<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Exploring Immersive Debriefing in Virtual Reality Training: A Comparative Study

Kelly Minotti, Guillaume Loup, Thibault Harquin, Samir Otmane

► To cite this version:

Kelly Minotti, Guillaume Loup, Thibault Harquin, Samir Otmane. Exploring Immersive Debriefing in Virtual Reality Training: A Comparative Study. 30th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST 2024), Oct 2024, Trier, Germany. pp.1-10, 10.1145/3641825.3687748 . hal-04705525

HAL Id: hal-04705525

https://univ-evry.hal.science/hal-04705525v1

Submitted on 20 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Exploring Immersive Debriefing in Virtual Reality Training: A Comparative Study

Kelly Minotti

IBISC, Univ Evry, Université Paris-Saclay
Evry, France
kelly.minotti@univ-evry.fr

Thibault Harquin

IBISC, Univ Evry, Université Paris-Saclay
Evry, France
harquin.thibault@gmail.com

Guillaume Loup

IBISC, Univ Evry, Université Paris-Saclay
Evry, France
guillaume.loup@univ-evry.fr

Samir Otmane

IBISC, Univ Evry, Université Paris-Saclay
Evry, France
samir.otmane@ibisc.univ-evry.fr

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1:** On the left, a learner reviewing his session with an immersive replay system, accompanied by a trainer. On the right, a view of the learner's perception during the replay.</figcaption></figure>

## ABSTRACT

Simulation and debriefing are two essential and inseparable phases of virtual reality training. With the widespread adoption of these training tools, it is crucial to define the best pedagogical approaches for trainers and learners to maximize their effectiveness. However, despite their educational benefits, virtual reality-specific debriefing methods remain underexplored in research. This article proposes an architecture and interface for an all-in-one immersive debriefing module that is adaptable to different types of training, including a complete system for recording, replaying, and redoing actions. A study with 36 participants compared this immersive debriefing system with traditional discussion-based and video-supported debriefing. Participants were divided into three groups to evaluate the effectiveness of each method. The results showed no significant differences between these debriefing methods across several criteria, such as satisfaction, motivation, or information retention. Immersive debriefing is as usable and retentive as traditional or video debriefing in this context. The next step will be to evaluate

the redo system in other training courses involving more dynamic scenarios.

## CCS CONCEPTS

* Human-centered computing → User studies; Virtual reality.

## KEYWORDS

Debriefing, Simulation, Virtual Reality, Immersive Learning, Trainer

### ACM Reference Format:

Kelly Minotti, Guillaume Loup, Thibault Harquin, and Samir Otmane. 2024. Exploring Immersive Debriefing in Virtual Reality Training: A Comparative Study. In *30th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST '24), October 9–11, 2024, Trier, Germany*. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3641825.3687748

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Virtual reality has become essential for trainers in various fields, including healthcare, offering a unique experience and real-time monitoring of users. It enhances learners' motivation and engagement [24] while enabling the simulation of exceptional events scenarios in the medical and military fields without risks for learners, particularly in medical training on diagnostic errors or medical gestures [26]. Immersive military simulators enable practice in high-risk situations [17], improving decision-making and usage of complex systems such as tanks and submarines, thanks to realistic virtual environments.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.

VRST '24, October 9–11, 2024, Trier, Germany

© 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.

ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0535-9/24/10

https://doi.org/10.1145/3641825.3687748
Virtual reality training aims to enable learners to acquire new skills by memorizing and interpreting their experiences. To be effective, it must include simulation, debriefing, and deliberation [29]. Debriefing is crucial for improving participants' soft skills, as demonstrated in the study by Savoldelli et al [33]. However, only some works specify the pedagogical approach, materials, participants, and data for this critical learning phase.

Despite simulators' increasing complexity and diversity, debriefing tools remain primarily dependent on verbal exchanges between trainers and learners. This article presents a method for designing a debriefing tool that allows learners to observe and interact with their virtual reality simulation environment. The structure of the article is as follows:

* First, it presents an in-depth research into the concept of debriefing that was carried out to understand its mechanisms and expectations, with a view to adapt it to virtual reality. It will also include the results of a detailed analysis of existing replay systems that was carried out, examining the various technologies and methods currently used to record and replay simulations.

* Then, a section will explain the replay-redo system designed, which enables optimized recording of simulation elements, a replay in third-person view, interactive, and a system for replaying actions.

* Finally, it will show a study that was carried out on 36 participants to evaluate this immersive debriefing system, comparing it with a conventional debriefing and a debriefing using video support.

# 2 RELATED WORK

## 2.1 Pedagogical approach

### 2.1.1 What is a debriefing?
An analysis of the definitions of debriefing is essential to identify its characteristics and methods. Although publications' definitions vary, its evolution, from technical meetings on return from military missions [11] to its application in fields such as education and psychology [12], is notable. We surveyed several definitions to determine the most appropriate for virtual reality simulators, considering publication dates, nuances, and similarities of the evoked concepts. In the end, seven definitions were chosen to preserve the essential characteristics of debriefing. The short definitions emphasize experience and learning: debriefing is a guided reflection in the experiential learning cycle [11], a cornerstone of any simulation-based learning experience [3], and a post-experience analytical process [12]. Other definitions emphasize the presence of a simulation and the notions of discussion, reflection, and analysis: debriefing is essential to learning in a simulation [25], an oral discussion where teachers and students engage in reflection on learning [25], and an analysis of the experience incorporating lessons learned [12]. The most comprehensive definition, proposed by the French National Authority for Health, compiles this information and emphasizes the role of the trainer, who guides learners' reflection and analyzes performance [2].

