This experimental study compares cognitive and psychological factors in CAVE and real environments, suggesting advantages for virtual settings.
The emergence of Building Information Modelling, Internet of Things, and Cave Automatic Virtual Environments (CAVEs) has created new opportunities for remote monitoring and decision-making in the operational built environment, yet empirical evidence supporting their use as alternatives to on-site observation remains limited. This study evaluates task and human performance in a controlled experiment comparing a CAVE with a real-world setting (n = 26). Situation awareness, workload, anxiety, presence, usability, and user experience were measured across conditions. Participants in the CAVE demonstrated substantially higher situation awareness (M = 92.1%) than those in the real-world condition (M = 56.8%), alongside significantly lower overall workload (NASA-TLX weighted workload = 38.3 vs. 53.8). Anxiety remained consistently low in the CAVE (ΔSTAI = –1.0), whereas participants in the real-world condition exhibited higher baseline anxiety followed by a large reduction during task execution (ΔSTAI = –13.2). The CAVE also elicited high levels of spatial presence, involvement, and realism relative to comparable projection-based systems, while usability ratings (SUS) were above industry benchmarks (M = 74.2). Together, these findings indicate that controlled immersive representations of built environments can support sensemaking and reduce extraneous cognitive load relative to live, uncontrolled on-site observation, with important implications for remote facilities management and operational decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pogmore et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: