Critical Literature Review of Immersive Virtual Reality Training
There are many studies and articles on how to engage adult learners effectively and ensure retention of learning objectives. This review focuses on one area within those studies, specifically the efficacy of immersive virtual reality (VR) as a training tool. VR training and VR studies have been carried out for decades, and still, there are mixed results about how practical VR training is compared to traditional training mechanisms and techniques. Although there are many facets to explore with VR training, this review focuses on the following areas of VR: a) practice and confidence, b) spatial navigation and perspective, and c) immersiveness. The intent is to determine if VR can effectively help learners develop more resilient long-term memories. The central question posed by this literature review is; "Can VR exercises help employees in the petrochemical and oil refining industries develop more resilient long-term memories?"
Rationale for Review and Statement of Purpose
The petrochemical and oil refinery industries follow strict compliance training demands and safety standards. To work in this field, technicians and operators must pass courses on safety standards, skills training, and compliance standards. Employees within this industry, especially field technicians and field operators, have very high turnover rates compared to other sectors (Lee, n.d.). High turnover rates generally mean that new employees entering the industry must be trained to the same rigorous compliance and safety standards as long-term employees with less experience to help them understand the concepts and process the information. Finding effective training tools that can help learners develop resilient long-term memories efficiently, without overwhelming training demands, is imperative to ensure the safety of new employees in the industry.
Training augmented with VR exercises has the potential to provide the bridge between the traditional computer-based training (CBT) and hands-on training the industry relies on without the expense and difficulties involved in providing costly hands-on training. VR training provides an opportunity for training on equipment and in environments that would be difficult to access or obtain and dangerous to execute in traditional training scenarios. VR training can also be delivered more effectively to remote areas and can standardize processes to a degree that would difficult for traditional hands-on training. VR also allows for consistency within the training environment by not having different trainers providing different interpretations of the standards. By determining if VR can be a tool to augment traditional CBTs and develop more resilient long-term memory networks, employees in the petrochemical and oil refining industries could have more effective safety, skills, and compliance training before beginning jobs in dangerous work environments.
There are three things that this review focuses on as they contribute to VR's success as a reinforcement training tool: first, there is the opportunity for practicing a task and the confidence gained through that practice. Secondly, this review will focus on how spatial navigation and perspective within VR can contribute to more resilient memory development. Finally, this review will examine whether or not immersiveness in VR plays a significant part in memory making when using VR as a tool.
Search Strategy, Selection, and Screening
The search for articles for this review began on or about May 2020 and concluded in April of 2021. The articles for this review were found using several databases provided via the Kansas State University Education Databases and public searches through sites such as Google. Many of the articles were found via the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Springer, and Taylor and Francis Online. The search terms used included the following:
• Virtual Reality Training
• Virtual Reality in Education
• Virtual Reality and Presence
• Virtual Reality and Vocational Schools
• Virtual Reality and Safety Training
• Virtual Reality and Immersivness
• Virtual Reality and Embodiment
Several articles found using these searches provided links to other articles that provided more information and insight for this review. Finally, the search was limited to articles written within the last twenty years. A majority of those selected for this review were written after 2010. Fifty-four articles were found for this review; of those only 29 were used as a part of this analysis.
Practice and Confidence
There are two potential benefits to practice. The first is the chance to practice procedures, usually complex processes, in a step-by-step method until they show an ability to perform the steps without the help of a learning aid. Developing psychomotor skills through the use of practice, following Simpson's model for development within the psychomotor domain (Ahmad et al., 2018, p. 2), can allow learners the chance to perform series of movements through procedures and eventually perform complex acts as their own. The second benefit to practice is that this ability to perform complex actions inspires confidence in the learner's skills and adds proficiency (Ahmad et al., 2018, p. 2). The review question regards how VR can help employees develop long-term memory in the petrochemical and oil refining industries. By practicing exercises in a VR environment, learners will follow Simpson's psychomotor domain model, which develops competency and confidence through hands-on practice.
Figure 1
Screenshot of Excel Learning Journal Chart
This review found 12 articles that directly or indirectly addressed and studied whether or not VR provided positive outcomes in terms of memory development for the learner via practice. Of those 12 articles, three articles focused on improved confidence through VR practice opportunities. The most sweeping study in terms of sample size focused on the ability for learners to practice speeches and improve and gain confidence in public speaking through VR exercises. Davis et al. (2019) focused on how VR exercises might help a sample from 195 learners overcome speech phobias in public speaking and randomly selected learners into either a VR study group or a traditional study group. Davis et al. (2019) measured through quantitative means and qualitative questionnaires how participants performed in their respective environments. Although the study found that VR generally provided more positive outcomes, there was not a considerable change in test scores that could prove that VR exercises helped learners become better speakers. In terms of building confidence, however, Davis et al. (2019) reported that "the participants in both the test and control groups agreed that the experience helped them to feel less anxious and more prepared for their actual performance" (p. 79).
Unlike the article by Davis et al. (2019), where the findings regarding post-test scores after VR training showed no significant improvement, seven articles found improved post-test scores when learners had an opportunity to utilize VR exercises. Two of the most significant of these focused on processes that could be practiced in VR and then performed in real-life environments later. Colombo et al. (2014) focused on identifying improperly closed valves and reporting leaks while learners navigated through a virtual chemical plant, while Barsom et al. (2020) focused on safety training in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The content trained in both of these courses is similar to what learners in the petrochemical and oil refinery field would be asked to navigate as a part of their compliance, safety, and skills training. Both articles showed that learners with the opportunity to practice in a VR environment improved their scores in the post-test measurement.
Of the ten articles that focus on experiments that directly or indirectly mention confidence and practice, only two found any results that were not positive for using VR for practice. Those included the study by Davis et al. (2019) and a study focused on immersion within head-mounted displays (HMDs) by Harman et al. (2018). In both of these cases, the VR learners did not show a statistically significant difference to the non-VR counterparts. Harman et al. (2008) ascribe some of that difference to the cognitive load placed on the learner during the experiment (p. 12). A second reason for the difference could be that practice improvement results were a secondary focus of the investigation, rather than the primary focus.
This review found that more often than not the opportunity for learners to practice actions they might make in the real world in a VR environment provided more resilient memory (Ahmad et al. 2018; Allcoat & Mühlenen, 2018; Barsom et al., Colombo et al., 2014; 2020; Hamilton et al., 2020; Harman et al., 2018; Kaminska et al., 2020; Sankaranarayanan et al. 2018; Weber, 2016). This was in most cases confirmed by comparing pre-test and post-test measurements immediately following the delivery of the information.
Spatial Navigation and Perspective
By asking trainees to act and move in a virtual environment, learners can expect to activate multiple types of neural cells that have been shown to provide more profound, more resilient memories for learners (Eichenbaum, 2017; Krokos et al., 2019; Schiller et al., 2015). Several research articles selected for this review focused on how the human brain process information to store memories and the relationship that the hippocampus has in making those memories. One aspect of these articles to VR is the importance of head direction cells, place cells, and grid cells as part of the memory-making processes (Krokos et al., 2019, p 2). These different mechanisms can help make VR training more effective than traditional CBT learning due in part to their involvement in creating memories using "spatial representations in the brain" (Krokos et al., 2019, p 2). This review focused on articles to determine how deeper, more resilient memories can be made within VR environments and in what way the hippocampus plays a part in developing those memories. This review found 10 articles that had either a primary or secondary focus on spatial awareness and memory-making.
Figure 2
Screenshot of Excel Learning Journal Chart
Schiller et al. (2015) explore the role of the hippocampus and how memory is related to navigation, going so far as to posit from the review of research that the hippocampus is intensely involved in spatial mapping and directly related to memory. Burgess et al. (2002) state that "information about the events in our VR episodic memory task is retrieved in the form of an index-like code in the hippocampus, based in part on the location of the subject" (p. 636). Eichenbaum (2017) went so far as to map out different areas of the hippocampus that might be used for different types of memory, primarily focusing on the spatial memory and navigation aspects of memory-making. In Schiller et al. (2015), a similar review of research finds that the hippocampus's role in cataloging and determining how incoming information and memories should be stored shows the importance of activating grid cells, head cells, and boundary cells to making stronger, more resilient memories. The effectiveness of VR is shown through these articles as an effective tool for advancing long-term memory development using spatial cognition and these different brain mechanisms as keystones. Memories are more resilient because they are made up of multiple memory-making cells, such as place cells, grid cells, boundary cells, and head direction cells (Eichenbaum, 2017; Krokos et al., 2019). Many, if not all, of these are activated through the use of VR. Multiple trace memory theory is the idea that a) memories become stronger the more times they are accessed, and b) the more pathways exist between cells that create the memory (Hintzman & Block, 1971, p. 297), the higher the likelihood that the retrieval of that memory will be successful and the memory be a more precise representation of the event. Finding ways to make a more robust, more resilient pathway during memory formation, or forging multiple memory networks via various sensorimotor inputs, is vital in creating more long-lasting memories.