The characteristics of effective debriefing, listed by Lederman [22], include the involvement of debriefers and participants, the simulation experience, the impact and recall of the simulation, the debriefing medium (oral, written, questionnaire), the time taken to process the experience and the role of the facilitator. The time elapsed before debriefing affects the experience, and it has been shown that uninterrupted post-simulation debriefing produces higher clinical and emotional realism [37]. The role of the facilitator is essential in directing the conversation and enhancing learning [34][21]. It is, therefore, crucial to maintain the facilitator's presence in the debriefing process, especially for immersive debriefing.

To identify the approach best suited for immersive debriefing, it is important to examine both triphasic and multi-phase debriefing methods. Triphasic debriefing, commonly used in medical literature, consists of three phases: React (expressing immediate emotions), Analyze (examining events), and Summarize (consolidating lessons learned) [3]. Multi-phase debriefings, such as Plus-Delta [12] and PEARL [10], vary in the number of phases but share a similar structure. The After Action Review, utilized in military and medical contexts, can encompass up to 10 stages [34].

Despite the varying structures, all debriefing methods aim to facilitate emotional expression, event analysis, and lesson summarization.

### 2.1.2 How to evaluate debriefing?
Debriefing evaluation, while essential in many fields, has been mainly developed in the medical sector, where it plays a crucial role in improving skills and patient safety. Various tools and methods have been developed for this purpose, each with its specific features.

DASH (Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare) [8] is a widely used tool. It comes in three versions (self-assessment, assessment by learners, and assessment by external assessors) and assesses six essential skills in debriefing. Each skill is rated on a seven-level Likert scale, with an evaluator's manual to standardize assessments.

Another popular tool is OSAD (Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing) [4], which is based on principles similar to DASH. OSAD focuses on eight categories, such as approach, environment, and involvement, and was initially designed to assess debriefing practices in surgical simulation.

The DES (Debriefing Experience Scale) [30] focuses on learners' experience during debriefing, assessing qualitative aspects and learners' perceptions of debriefing effectiveness. For its part, the DLMSE (Debriefing for Meaningful Learning Evaluation Scale) [6] measures the effectiveness of debriefings in terms of meaningful learning, assessing how debriefing helps learners to reflect on their experience and draw practical lessons for the future.

To assess the psychological impact of debriefings, particularly in simulated trauma contexts, the PETQ25 (Post-Event Trauma Questionnaire-25) [15] is used. Meanwhile, the PADI (Post-Action Debriefing Instrument) [35] is designed to assess the quality of post-simulation discussions and participants' commitment.

Finally, the DE-CODE (Debriefing Coding Scheme) [36] is a coding system for analyzing interactions during debriefing. It identifies effective methods and compares different approaches in different cultural contexts, helping debriefers to develop their skills and improve the impact of debriefing on learning and patient safety.
## 2.2 Potential benefits of virtual reality

Virtual reality has the potential to offer several advantages over traditional debriefing sessions, potentially enhancing the learning experience in various ways. In a conventional debriefing, the learner must recall the entire session, recount all actions taken, and analyze the relevance and consequences of their choices with the help of the debriefer. This process depends heavily on the learner's memory, which can be unreliable. Even with the debriefer's reminders, gaps in recollection can occur, making it challenging for the learner and trainer to pinpoint critical events and accurately assess the conditions under which decisions were made.

On the other hand, VR simulations could provide a complete, immersive record of the session that can be revisited. This capability allows the learner and trainer to recall and analyze the session more thoroughly and precisely. The immersive nature of VR can recreate exact scenarios, conditions, and events, offering a richer context for reflection and discussion. The learner might relive specific moments to understand their actions and outcomes better. At the same time, the trainer could highlight subtle but essential aspects that may have been missed during a live debriefing.

Furthermore, VR simulations can potentially track and replay the learner's interactions in the virtual environment, providing precise data on their actions, decisions, and even physiological responses. This detailed feedback could be invaluable for identifying areas for improvement and reinforcing effective practices. The ability to pause, rewind, and analyze the simulation in detail may offer a level of precision and understanding that traditional debriefing sessions often need to improve.

# 3 IMMERSIVE REPLAY SYSTEM FOR ENHANCED DEBRIEFING

## 3.1 Existing VR Record and Replay Systems: A Review

Few studies have examined the use of immersive debriefing in any discipline. Typical debriefing techniques are mainly verbal or written, although video media can also be used for analysis. Despite the proliferation of virtual reality simulations, particularly in the medical field, the application of this technology for the debriefing phase has not been widely explored. It is essential to distinguish between the terms "feedback" and "debriefing", which are often confused. Debriefing is an in-depth discussion at the end of the simulation, while feedback concerns information about the participants' performance.

One of the initial immersive methods for reviewing actions during learning sessions involved using 360° video. Studies have demonstrated its usefulness for debriefing as a replay tool [27][9]. A recent study looked at the use of 360° video in debriefing and sought to understand the contributions of such an immersive tool [9]. The results showed that virtual reality offered a more immersive debriefing environment, where participants were more engaged in their performance and had a better view of simulation events.

Currently, several studies have explored implementing immersive replay systems to make the learning experience even more immersive and engaging. This research aims to improve learners' interaction with virtual reality simulations, enabling them to revisit

and analyze their actions more detail and dynamically. Participants in one study reported feeling more engaged and immersed when using immersive multi-user replay, compared with traditional methods of co-viewing 360-degree videos [39].

It can be rewarding not only to capture the visual details of a scene or a person's movements but also to be able to record and playback audio dialogues, as Brandstätter et al. do in their project [7]. This not only documents events but also preserves the essence of verbal exchanges for later reliving.

Implementing an immersive replay system requires recording a sufficiently rich data set to reproduce the learner's experience faithfully. The literature presents several methods for achieving this goal. One approach is to record the entire simulation data set, thus guaranteeing perfect reproduction during the replay [13]. However, this method has one major drawback: it requires considerable memory capacity, especially for extensive, complex simulations, which can pose challenges regarding data storage and management.

