular ways of to and VR tourists in space do not as they were in a by the experience of being in the presence of authentic do they feel the of places or as than questions of and how the toured objects are the experience" of this of tourism or by the of tourist p. As a of the VR experience is then in part a projection of the tourist onto the technologic possibilities of the medium – of new of the world. 1995, p. that the of being both and VR a of digital environments – the as information and spaces – an experience of and between in physical movement and in electronic (Hannam, & Urry, 2006, p. it the & Paris, 2015, p. of tourist places – and new or conceptions of experience, that might new of In this sense, VR itself might our experience of the extraterrestrial – a which only further questions of how tourist experiences of might to our collective sense of and moving in place and space. While VR itself complicates the geographical nature of VR in outer space still more to the idea that tourist practice experience, a sense of If real tourism is there" – a experience of physical – be there as and what is in most tourism" p. – then the of virtual space can offer in the way of a tourist In virtual tourism in outer space those which are to the to travel to particular places – such as of and to – appear to be by the practices of digital and the and of information and technologies. This is not to that VR the need for physical space or experience with that is forms of VR space tours some the bodies of tourists and and in certain physical spaces, but this terrestrial is only a stage set to be overlaid with of data and images designed to with and the VR space tours incorporate various to simulate environments and enhance a sense of For example, Lockheed Martin's Mars Experience (2017) a Martian dust with atmospheric effects to the HD displays that the windows of the moving school While VR presence is still through such experiences also haptic and while provide presence in VR – the that your virtual are your n.p.), a set of and the movement of the into VR equipment is and of into the activity and experience of There have been many other examples in which sensation is with virtual the experience of space travel, for instance, the (2017) which used HTC in with visual and effects to simulate the experience of VR are increasingly toward different forms of the and indicate the potential to become However, their between the and technology a new kind of a new medium of sensory experience that a place of and an of the tourist and technology, virtual travel in space of tourism as and & p. while possible and that would otherwise be beyond experience" & Larsen, 2006, p. in what as an of these of outer space the of reality to a – and as a of new of and the of a market in synthetic p. If authenticity itself no longer appears as an then it is only In VR, the for real experiences of exotic places the for places that are as This is in part through social but also in the of and the of digital However, as into a kind of tourist it an of p. in outer space, these are and through the technologies of VR, the of a form of a of a and VR tours offer an and all experience" 2016, p. This is what as that both the performance of and the of the design of the place and (2016, p. While individually their experiences, virtual space tourists themselves become in the of extraterrestrial destinations and ultimately tourist places beyond the Earth. If authenticity is and 2016, p. then the of VR itself a of what and This is not a of but as an of the of (2016, p. this the experiences of VR tours are as the toured objects and sites are as an of the illusion that A tourist in virtual outer space might in there is no authentic tourist experience" (Urry, 1995, p. on the Earth it. While tourism might "authentic" spaces into suitable for its ongoing the environment has no of or any of the host to and thus its authenticity is one which is of and otherwise p. While VR a that is perhaps real than reality beyond the an experience of more than the tourist experience itself is not of the world. As space VR might be but as a is a real one – it is a being a it is real to a tourist and thus to or in tourism" p. any space travel itself an VR products that offer to technologically extend the interest in p. are thus part of the practice and production of tourism and as experiences within its Virtual space tours from our beyond the planet. the humans who the Earth have only been as far as the of outer space have been well and and with increasing in which no has yet digital of extraterrestrial space are virtual spaces in are with of celestial objects, and and the courses of of or at and out our into space. space in this sense appears as a with tourist with the of and travel VR space tours from these of space they are set in a space and themselves it for As they may the that has been – a virtual environment accessed of of might not a sense of or suggest the experience of exploring the Yet, it is in this that places are as and become tourist destinations, complete with to visit, to sights to see, and sites to Through and images of and providing as of VR tours outer space for all the practices and that tourism might into virtual locations like on Mars or the technologies like Curiosity and the ISS, and like Buzz themselves become which are