In what way does the hippocampus matter to VR and memory? As Burgess et al. (2002) show in their research article, there is a distinct difference in developing memory depending on whether or not the spatial representation is egocentric or allocentric. This allocentric memory encoding is more closely associated with memory encoding via the hippocampus (Burgess et al., 2002, p. 628). In contrast, other types, including egocentric memory development, are associated with the parietal neocortex (Burgess et al., 2002, p. 626), supported by the cognitive mapping theory. VR can support these types of memory-making capabilities, be they allocentric, meaning: centered on or from other objects in the area, or egocentric, meaning: trunk centered (Burgess et al., 2002, p. 626), which can make VR a more capable memory development tool for learning.
Finally, memory palaces (method of loci), as defined in Krokos et al. (2019), is the idea of the brain spatially organizing information for later retrieval based on navigating imaginary structures to aid recall (p. 1). Krokos et al. (2019) designed an experiment to allow others to act on their findings and compared results through a quantitative test of images provided to the 40 learners on two-dimensional desktop monitors verse three-dimensional immersive head-mounted displays (HMD). These three-dimensional immersive HMDs helped to create "memory palaces" which allow the learner the chance to associate images to a place that can aid later recall.
Tuena et al. (2019) bring all of the above information together into a holistic understanding in a systematic review to discuss how episodic memory, as well as allocentric and egocentric memory, are all processed in the hippocampus and linked together in a process known as "binding" (p. 2). Binding connects the embodied memory to the cognitive memory for later retrieval (Tuena et al., 2019, p. 2). Over the course of working through 647 articles, Tuena et al. (2019) determined that there are "positive results concerning the virtual enactment effect on spatial and episodic memory performance, highlighting the embodied potential of virtual reality (VR)" (p. 17).
Utilizing more neural cells such as grid cells, place cells, head direction cells, and boundary cells, as well as mechanisms such as binding, combined with allowing learners the opportunity to view information with an allocentric perspective would allow for stronger memory development (Burgess et al., 2002; Tuena et al., 2019; Eichenbaum, 2017; Krokos et al., 2019). VR provides the opportunity for learners to utilize all of these mechanisms in their training.
Immersiveness
Immersiveness is the feeling of being present or having presence in an online or virtual environment (Burgess et al., 2002, p. 627). This review looked for articles that focused either primarily or secondarily on immersiveness and presence as a feature of VR technology and how having a greater degree of immersiveness can contribute to more resilient long-term memories. Studies have shown that the practice of procedural tasks or processes in VR provided greater, more resilient memories than those that used non-immersive VR for training, as shown in the literature review by Hamilton et al. (2020, p. 25). As Lecavalier et al. (2018) write, "numerous studies have found that presence is positively related to performance" (p. 464).
Figure 3
Screenshot of Excel Learning Journal Chart
This review found several articles that found positive results for the argument of having more immersive environments and a greater sense of presence within the VR exercise to create more resilient memory. Among the 14 research papers that dealt with immersiveness and presence, 13 were experiments to determine if immersiveness was effective as a part of a VR learning tool. Among the 13 experiments, five dealt specifically with an experiment that compared two-dimensional tools such as video or PowerPoint slides with three-dimensional VR conditions. In four of these cases, the three-dimensional VR condition provided greater recall than the two-dimensional training (Barsom et al. 2020; Colombo et al.; 2014, Krokos 2019; Lecavalier et al., 2018). In one experiment that compared three-dimensional VR to PowerPoint training, there was no significant difference between the two conditions immediately after training, but once the learner was given the opportunity to write a summary of their training, the three-dimensional VR group scored significantly higher scores than the two-dimensional condition (Parong & Mayer, 2018). For most of the experiments reviewed as a part of this study, the data show that immersive environments in VR provide a more significant opportunity for learning than a two-dimensional condition.
Another feature of immersiveness and presence is the importance of embodiment to the VR condition. An experiment performed by and reported on by Brechet et al. (2019) discussed how embodiment is key to making long-lasting memories. In their study, Brechet et al. (2019) discover that learners, when provided the opportunity to interact with an immersive three-dimensional virtual environment, remembered in the long-term, or delayed retrieval test, more information than those learners who had no representation of their body or who had a representation of the joystick control in their field of view (p. 13). Although this study might have findings relevant to the positive argument of "embodiment" in virtual reality, it also is relevant to the idea that egocentric and allocentric memory encoding in VR is more effective for long-term memory retrieval.