An alternative method is recording the entire simulation at specific intervals, using interpolation techniques to supplement the data. This approach combines intermittent recording with interpolation to reduce storage requirements while preserving an accurate, continuous representation of critical simulation events. For example, in the study by Wang et al. [18], all changes in the virtual environment are monitored and recorded at a frequency of 12 times per second. Other projects have focused on selecting the elements to be recorded for replay. More recently, PLUME [19] stands out for its exhaustive ability to record virtual reality experiences, including object positions, user interactions, and synchronized physiological signals, enabling a detailed and comprehensive capture of user behavior throughout their experience.

The replay system generally offers sophisticated time navigation with tools for controlling the viewing experience. This includes features such as pause, fast forward, rewind, and markers for direct access to the key or most exciting moments to review [23]. Thanks to these tools, users can navigate freely and revisit the sequences that interest them most, providing greater flexibility and personalization.

Regarding viewing perspectives, a replay can be configured to display in the first or third person. The first-person view allows for total immersion, giving users the impression of experiencing the event through their own eyes. In contrast, the third-person view offers a broader, contextual perspective, ideal for analyzing complex actions or global strategies. The preference for a third-person view is often due to its ability to reduce the chances of cybersickness. While the first-person view replicates the user's real-life field of vision, it can sometimes cause disorientation and motion sickness, particularly in virtual environments, where visual cues may not fully correspond with the body's sense of movement. In contrast, the third-person view provides a more stable and external perspective, which helps to minimize these effects by providing a broader visual context and lowering the risk of sensory conflicts that typically lead to cybersickness [40].

## 3.2 Immersive debriefing assistance method

3.2.1 *Choice of pedagogical approach.* Considering the literature and the constraints of virtual reality, triphasic debriefing, such
as RAS, is the most suitable pedagogical approach for its use in debriefing. With this in mind, only the analysis phase will be carried out in virtual reality.

The first debriefing phase, corresponding to the reaction phase, enables the learner to express his or her emotions and feelings. For this, the learner needs to return to reality sufficiently long to analyze the experience. In addition, we need to create a climate of trust with the debriefer so that the learner can fully express his or her feelings. However, using a virtual reality headset can complicate and degrade the social dimension of exchanges between the debriefer and the learner if only one remains in an immersive situation. Moreover, this phase of expressing feelings includes both verbal and non-verbal expression. These elements make it easier for the debriefer to understand the learner's mind and adapt the debriefing accordingly. So, even if a learner verbally expresses positive feedback, physical signs of anxiety may prompt a debriefer to delve deeper into the subject in order to detect a potential problem with the learner. The use of virtual reality is, therefore, not necessary.

The final debriefing phase, known as the summary phase, serves as a reminder of the skills acquired during the debriefing. Beyond closing the debriefing, it does not require a sense of immersion, as it usually invites learners to use this new skill in future events. Furthermore, it is vital to adhere to the recommended usage time for virtual reality headsets to prevent fatigue during debriefing sessions. Following these guidelines helps avoid physical discomfort, such as neck strain, headaches, cognitive fatigue, and motion sickness. Without breaks, extended VR sessions can lead to significant physical and mental exhaustion, negatively impacting both comfort and performance [28]. Additionally, using the first-person perspective in VR for reviews can be problematic, as it forces users to relive body movements that differ from their own, leading to further disorientation and discomfort.

This is why the phase in which virtual reality is most valuable is the analysis phase. This is where you can review and identify the most relevant events in the simulation. The aim is to enable the learner to be present again in the virtual environment so that he or she can more easily recall how he or she felt during the events.

### 3.2.2 Development of the immersive debriefing.
The immersive debriefing assistance system proposed aims to provide post-simulation feedback for training in various fields, such as medical or military. It replays the simulation, enabling learners to analyze their performance and emotions. The unique feature of this system is that the replay is integrated directly into the simulation scene, offering greater immersion than a 360° video while combining the advantages of a video replay system with a more immersive aspect. Debriefing aims to improve skills transfer throughout the learning cycle [31]. In this way, participants can freely explore the scene during the replay to observe their actions from a third-person perspective, represented by an avatar. This system is compatible with all virtual reality training created under Unity 3D.

Moreover, the system features a "redo" function that allows the simulation to be restarted from any point in the replay, accessible at any time from the replay interface. Participants can thus restart the simulation differently, possibly under the guidance of an instructor, to improve their progress. This feature is particularly well suited to simulations requiring repetition until the optimal task or

choice is achieved. It meets the needs of instructors who want to repeat the simulation at crucial points to guide participants again. In addition, when a "redo" is launched, the solution includes the option of recording this new experience. This way, participants can visualize their choices, the paths taken and the results obtained.

To create this tool, we mainly target VR simulator developers so they can easily integrate it into their projects. The aim is to provide trainers with a turnkey debriefing system. This tool must apply to any VR simulator, requiring our recording system to be as versatile as possible without compromising memory efficiency.

The architecture of the replay system has been designed to optimize recording and facilitate the integration of a Redo system. The recording process has been refined to capture only the modified states of objects and components over time, enabling more efficient data management.

Currently, the system records the Unity scene, considering the various objects and their components. We have set up a general recorder called "Recorder", which includes various specific recorders: recorders for objects and recorders for components. All recorded data is stored in an element called "Storer", which classifies recordings according to where they came from and when they were captured. Specific recorders only produce records if their associated object or component has been modified (see Figure 2).

The example in figure 3 illustrates the registration of a component called "Transform", which controls an object's position, rotation, and size in a Unity scene.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Record and Replay system</figcaption></figure>

Our tool has a significant impact on memory management, highlighting the computational efficiency of our system. For example, recording 4,000 objects (each with two components) for 15 minutes at a rate of 10 recordings per second uses the entire RAM of the virtual reality headset Meta Quest 2. However, it is important to stress that even with this high load, computing power is no obstacle: the system showed great fluidity during replay, with very few slowdowns observed. This shows that our main challenge is optimizing memory utilization while processing performance is already robust.