In the previous chapter, I have presented different types of computer-based applications, particularly considering the umbrella term Virtual Reality (VR) ranging from 2D VR presented on a 2D computer monitor, Augmented (Virtual) Reality, Immersive (Virtual) Reality, and Mixed (Virtual) Reality. Also, by now, you know the use of the VR-based solutions in addressing skill deficits of children with autism. Additionally, you are aware of the numerous advantages of using VR particularly for individuals with autism. The VR can serve as an excellent tool in the hands of the interventionists for offering different training scenarios to the users, controllable levels of challenge based on an individual’s specific abilities, adaptive skill learning environment, etc. Researchers around the globe have been using VR for individuals with autism while offering them tasks that can contribute to improvement in social communication, emotion recognition, joint attention, etc. Offering skill training in at least some of these core deficit areas is important since the children with autism are often characterized by deficit in making socially appropriate reciprocation while carrying out back-and-forth communication with social partners, understanding facial emotional expressions, following the gaze of a social partner to triangulate to an object of interest through shared attention, etc. In this chapter, I will present detailed information on the building of the various components, such as Graphical User Interface, virtual characters, individualized and adaptive feedback of 2D VR-based applications.

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have been combined with physical rehabilitation and psychological treatments to improve patients' emotional reactions, body image, and physical function. Nonetheless, no detailed investigation assessed the relationship between VR or AR manual therapies (MTs), which are touch-based approaches that involve the manipulation of tissues for relieving pain and improving balance, postural stability and well-being in several pathological conditions. The present review attempts to explore whether and how VR and AR might be integrated with MTs to improve patient care, with particular attention to balance and to fields like chronic pain that need an approach that engages both mind and body. MTs rely essentially on touch to induce tactile, proprioceptive, and interoceptive stimulations, whereas VR and AR rely mainly on visual, auditory, and proprioceptive stimulations. MTs might increase patients' overall immersion in the virtual experience by inducing parasympathetic tone and relaxing the mind, thus enhancing VR and AR effects. VR and AR could help manual therapists overcome patients' negative beliefs about pain, address pain-related emotional issues, and educate them about functional posture and movements. VR and AR could also engage and change the sensorimotor neural maps that the brain uses to cope with environmental stressors. Hence, combining MTs with VR and AR could define a whole mind-body intervention that uses psychological, interoceptive, and exteroceptive stimulations for rebalancing sensorimotor integration, distorted perceptions, including visual, and body images. Regarding the technology needed to integrate VR and AR with MTs, head-mounted displays could be the most suitable devices due to being low-cost, also allowing patients to follow VR therapy at home. There is enough evidence to argue that integrating MTs with VR and AR could help manual therapists offer patients better and comprehensive treatments. However, therapists need valid tools to identify which patients would benefit from VR and AR to avoid potential adverse effects, and both therapists and patients have to be involved in the development of VR and AR applications to define truly patient-centered therapies. Furthermore, future studies should assess whether the integration between MTs and VR or AR is practically feasible, safe, and clinically useful.