Of the 15 articles that had a primary or secondary focus on immersiveness in VR, the most noteworthy were those dealing with safety training procedures or working with adults. Both of these aspects are factors that are prevalent as a part of the review question. The study by Lecavalier et al. (2018) meets all of these characteristics. Lecavalier et al. (2018) focused on 57 older adults and their ability to recall episodic memories in a VR setting and resulted in data that showed that using VR exercises for older adults showed the same promise as using it for younger populations and that other factors such as cybersickness concerns and motivation were not insurmountable for the population (p. 474).
VR provides the opportunity to create immersive environments for learners. Most of the articles that experimented with immersiveness as a primary or secondary focus found that immersiveness or presence in a VR exercise provided more resilient memories in the post-test measurement than two-dimensional training methodologies (Baily et al., 2012; Colombo et al., 2014; Krokos et al., 2019; Lecavalier et al., 2018; Krokos; Sankaranarayanan et al., 2018; Weber, 2016; Yildirim et al., 2018).
Limitations
There are some limitations of this critical review and the ability to answer the review question. Two of the articles reviewed for this paper discuss the use of VR to change cultural norms. Bailey et al. (2012) investigate the use of VR to change water use habits, while Lau (2015) experiments with how best to teach an organization's culture to new employees during onboarding. In both of these cases, VR proved to be a poor catalyst for changing habits and the learner's culture. Additionally, only two studies focused on an audience type similar to those found in field or operator work within the petrochemical or oil refining industry. Both Colombo et al. (2014) and Kamińska et al. (2020) focused on mechanical aspects of work in and around refineries and/or with a learning cohort similar to field technicians and operators. Both found that VR provided training advantages for the learners. Finally, the review question mentions the ability of field technicians and operators to develop long-term memories. Only one article in this review had a measurement tool that extended beyond one day. Schöne et al. (2017) used a delayed retrieval measurement of 48 hours as a part of a recall experiment which provided evidence that VR training became a deeper memory than conventional video training (p. 715). Schöne et al. (2017) was not an article selected for this review as it did not specifically address any of the areas, immersiveness, practice, nor spatial navigation as thoroughly as many of the articles that were selected. Most of the articles found for this review focused on the immediate impact of VR on learning. The lack of study into long-term retention following VR training, combined with the limited number of experiments performed on learners similar to those found in the petrochemical and oil refining industries, could mean that the positive results found in this review might not translate to those industries. Additionally, the limited data found on changing culture could indicate that improving safety culture through VR is not a worthwhile undertaking.
Conclusion
The data in the articles that were selected for this review show that VR, as compared to traditional two-dimensional training, has benefited learners in terms of recall. The review question focuses not only on immediate recall but also on long-term recall and retention. As mentioned in the Limitations section above, only one article measured retention beyond a few hours (Schöne et al., 2017). Finding articles and research that find ways to measure the long-term recall and retention of information presented via VR should be the next goal in this study. As shown by the articles in this review, the fact that VR stimulates so many brain mechanisms like spatial awareness, allocentric perspectives, grid cells, place cells, head direction cells, and boundary cells should all help to create more resilient and, therefore long-term memories. Still, the studies that prove this long-term memory development via VR were not found as a part of this review.
References
Ahmad, A., Kamin, Y., & Md Nasir, A. N. (2018). Applying psychomotor domain for competency based teaching in vocational education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1049, 012049. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1049/1/012049
Allcoat, D., & Mühlenen, A. von. (2018). Learning in virtual reality: Effects on performance, emotion and engagement. Research in Learning Technology, 26. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2140
Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (2004). Desktop virtual reality: A powerful new technology for teaching and research in industrial teacher education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 41(4).
Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (2008). Effects of desktop virtual reality on learner performance and confidence in environment mastery: Opening a line of inquiry. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 45(1), 54–87.
Bird, C. M., & Burgess, N. (2008). The hippocampus and memory: Insights from spatial processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(3), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2335
Bréchet, L., Mange, R., Herbelin, B., Theillaud, Q., Gauthier, B., Serino, A., & Blanke, O. (2019). First-person view of one's body in immersive virtual reality: Influence on episodic memory. PLOS ONE, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197763
Catterson, A. J. (2013). The impact of virtual reality programs in career and technical education. [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest. http://search.proquest.com/eric/docview/1697499111/DCC97B3909C241F4PQ/4
Colombo, S., Nazir, S., & Manca, D. (2014). Immersive virtual reality for training and decision making: Preliminary results of experiments performed with a plant simulator. SPE Economics & Management, 6(04), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.2118/164993-PA
Dede, C. (2009). Introduction to virtual reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 2, 7–9.