Our system registers the most frequently used Unity components in virtual reality projects to ensure versatility. This selection results from an in-depth study of various Unity projects, focusing
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3: Exemple of record for the component Transform in Unity**</figcaption></figure>

on each component's usage frequency and potential for real-time modification. As a result, our system captures the essential aspects of simulations while optimizing memory resources.

In practice, our tool can record the key components that govern the interactions and dynamics of VR environments. For example, components such as "Transform", "Light" (simulates light sources, affecting object illumination and shadows) or "AudioSource" (plays sounds in a scene, with control over volume and spatialization), are included in our registration system. Moreover, we have designed our system to automatically detect these components in a Unity scene and create the necessary recorders, simplifying the integration process for developers.

By offering a generalist yet efficient recording and playback system, we enable developers to create immersive, detailed simulations that can be used for in-depth debriefing. This helps trainers analyze learner performance, identify areas for improvement, and reinforce skills transfer. Our approach ensures that debriefing tools remain robust, flexible, and suitable for various virtual reality applications.

This architecture makes it possible to propose a debriefing framework that developers of virtual reality simulators can quickly implement. The current solution supports many commonly used Unity components. Currently, detecting components in the scene and creating their recorders is already automated, simplifying the initial process. To customize the registration of a specific component, developers currently have to write a CSharp script of around 60 lines. In a future version, it will be necessary to automate the generation of these customized scripts.

Additionally, our debriefing system is designed to be highly adaptable to custom components developed by simulator designers. Integrating new components is straightforward; developers must create a single code file, redefining eight essential functions tailored to the component. This streamlined process allows the debriefing system to accommodate specific interactions and dynamics of user-created components, offering maximum flexibility with minimal effort for adaptation and extension.

In the interests of collaboration and transparency, we intend to make the module and its documentation open source in the future. This initiative will enable the developer community to contribute to the continuous improvement of the system while facilitating

its adoption and integration into a wide range of virtual reality projects.

# 4 STUDY

This first exploratory study compares three types of debriefing (traditional, video, and immersive) between a trainer and a learner to determine which type offers the most significant benefits in learning, motivation, and skill acquisition. This research will highlight the benefits of immersive debriefing in the context of VR training. We formulate the following hypotheses: (a) immersive debriefing leads the learner to an experience significantly different from those in traditional debriefing and video debriefing; (b) it should elicit higher motivation in learners due to immersion in a more captivating virtual environment; (c) it enables learners to acquire skills more effectively, promoting better retention and application of learned skills; (d) and it shows no noticeable difference in usability (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction) compared to video and traditional debriefings: it is no more complex to use than a simple verbal exchange. (e) Regarding motion sickness, we assume that there is no measurable, significant difference between immersive, traditional, and video debriefing methods. The University of Paris-Saclay Research Ethics Committee approved this study, and participants signed the consent form after being fully informed of the progress of the experiment.

## 4.1 Materials

This study employs a virtual reality application co-designed with the foundation Leopold Bellan that supports individuals in achieving autonomy. The application aims to educate people on responding to a fire by immersing them in a virtual emergency scenario, allowing trainers to assess their reactions safely. This virtual environment was used to validate a new debriefing interface. Before adapting this interface for people with disabilities, evaluations are carried out on a group without intellectual disabilities, which could also be useful for other user profiles.

The application is used with an Meta Quest 2 virtual reality headset. Users manipulate objects in the virtual scene using the associated joysticks. To move around in this virtual space, users can walk freely in the available physical area, reducing the risk of motion sickness by avoiding using joysticks or teleportation systems.

## 4.2 Participants

The experiment involved 36 participants divided into three study groups: a group benefiting from an immersive debriefing, a group participating in a simple discussion for debriefing, and a group using a video of the simulation for debriefing. The allocation of participants considered various criteria such as age, gender, employment, and familiarity with new technologies to ensure balanced representation within each group, which was in line with the Nielsen method. This approach ensures that each group is comparable in demographic and background characteristics, enabling a more accurate assessment of the impact of different debriefing methods. Thus, each group comprised 12 participants, eight men and four women, with an average age of around 30. The participants were a balanced mix of teachers and students in each group.
<table><caption>**Table 1: Participant age by debriefing study group**</caption><thead><tr><th>Type of Debriefing</th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>Median</th><th>SD</th><th>Min</th><th>Max</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Immersive</td><td>12</td><td>29.4</td><td>23.5</td><td>12.4</td><td>17</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Traditional</td><td>12</td><td>32.5</td><td>26.5</td><td>12.4</td><td>20</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Video</td><td>12</td><td>30.1</td><td>22.5</td><td>14.3</td><td>21</td><td>60</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4.3 Task

This simulation is designed as a fire prevention exercise. Participants are not informed of this objective and believe they are arriving at a friend's apartment to put away groceries, prepare a meal, and set the table. This intentional omission aims to observe spontaneous reactions, making the debriefing more relevant and informative. For several reasons, we deliberately chose a simple scenario for this initial study. First, the virtual environment recreates a familiar domestic setting, facilitating a natural and engaging immersion. Then, it was essential to select a task accessible to all, thus enabling broad and diverse participation. Finally, the task design deliberately included an inevitable error, guaranteeing a solid basis for in-depth, analytical debriefing. The simulation duration, including the tutorial, varies according to the participants, ranging from 5 to 10 minutes.

The simulation begins in front of the apartment's front door, which has already been enhanced with elements to observe, such as a fire extinguisher near the entrance or a message on the door warning of a water cut in the building. The apartment includes an entrance and an accessible kitchen, but the rest, such as the bedroom and living room, is inaccessible. During the tutorial phase, the participant must put away the groceries on the kitchen table. This step allows them to familiarize themselves with the environment, object handling, and movement. Once this stage is complete, the simulation phase begins, during which the participant must prepare a meal. However, when the participant has to set the table, a fire breaks out during inattention. The fire is caused by an improperly washed greasy pan, forcing the participant to react and extinguish the fire himself. There are three ways to do this: cover the fire with a lid stored in a cupboard during the tutorial, use the fire extinguisher outside the apartment, or call the fire department using the telephone at the apartment entrance. The method most commonly used in real life, wet laundry, is rendered impossible by a deliberate water cut.

A debriefing session is held immediately after the experiment at the end of the simulation, during which the participant and experimenter discuss the results. The debriefing sessions, which lasted between 8 and 10 minutes depending on the group and the individual, were semi-structured: a roadmap was drawn up to conduct the debriefing, but this could vary according to the responses and needs of the participants. This session is divided into three distinct phases. First, a discussion phase without the virtual reality headset is used to gather the participant's feelings and impressions so that the debriefing can be adapted accordingly (Reaction Phase). Next, a detailed analysis phase of the events occurring during the simulation focuses on the mistakes made (Analysis Phase). Three different methods are used for this analysis, depending on the experimental groups:

* **Traditional debriefing:** A simple discussion is held, with the option of using a whiteboard to note and explain any problems encountered, all without a virtual reality headset (see figure 4.B).

* **Video debriefing:** Participants can review what happened during the simulation through a computer-recorded video (see figure 4.C).

* **Immersive debriefing:** Participants can also review the simulation immersively through a virtual reality headset. They are plunged back into the virtual scene and can review their actions through an avatar, navigating through the time and space of the scene (see figure 4.D).

Finally, a final discussion phase (Summary Phase), without the virtual reality headset, is conducted to recap the simulation events and identify the lessons to be learned from this experience.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4: A : Participant during the study, B : Traditional debriefing, C : Video Debriefing, D : Immersive Debriefing**</figcaption></figure>

## 4.4 Measures

As part of this experiment, several aspects are being evaluated, such as satisfaction, motivation, and information retention. Various questionnaires are used for this purpose.

The NASA-TLX [16] analyzes the workload participants feel during a task or activity, considering mental, physical, and temporal load. The IMI (Intrinsic Motivation Inventory) [1] explores participants' intrinsic motivations, including interest, enjoyment, and satisfaction with the activity. The F-SUS (System Usability Scale adapted to virtual reality) [14] assesses the perceived usability of a system or technology, specifically virtual reality, including ease of use and user satisfaction. The Cybersickness Questionnaire [20] measures the level of discomfort experienced by participants due to virtual reality, focusing in particular on symptoms of motion sickness to assess its impact on user well-being. Finally, the Debriefing Experience Scale [30] evaluates the quality of the debriefing experience perceived by participants, taking into account aspects such as the clarity of the information provided, the relevance of discussions, and overall satisfaction, thus enabling us to assess the
effectiveness and impact of different debriefing methods on participants' learning. The DES was selected from the various debriefing evaluation methods because of its focus on the analysis phase. The many questions on this aspect make it particularly relevant and exciting for this study, given that the simulation analysis method used during this phase differs between the study groups. Moreover, this questionnaire has already been used to compare two different types of debriefing, which is relevant to the study, which aims to compare three types of debriefing [32]. The participants complete all these questionnaires at the end of the experiment.

Two separate questionnaires were set up to assess information retention. The first questionnaire focuses on the participants' knowledge of safety measures, specifically addressing the topics of fire, flood, and electricity. However, only the fire-related questions are of interest to the study. It is essential that this questionnaire, administered prior to the simulation, does not focus solely on fire. Indeed, it is crucial to maintain the element of surprise regarding the potential fire outbreak to encourage relevant discussions during the debriefing session. These discussions should include areas for improvement that could benefit the immersive replay system. A second questionnaire was administered one month after the experience [38], focusing on what the participant had learned from the experience.

Finally, to assess the effectiveness of the debriefing systems, the actual duration of each debriefing session was measured and then subjected to a comparison. This analysis makes it possible to accurately determine the impact of each debriefing method on session duration and effectiveness, providing valuable insights for improving debriefing processes in future virtual reality training sessions.

## 5 RESULTS

Statistical analysis of the results of this study was carried out using the Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric method used to compare differences between three or more independent groups. JAMOVI software was used to perform the tests. The tests were applied to several data sets, including measures of IMI, F-SUS, NASA-TLX, debriefing experience scale, knowledge and information retention questionnaires, as well as total debriefing time and time spent in the analysis phase during debriefing, where the debriefing method differed between groups.

The NASA-TLX assessed participants' perceived workload during the task, considering several dimensions: mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, effort, performance, and frustration. The results can be seen in the table 2. The p-value is greater than 0.05 for each of these dimensions, indicating no statistically significant difference between the groups for these measures.

The Debriefing Experience Scale was used to assess the quality of the debriefing experience as perceived by participants. Dimensions assessed included analysis of thoughts and feelings, learning and making connections, the facilitator's skills in debriefing, and appropriate guidance from the facilitator. The results can be seen in the table 3. Similarly, the p-value is greater than 0.05 for each of these dimensions. This indicates no statistically significant difference between groups on these measures, suggesting that the different debriefing methods had no significant impact on the perceived debriefing quality.

Statistical analysis of IMI, F-SUS, cybersickness level, knowledge of safety measures, information retention, total debriefing time, and debriefing analysis phase time is presented in the table 4. For all these measures, the p-values are also greater than 0.05, indicating no statistically significant differences between the groups.