The study examines the problem of using augmented and virtual reality in the process of blended learning in general secondary education. Analysis of recent research and publications has shown that the use of augmented and virtual reality in the educational process has been considered by scientists. However, the target group in these studies is students of higher education institutions. Most of the works of scientists are devoted to the problem of introducing augmented reality into the traditional educational process. At the same time, the use of augmented and virtual reality technologies in the process of blended learning remains virtually unexplored. The study analyzes the meaning of the concept of "blended learning". The conceptual principles of blended learning are considered. It has been found that scholars differ in their understanding of the concept of "blended learning". Sometimes researchers distinguish between the components of blended learning: full-time and online learning. The study presents the special advantages of blended learning and the taxonomy of blended learning. It was found that there are some difficulties in implementing blended learning. The article outlines the practical use of virtual and augmented reality. The definition of augmented and virtual reality is given. The mixed reality is considered as a separate kind of notion. Separate applications of virtual and augmented reality that can be used in the process of blended learning are considered (MEL Chemistry VR; Anatomyou VR; Google Expeditions; EON-XR). As a result of the study, the authors propose possible ways to use augmented reality in the educational process. The model of using augmented and virtual reality in blended learning in general secondary education institutions was designed. It consists of the following blocks: goal; teacher’s activity; forms of education; teaching methods; teaching aids; organizational forms of education; pupil activity and results. Based on the model, the methodology of using augmented and virtual reality in blended learning in general secondary education was developed. The methodology contains the following components: target component, content component, technological component and resultant component. The methodology is quite universal and can be used for any subject in general secondary education. The types of lessons in which it is expedient to use augmented (AR) and virtual reality(VR) are determined. Recommendations are given at which stage of the lesson it is better to use AR and VR tools (depending on the type of lesson).

Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) technologies are increasingly becoming integral to educational and training contexts, yet comparative analyses of their effects on simulator sickness and user experience remain limited. Recent advancements in AR/VR headsets, such as the Meta Quest 3, now allow virtual and augmented reality experiences to be delivered through a single device. However, previous research comparing user experiences between virtual and augmented reality did not account for the use of a unified headset in their investigation. This study aims to investigate the differential effects of AR and VR on users’ simulator sickness, engagement, mental workload, and performance, and usability of the training environment. A training module was developed in Unity 3D for both AR and VR focusing on 3D printing using a powder bed fusion (PBF) printer. A within-subject assignment of factors explored the comparison of ten participants’ experiences regarding simulation sickness and printing experiences and performances. Each participant went through the same tasks under simulated environments to explore the implications of AR and VR on user experience. The study found that there was no statistically significant difference in motivation and user experiences between AR and VR using Meta Quest 3. Moreover, the users experienced comparatively higher simulator sickness in VR than in AR. These findings will not only help to fill the gaps in comparative studies of AR and VR but will also help to inform future technological deployments in educational and professional training scenarios.

Рассматриваются особенности применения технологий VR (виртуальной реальности) и AR (дополненной реальности) организациями финансовой сферы. Определяется специфика технологий виртуальной и дополненной реальности. Последовательно представлена история их продвижения на рынки, отмечены наиболее яркие факты, результаты совершенствования в контексте технологического прогресса (Sensorama, head-mounted display, «Кинокарта Аспена», устройство Eye Tap, коммерческая система RB2, VR-консоль компании SEGA Games Co., очки Oculus Rift и др.). Отмечаются области и возможности их применения. Изучена степень проникновения технологий виртуальной и дополненной реальности в деятельность финансовых организаций. Указаны основные направления их применения: приведены конкретные примеры интеграции VR- и AR-технологий в работу финансовых организаций. Систематизированы такие цели применения AR- и VR-технологий в финансовой сфере, как упрощение получения и обработки информации клиентами посредством приема визуализации, сохранение безопасности, маркетинговые коммуникативные цели и др. В результате проведенного исследования обозначены тенденции использования технологий на финансовом рынке, выявлены возможности их развития и перспективы применения, факторы, сдерживающие их развитие, определены и систематизированы преимущества и недостатки как самих технологий, так и функционирования этих технологий в финансовой среде. В заключение сделан вывод о том, что применение VR- и AR-технологий позволит финансовым организациям укрепить свои конкурентные позиции на рынке, а клиентам финансовых организаций — создать собственную безопасную онлайн-среду, в которой они смогут управлять своими деньгами и инвестициями и совершать транзакции. The features of the use of VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality) technologies by financial organizations are considered. The specifics of virtual and augmented reality technologies are determined. The history of their promotion to markets is presented in a coherent manner, highlighting key facts, the results of improvements in the context of technological advances (Sensorama, head-mounted display, Aspen’s Cinema Map, Eye Tap device, RB2 commercial system, VR-console of SEGA Games Co., glasses Oculus Rift and more). Areas and possibilities of their application are noted. The areas and possibilities of their application are highlighted. The degree of penetration of virtual and augmented reality technologies in the activities of financial institutions is explored. The main directions of their application are indicated: specific examples of integration of VR- and AR-technologies in the work of financial institutions are given. The goals of using AR and VR technologies in the financial sector, such as simplifying the receipt and processing of information by clients through the reception of visualization, maintaining security, marketing communication goals, etc., are systematized. As a result of the study, trends in the use of the technologies in the financial market are identified, opportunities for their development and prospects of application, factors that restrain their development are identified, the advantages and disadvantages of both the technologies themselves and the functioning of these technologies in the financial environment are identified and systematized. It is concluded that the use of VR and AR technologies will allow financial institutions to strengthen their competitive positions in the market, and let the clients of financial institutions create their own secure online environment in which they can manage their money and investments and make transactions.

