ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Authenticity and presence: defining perceived quality in VR experiences.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immersive gratifications and compulsive VR media engagement: a dual-process model of erotic content consumption in virtual reality.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Midwifery students' and teachers' perceptions and needs regarding Extended Reality (XR) in educational training and its potential role in anxiety-related learning contexts.European journal of midwifery · 2026Article
- From Photogrammetry to Virtual Reality: A Framework for Assessing Visual Fidelity in Structural Inspections.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Restorative effects and perception of nature-themed artworks in indoor environments: an empirical study based on VR+EEG.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- The neurosociological paradigm of the metaverse.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work expands the existing understanding of quality assessments of VR experiences. Historically, VR quality has focused on presence and immersion, but current discourse emphasizes plausibility and believability as critical for lifelike, credible VR. However, the two concepts are often conflated, leading to confusion. This paper proposes viewing them as subsets of authenticity and presents a structured hierarchy delineating their differences and connections. Additionally, coherence and congruence are presented as complementary quality functions that integrate internal and external logic. The paper considers quality formation in the experience of authenticity inside VR emphasizing that distinguishing authenticity in terms of precise quality features are essential for accurate assessments. Evaluating quality requires a holistic approach across perceptual, cognitive, and emotional factors. This model provides theoretical grounding for assessing the quality of VR experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.