<table><caption>**Table 2: One-Way ANOVA (Non-Parametric) : Kruskal-Wallis test for NASA-TLX**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>χ<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub></th><th>ddl</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mental Demand</td><td>1.854</td><td>2</td><td>0.396</td></tr><tr><td>Physic Demand</td><td>0.333</td><td>2</td><td>0.846</td></tr><tr><td>Temporal Demand</td><td>1.796</td><td>2</td><td>0.407</td></tr><tr><td>Effort</td><td>0.927</td><td>2</td><td>0.629</td></tr><tr><td>Performance</td><td>2.662</td><td>2</td><td>0.264</td></tr><tr><td>Frustration</td><td>0.750</td><td>2</td><td>0.687</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 3: One-Way ANOVA (Non-Parametric) : Kruskal-Wallis test for Debriefing Experience Scale**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>χ<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub></th><th>ddl</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Analyzing Thought and Feelings</td><td>2.00</td><td>2</td><td>0.368</td></tr><tr><td>Learning and Making Connections</td><td>2.00</td><td>2</td><td>0.368</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitator Skill and Conducting the Debriefing</td><td>2.00</td><td>2</td><td>0.368</td></tr><tr><td>Appropriate Facilitator Guidance</td><td>2.00</td><td>2</td><td>0.368</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 4: One-Way ANOVA (Non-Parametric) : Kruskal-Wallis test for IMI, F-SUS, Cybersickness, Information Retention and Time**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>χ<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub></th><th>ddl</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IMI Score</td><td>0.727</td><td>2</td><td>0.695</td></tr><tr><td>F-SUS</td><td>2.899</td><td>2</td><td>0.235</td></tr><tr><td>Cybersickness Score</td><td>1.038</td><td>2</td><td>0.595</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-Questionnaire Safety Measures</td><td>2.883</td><td>2</td><td>0.237</td></tr><tr><td>Information retention Questionnaire</td><td>0.504</td><td>2</td><td>0.777</td></tr><tr><td>Total Debriefing Time</td><td>3.171</td><td>2</td><td>0.205</td></tr><tr><td>Total time analysis phase debriefing</td><td>3.194</td><td>2</td><td>0.203</td></tr></tbody></table>

Although the statistical analysis did not reveal significant differences, the averages obtained for each measure offer exciting perspectives to explore.

Looking at the descriptive data from NASA-TLX (see table 5), mental demand is lowest with immersive debriefing (39.6), compared to the other methods: discussion (54.2) and video (47.9). Similarly, physical demand is lowest with immersive (16.7) and highest
with discussion (27.1). The trend is similar for temporal demand, which is also lowest with immersive (31.3). Perceived effort is comparable between immersive and video (41.7) but slightly higher for discussion (50.6). Participants also felt they performed better with immersive (62.5) than with other methods (58.3 for discussion and 43.8 for video). Finally, the level of frustration remained constant at 47.9, irrespective of the method used.

<table><caption>**Table 5: NASA TLX measurement means by debriefing type (immersive, discussion, video)**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Immersive</th><th>Traditional</th><th>Video</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mental Demand</td><td>39.6</td><td>54.2</td><td>47.9</td></tr><tr><td>Physic Demand</td><td>16.7</td><td>27.1</td><td>29.2</td></tr><tr><td>Temporal Demand</td><td>31.3</td><td>45.8</td><td>47.9</td></tr><tr><td>Effort</td><td>41.7</td><td>41.7</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Performance</td><td>62.5</td><td>58.3</td><td>43.8</td></tr><tr><td>Frustration</td><td>47.9</td><td>39.6</td><td>47.9</td></tr></tbody></table>

For the Debriefing Experience Scale (see table 6), analysis of thoughts and feelings reveals that scores are relatively homogeneous, with a slight preference for discussion (4.58). For learning and creating connections, scores are also close between the different methods, although immersive shows a slightly higher score (4.34). Regarding facilitator competence and guidance, perceptions are similar for all methods, with a slight preference for immersive. Finally, regarding the facilitator's appropriate guidance, scores remain close overall, but the discussion enjoys a slight advantage.

<table><caption>**Table 6: Debriefing Experience Scale (5-point Likert scale) Measurement means by debriefing type (immersive, discussion, video)**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Immersive</th><th>Traditional</th><th>Video</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Analyzing Thought and Feelings</td><td>4,33</td><td>4,58</td><td>4,64</td></tr><tr><td>Learning and Making Connections</td><td>4,34</td><td>4,21</td><td>4,57</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitator Skill and Conducting the Debriefing</td><td>4,65</td><td>4,7</td><td>4,85</td></tr><tr><td>Appropriate Facilitator Guidance</td><td>4,67</td><td>4,72</td><td>4,81</td></tr></tbody></table>

Finally, for the other questionnaires (see table 7), IMI scores are close, around 6.5, reflecting similar intrinsic motivation between methods. In terms of user satisfaction, as measured by the F-SUS, the scores for the immersive system are the highest (84.79), indicating very good satisfaction and approaching excellent, while the scores for video, although lower (78.33), remain within an acceptable range but show potential for improvement [5]. Moreover, cybersickness is slightly more pronounced with immersive (3.08) than with video (2.75) and discussion (2.42). Regarding information retention, scores were comparable between immersive (11.18) and video (11.55) but

slightly lower for discussion (11.27). Finally, the total debriefing time was shortest with immersive (520.42 seconds) and most extended with video (620.08 seconds), as was analysis time, which was also shortest with immersive (339.33 seconds).

<table><caption>**Table 7: Average of different measures by type of debriefing**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Immersive</th><th>Traditional</th><th>Video</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IMI Score</td><td>6.48</td><td>6.51</td><td>6.60</td></tr><tr><td>F-SUS Score</td><td>84.79</td><td>80.21</td><td>78.33</td></tr><tr><td>Cybersickness Score</td><td>3.08</td><td>2.42</td><td>2.75</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-questionnaire</td><td>4.67</td><td>4.75</td><td>3.83</td></tr><tr><td>Safety Measures</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Information retention questionnaire</td><td>11.18</td><td>11.27</td><td>11.55</td></tr><tr><td>Total Debriefing Time (in seconds)</td><td>520.42</td><td>513.17</td><td>620.08</td></tr><tr><td>Total time analysis phase debriefing (in seconds)</td><td>339.33</td><td>352.83</td><td>422.83</td></tr></tbody></table>

# 6 DISCUSSION

Descriptive analyses show subtle differences between the debriefing systems used. According to the NASA-TLX scale results, immersive debriefing reduces mental, physical, and temporal load while improving the feeling of performance compared to the other methods. However, it does not reduce perceived frustration. The Debriefing Experience Scale indicates minimal variations in perceived experience between the methods. Still, that discussion is slightly preferred for analysis of thoughts and guidance by the facilitator, while immersion stands out for its positive effects on learning and connections. Other questionnaires show that immersive debriefing offers a good balance between user satisfaction, debriefing time, and information retention despite a slight increase in cybersickness compared with different methods.

