ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Virtual Real.
Sec. Virtual Reality and Human Behaviour
Volume 6 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/frvir.2025.1601562
Individual Differences Influencing Procedural Learning Outcomes in Virtual Reality: A Case Study on an Exterior Preflight Inspection
Provisionally accepted- 1Department of Psychology, College of Sciences, University of Central Florida, Orlando, United States
- 2Institute for Simulation & Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32826, USA, Orlando, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Virtual reality (VR) has been increasingly used across safety-critical industries for training procedures because it allows for practice without real-world risks. Its effectiveness may be further influenced by individual differences. This paper examined technology features, including immersion and interactivity, and individual differences factors, specifically sex, spatial ability and personality traits, that could affect learning in VR, particularly within the context of procedural training. The study aimed to understand how VR functions and to identify who benefits most from its use.In the experiment, 79 undergraduate students were trained to conduct an exterior preflight inspection of a passenger aircraft in VR, with varying levels of immersion (desktop PC vs. immersive VR) and interactivity (passive learning vs. active exploration). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four training groups: PC Passive, PC Active, VR Passive, and VR Active. The PC group used a mouse and keyboard, while the VR group used a head-mounted display and hand controllers to interact with the VR environment. Individual differences in sex, spatial ability, and personality traits were also investigated to determine their effects on procedural learning outcomes. Learning outcomes were assessed using two measures: a practical assessment using the desktop PC or immersive VR and a post-knowledge test. Data analyses were conducted using analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to examine the individual and combined effects of interactivity and immersion on procedural learning outcomes while controlling for pre-knowledge test scores. Additionally, stepwise multiple regression analyses were employed to evaluate the effects of individual differences on procedural learning.The results indicated no difference in procedural learning outcomes across the levels of immersion and interactivity. Specific individual differences, including sex, and spatial ability, however, significantly predicted VR procedural learning outcomes. Discussion: Our findings challenge the assumption that higher immersion and higher interactivity alone, or in combination, always lead to better procedural learning outcomes. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the importance of considering individual differences when implementing VR in learning environments, as they play a critical role in shaping learning outcomes.
Keywords: virtual reality, procedural training, individual differences, Immersion, Interactivity, Technology-human interaction
Received: 28 Mar 2025; Accepted: 23 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Duruaku, Sims and Jentsch. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Fiona Duruaku, Department of Psychology, College of Sciences, University of Central Florida, Orlando, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.