This chapter introduces virtual reality and augmented reality as a basis for simulation visualization. It shows how these technologies can support simulation visualization and gives important considerations about the use of simulation in virtual and augmented reality environments. Hardware and software features, as well as user interface and examples related to simulation, using and supporting virtual reality and augmented reality, are discussed, stressing their benefits and disadvantages. The chapter intends to discuss virtual and augmented reality in the context of simulation, emphasizing the visualization of data and behavior of systems. The importance of simulation to give dynamic and realistic behaviors to virtual and augmented reality is also pointed out. The work indicates that understanding the integrated use of virtual reality and simulation should create better conditions to the development of innovative simulation environments as well as to the improvement of virtual and augmented reality environments.

This chapter introduces virtual reality and augmented reality as a basis for simulation visualization. It shows how these technologies can support simulation visualization and gives important considerations about the use of simulation in virtual and augmented reality environments. Hardware and software features, as well as user interface and examples related to simulation, using and supporting virtual reality and augmented reality, are discussed, stressing their benefits and disadvantages. The chapter intends to discuss virtual and augmented reality in the context of simulation, emphasizing the visualization of data and behavior of systems. The importance of simulation to give dynamic and realistic behaviors to virtual and augmented reality is also pointed out. The work indicates that understanding the integrated use of virtual reality and simulation should create better conditions to the development of innovative simulation environments as well as to the improvement of virtual and augmented reality environments.

Objetivo: Realizar uma análise comparativa de medidas de erros após o treino com jogos de dardos virtual e real. Metodologia: Participaram do estudo 15 pacientes com Acidente Vascular Cerebral (AVC) (10 homens) e 12 indivíduos saudáveis (7 homens). O jogo virtual utilizado foi o Kinect Sports do Xbox 360 Kinect®. Os participantes realizaram 15 tentativas em cada jogo. Foram calculados os erros absoluto (EA), constante (EC) e variável (EV). Os dados foram analisados pela ANOVA. Resultados: Quanto ao EA observou-se diferença significativa entre os pacientes e saudáveis no jogo virtual (p=0,003) e no jogo real (p= 0,0001). Também houve diferença do EA entre os jogos virtual e real para os pacientes (p= 0,0001). No EC não foi encontrada diferença significativa entre pacientes e saudáveis no jogo virtual (p=0,355) e no jogo real (p= 0,544). Também não houve diferença do EC entre os jogos virtual e real para os pacientes (p= 0,452). Pela análise do EV não foi verificada diferença significativa entre pacientes e saudáveis no jogo virtual (p=0,406), mas houve no jogo real (p= 0,0001). Não houve diferença significativa do EV entre os jogos virtual e real para os pacientes (p= 0,579). Conclusão: Os resultados encontrados indicaram que os pacientes tiveram menor precisão, maior consistência de erros e menor variabilidade do desempenho. O jogo virtual proporcionou melhores resultados para os pacientes em comparação ao jogo real, o que pode ser de significativa importância para o planejamento da reabilitação motora dos pacientes com AVC.