In short, immersive debriefing effectively reduces mental and physical load, delivers high perceived performance, and generates high user satisfaction. Although it slightly increases the risk of cybersickness, its shorter debriefing times can improve efficiency. The discussion and video methods have specific advantages, such as a preference for analyzing thoughts. Still, immersion seems superior overall in performance and effectiveness despite some drawbacks to watch out for, such as cybersickness.

However, statistical analysis of the study, using the Kruskal-Wallis test, revealed no significant difference between the groups for any of the dimensions assessed. No significant variation was observed between the different debriefing methods regarding perceived workload, quality of the debriefing experience, intrinsic motivation, system usability, level of cybersickness, knowledge of safety measures, or retention of information.

These results suggest that the different debriefing methods and experimental conditions had no significant impact on the variables measured and that the variations observed could be due to chance. Several factors may explain this. Firstly, the limited number of participants (36) could be insufficient to detect subtle differences between the groups. In addition, the simplified simulation, designed
for people with mental disabilities and specific learning objectives, may have limited the diversity and complexity of participants' reactions. Finally, the involvement of trainers who were not simulation specialists could have influenced the quality and effectiveness of the debriefing sessions.

Furthermore, the results of the study show no significant differences between traditional, video, and immersive debriefing methods, suggesting that immersive debriefing performs as well as more conventional methods in terms of perceived workload, intrinsic motivation, system usability, level of cybersickness, knowledge of security measures and retention of information.

In particular, immersive debriefing offers a similar experience to other methods regarding effectiveness and participant satisfaction while providing a more engaging and immersive environment. These results suggest that the immersive approach could be as beneficial as traditional or video-based debriefing methods while offering learners a more rewarding experience.

This highlights the importance of considering these variables when interpreting the results and planning future studies. To fully confirm the hypotheses, further studies with a larger sample, a more complex simulation, and the intervention of trainers experienced in the simulation would be necessary. The involvement of experienced trainers would enhance the quality of feedback, provide personalized guidance, and effectively manage the emotional aspects of the debriefing process. Additionally, incorporating more complex simulations would increase realism, allow exploration of a broader range of scenarios, and help identify specific areas where participants may struggle. This combination would provide a better understanding of the effects of debriefing methods on participants' performance and overall experience in the virtual environment, leading to continuous improvement in both the training process and the effectiveness of the debriefing system.

# 7 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this article proposes an immersive replay-redo system to enhance the debriefing process within virtual reality simulations. This innovative system allows users to revisit and redo specific performance segments, potentially improving learning and skill acquisition by providing a more interactive and reflective learning environment. The study compares traditional, video-based, and immersive debriefing methods in virtual reality simulations to determine the most effective approach for improving learning, motivation, and skill acquisition.

Descriptive analyses reveal subtle differences between the debriefing systems. Notably, the immersive debriefing method reduces mental, physical, and temporal load while enhancing the participants' perception of their performance, as indicated by the NASA-TLX scale. However, it does not reduce perceived frustration. Additionally, while the Debriefing Experience Scale shows minimal variations in perceived experience between methods, discussion-based debriefing is slightly preferred for analyzing thoughts and receiving guidance, whereas immersion is favored for its positive impact on learning and creating connections. Although immersive debriefing leads to slightly higher levels of cybersickness compared to other methods, it offers a good balance between user satisfaction, debriefing time, and information retention.

Statistical analysis reveals that this new system performs as well as other debriefing methods on various criteria, including perceived workload, quality of the debriefing experience, intrinsic motivation, ease of use of the system, level of e-health, knowledge retention and information retention. The absence of significant differences suggests that immersive debriefing is at least as effective as traditional methods, with the added benefits of engagement and immersion. This parity suggests that immersive debriefing is a viable alternative, offering learners an engaging and immersive environment.

The replay-redo system is in its early stages in the current version, and future experiments could implement a fully finalized redo system, which may also improve the results. The originality of this study lies in its in-depth evaluation of immersive debriefing, an engaging and innovative approach, and its equivalent performance to traditional and video-based methods in terms of effectiveness and participant satisfaction. This parity suggests that immersive debriefing is a viable alternative, offering learners an engaging and immersive environment.

Several factors may have influenced the lack of significant differences, including the limited sample size of 36 participants, the simplified nature of the simulation designed for people with intellectual disabilities, and the variability in the quality of debriefing provided by non-specialist trainers. These aspects underline the innovative potential of immersive debriefing while also highlighting the need for further research.

Future studies should focus on refining the replay-redo system by developing and testing a more advanced version that allows participants more significant control over replay features, enabling more targeted reflection and practice. Involving more extensive and diverse participant samples will help validate the findings and uncover subtle effects that may not have been detected in this study, thereby providing a clearer understanding of how different populations respond to immersive debriefing methods.

Moreover, implementing more complex simulations in future research would allow assessing the replay-redo system's effectiveness in more dynamic and realistic environments. This would better mimic real-world challenges and require higher cognitive engagement from participants. The involvement of experienced trainers in future studies is also crucial, as their expertise could enhance the quality of feedback, manage the emotional and cognitive aspects of the debriefing process more effectively, and lead to more pronounced learning benefits.