Auld, L.W.S., Pantelidis, V.S. (1994). Exploring virtual reality for classroom use. TechTrends : For Leaders in Education & Training., 39(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763872
Flanders, M., & Kavanagh, R. C. (2013). Visualizing compound rotations with virtual reality. The Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 77(3). http://www.edgj.org/index.php/EDGJ/issue/view/59
Gavish, N., Gutiérrez, T., Webel, S., Rodríguez, J., Peveri, M., Bockholt, U., & Tecchia, F. (2015). Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 778–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.815221
Granic, A., Nakic, J., & Marangunic, N. (2020). Scenario-Based group usability testing as a mixed methods approach to the evaluation of three-dimensional virtual learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 616–639.
Hamilton, D., McKechnie, J., Edgerton, E., & Wilson, C. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a pedagogical tool in education: A systematic literature review of quantitative learning outcomes and experimental design. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00169-2
Harman, J., Brown, R., & Johnson, D. (2017). Improved memory elicitation in virtual reality: new experimental results and insights. [Conference Session]16th IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT), Sep 2017, Bombay, India. pp.128-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67684-5_9
Hintzman, D., & Block, R. (1971). Repetition and memory: Evidence for a multiple-trace hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030907
Jensen, C. G. (2017). Collaboration and dialogue in virtual reality. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 85–110.
Jensen, L., & Konradsen, F. (2018). A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1515–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0
Kamińska, D., Zwoliński, G., Wiak, S., Petkovska, L., Cvetkovski, G., Barba, P. D., Mognaschi, M. E., Haamer, R. E., & Anbarjafari, G. (2020). Virtual reality-based training: Case study in mechatronics. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09469-z
Krokos, E., Plaisant, C., & Varshney, A. (2019). Virtual memory palaces: Immersion aids recall. Virtual Reality, 23(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0346-3
Lau, K. W. (2015). Organizational learning goes virtual? A study of employees' learning achievement in stereoscopic 3D virtual reality. The Learning Organization, 22(5), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-11-2014-0063
Lecavalier, N. C., Ouellet, É., Boller, B., & Belleville, S. (2020). Use of immersive virtual reality to assess episodic memory: A validation study in older adults. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 30(3), 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2018.1477684
Lee, B. (n.d.). Greater employee engagement needed to retain oil and gas workers. Retrieved April 28, 2021, from Cashort.com website: https://www.cashort.com/blog/greater-employee-engagement-retain-talent-oil-gas-workers
Mabry, J., Lee, E., Roberts, T., & Garrett, R. (2020). Virtual simulation to increase self-efficacy through deliberate practice. Nurse Educator, 45(4), 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000758
Monahan, T., McArdle, G., & Bertolotto, M. (2008). Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1339–1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.008
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785–797. http://dx.doi.org.er.lib.k-state.edu/10.1037/edu0000241
Poland, R., La Velle, L. B., & Nichol, J. (2003). The Virtual field station (VFS): Using a virtual reality environment for ecological fieldwork in a-level biological studies--Case study 3. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 215–231.
Sankaranarayanan, G., Wooley, L., Hogg, D., Dorozhkin, D., Olasky, J., Chauhan, S., Fleshman, J. W., De, S., Scott, D., & Jones, D. B. (2018). Immersive virtual reality-based training improves response in a simulated operating room fire scenario. Surgical Endoscopy, 32(8), 3439–3449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6063-x
Schiller, D., Eichenbaum, H., Buffalo, E. A., Davachi, L., Foster, D. J., Leutgeb, S., & Ranganath, C. (2015). Memory and space: towards an understanding of the cognitive map. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(41), 13904–13911. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2618-15.2015
Schöne, B., Wessels, M., & Gruber, T. (2019). Experiences in virtual reality: A window to autobiographical memory. Current Psychology, 38(3), 715–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9648-y
Tuena, C., Serino, S., Dutriaux, L., Riva, G., & Piolino, P. (2019). Virtual enactment effect on memory in young and aged populations: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 8(5), 620.
Vasilevski, N., & Birt, J. (2020). Analysing Construction student experiences of mobile mixed reality enhanced learning in virtual and augmented reality environments. Research in Learning Technology, 28. ERIC. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1244350
Yildirim, G., Elban, M., & Yildirim, S. (2018). Analysis of use of virtual reality technologies in history education: A case study. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 4(2), 62–69.
