Contrasting Physical and Virtual Museum Experiences: A Study of Audience Behavior in Replica-Based Environments
[AN ABSENCE CLAIM PLUS FOUR ITEMS HELD AT RECORD OR ABSTRACT LEVEL. NONE OF THE FOUR WAS READ IN FULL. The absence claim rests on two recorded searches and is stated at exactly their width] The physical-against-virtual museum comparison, and the gap in the record. SEARCHES RUN ON THIS PASS, RECORDED SO THE CLAIM CAN BE CHECKED: 'experiment virtual museum visit versus real museum visit learning engagement comparison randomised VR art museum'; and 'no randomised controlled trial comparing in-person museum visit with virtual museum visit systematic review evidence gap'. NEITHER returned a randomised head-to-head trial of a physical museum visit against a virtual one on a learning or memory outcome, and neither returned a systematic review of such trials. WHAT DOES EXIST, USABLE AT EXACTLY THIS STRENGTH. (a) 'Contrasting Physical and Virtual Museum Experiences: A Study of Audience Behavior in Replica-Based Environments', Sensors 25, 4046, 2025, doi:10.3390/s25134046: a WITHIN-SUBJECT study of 24 participants who ALL visited the physical museum first and then the virtual versions at one-week intervals, reporting no significant difference between the physical museum and the replica virtual museum on satisfaction, immersion, aesthetics and social interaction. The fixed visit order is a confound the design cannot remove and the sample is 24, so cite it as suggestive and say both things. PUBLISHER RECORD AND ABSTRACT-LEVEL REPORTING ONLY, NOT READ IN FULL. (b) A preregistered study randomly assigning 687 participants to one of nine conditions comparing repeated fifteen-minute virtual art-gallery visits against reading about art, which measured flourishing rather than learning. RECORD ONLY, NOT READ, and not to be used for a learning claim. (c) A four-week study of 75 art-history undergraduates reporting that virtual-museum-integrated instruction enhanced learning over sustained use, with no physical-visit comparison. RECORD ONLY. (d) A between-groups study of 60 participants comparing a desktop virtual museum with a headset version, reporting that the headset improved the experience and the attitude towards it but could negatively affect the learning outcome. RECORD ONLY. THE HONEST LINE: on the comparison the seed book's museum chapter is really about, whether standing in front of the thing beats looking at it, there is no randomised trial, and the literature compares screens with other screens. WHAT MAY NOT BE SAID: that no study has compared a real museum visit with a virtual one. Two searches found no randomised head-to-head trial on a learning or memory outcome and no systematic review of such trials, and the absence must be stated at that width with the searches named.
[AN ABSENCE CLAIM PLUS FOUR ITEMS HELD AT RECORD OR ABSTRACT LEVEL. NONE OF THE FOUR WAS READ IN FULL. The absence claim rests on two recorded searches and is stated at exactly their width] The physical-against-virtual museum comparison, and the gap in the record. SEARCHES RUN ON THIS PASS, RECORDED SO THE CLAIM CAN BE CHECKED: 'experiment virtual museum visit versus real museum visit learning engagement comparison randomised VR art museum'; and 'no randomised controlled trial comparing in-person museum visit with virtual museum visit systematic review evidence gap'. NEITHER returned a randomised head-to-head trial of a physical museum visit against a virtual one on a learning or memory outcome, and neither returned a systematic review of such trials. WHAT DOES EXIST, USABLE AT EXACTLY THIS STRENGTH. (a) 'Contrasting Physical and Virtual Museum Experiences: A Study of Audience Behavior in Replica-Based Environments', Sensors 25, 4046, 2025, doi:10.3390/s25134046: a WITHIN-SUBJECT study of 24 participants who ALL visited the physical museum first and then the virtual versions at one-week intervals, reporting no significant difference between the physical museum and the replica virtual museum on satisfaction, immersion, aesthetics and social interaction. The fixed visit order is a confound the design cannot remove and the sample is 24, so cite it as suggestive and say both things. PUBLISHER RECORD AND ABSTRACT-LEVEL REPORTING ONLY, NOT READ IN FULL. (b) A preregistered study randomly assigning 687 participants to one of nine conditions comparing repeated fifteen-minute virtual art-gallery visits against reading about art, which measured flourishing rather than learning. RECORD ONLY, NOT READ, and not to be used for a learning claim. (c) A four-week study of 75 art-history undergraduates reporting that virtual-museum-integrated instruction enhanced learning over sustained use, with no physical-visit comparison. RECORD ONLY. (d) A between-groups study of 60 participants comparing a desktop virtual museum with a headset version, reporting that the headset improved the experience and the attitude towards it but could negatively affect the learning outcome. RECORD ONLY. THE HONEST LINE: on the comparison the seed book's museum chapter is really about, whether standing in front of the thing beats looking at it, there is no randomised trial, and the literature compares screens with other screens. WHAT MAY NOT BE SAID: that no study has compared a real museum visit with a virtual one. Two searches found no randomised head-to-head trial on a learning or memory outcome and no systematic review of such trials, and the absence must be stated at that width with the searches named.
Written from the aN ABSENCE CLAIM PLUS FOUR ITEMS HELD AT RECORD OR ABSTRACT LEVEL. NONE OF THE FOUR WAS READ IN FULL. The absence claim rests on two recorded searches and is stated at exactly their width.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Contrasting Physical and Virtual Museum Experiences: A Study of Audience Behavior in Replica-Based Environments (2025). Sensors, 25, 4046. doi:10.3390/s25134046