Lastly, conducting longitudinal studies to evaluate the long-term retention of knowledge and skills gained through immersive debriefing would offer deeper insights into the method's effectiveness in promoting lasting learning. Additionally, comparative studies across various fields, such as education, medical training, and military instruction, could identify contexts where immersive debriefing is particularly advantageous, leading to the development of tailored debriefing strategies that maximize effectiveness for different professional practices.

Future research can further refine immersive debriefing techniques by addressing these areas, enhancing their utility and impact across a wide range of training and educational settings.
REFERENCES

[1] [n. d.]. Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) - selfdeterminationtheory.org. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/

[2] 2019. Guide méthodologique : simulation en santé et gestion des risque. https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/c_2905932/fr/guide-methodologique-simulation-en-sante-et-gestion-des-risque

[3] Vaia T, Abatzis and Keith E. Littlewood. 2015. Debriefing in Simulation and Beyond. *International Anesthesiology Clinics* 53, 4 (2015), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1097/AIA.00000000000000070

[4] Sonal Arora, Maria Ahmed, John Paige, Debra Nestel, Jane Runnacles, Louise Hull, Ara Darzi, and Nick Sevdalis. 2012. Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing: Bringing Science to the Art of Debriefing in Surgery. *Annals of Surgery* 256, 6 (Dec. 2012), 982–988. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182610c91

[5] Aaron Bangor. 2009. Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale. 4, 3 (2009).

[6] Cynthia Sherraden Bradley and Kristina Thomas Dreifuerst. 2016. Pilot Testing the Debriefing for Meaningful Learning Evaluation Scale. *Clinical Simulation in Nursing* 12, 7 (July 2016), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.01.008

[7] Klara Brandstätter and Anthony Steed. 2023. Dialogues For One: Single-User Content Creation Using Immersive Record and Replay. In *29th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology*. ACM, Christchurch New Zealand, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3611659.3615695

[8] Marisa Brett-Fleegler, Jenny Rudolph, Walter Eppich, Michael Monuteaux, Eric Fleegler, Adam Cheng, and Robert Simon. 2012. Debriefing Assessment for Simulation in Healthcare: Development and Psychometric Properties. *Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare* 7, 5 (Oct. 2012), 288–294. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182620228

[9] Kimberly Dudas and Jana Wheeler. 2020. Faculty Re-enactment Videos as a Tool in Simulation Debriefing. *Clinical Simulation in Nursing* 40 (March 2020), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2019.11.007

[10] Walter Eppich and Adam Cheng. 2015. Promoting Excellence and Reflective Learning in Simulation (PEARLS): Development and Rationale for a Blended Approach to Health Care Simulation Debriefing. *Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare* 10, 2 (April 2015), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000072

[11] Ruth M. Fanning and David M. Gaba. 2007. The Role of Debriefing in Simulation-Based Learning. *Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare* 2, 2 (2007), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539

[12] Roxane Gardner. 2013. Introduction to debriefing. *Seminars in Perinatology* 37, 3 (June 2013), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1053/j semperi.2013.02.008

[13] Geoffrey Gorisse, Olivier Christmann, and Charlotte Dubosc. 2022. REC: A Unity Tool to Replay, Export and Capture Tracked Movements for 3D and Virtual Reality Applications. In *Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI 2022)*. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531073.3534472

[14] Guillaume Gronier and Alexandre Baudet. 2021. Psychometric Evaluation of the F-SUS: Creation and Validation of the French Version of the System Usability Scale. *International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction* 37, 16 (Oct. 2021), 1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1898828

[15] Ramnarayan Paragi Gururaja, Tong Yang, John T. Paige, and Sheila W. Chauvin. 2008. Examining the Effectiveness of Debriefing at the Point of Care in Simulation-Based Operating Room Team Training. In *Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol. 3: Performance and Tools)*. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43676/

[16] Sandra G. Hart. 2006. NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 50, 9 (Oct. 2006), 904–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/15419312060500090

[17] Jeffrey Hogue, R. Allen, Jerry MacDonald, Cliff Schmucker, Steve Markham, and Arvid Harmsen. 2001. Virtual reality parachute simulation for training and mission rehearsal. In *16th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar*. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Boston, MA, U.S.A. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2001-2061

[18] Scott Ronald Howie and Marco Gilardi. 2019. Virtual Observation of Virtual Reality Simulations. In *Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '19)*. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312836

[19] Charles Javerliat, Sophie Villenave, Pierre Raimbaud, and Guillaume Lavoué. 2024. PLUME: Record, Replay, Analyze and Share User Behavior in 6DoF XR Experiences. *IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics* 30, 5 (May 2024), 2087–2097. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3372107

[20] Robert S. Kennedy, Norman E. Lane, Kevin S. Berbaum, and Michael G. Lilienthal. 2019. Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. https://doi.org/10.1037/t04669-000 Institution: American Psychological Association.

[21] Sang Suk Kim and Jennie C. De Gagne. 2018. Instructor-led vs. peer-led debriefing in preoperative care simulation using standardized patients. *Nurse Education Today* 71 (Dec. 2018), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.09.001

[22] Linda Costigan Lederman. 1992. Debriefing: Toward a Systematic Assessment of Theory and Practice. *Simulation & Gaming* 23, 2 (June 1992), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878192232003

[23] Thomas Lopez, Olivier Dumas, Fabien Danieau, Bertrand Leroy, Nicolas Mollet, and Jean-François Vial. 2017. A playback tool for reviewing VR experiences. In *Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology*. ACM, Gothenburg Sweden, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3139131.3141776

[24] Guido Makransky, Stefan Borre-Gude, and Richard E. Mayer. 2019. Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments. *Journal of Computer Assisted Learning* 35, 6 (Dec. 2019), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12375

[25] Peter M Markulis and Daniel R Strang. 2003. A BRIEF ON DEBRIEFING: WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT ISN'T. 30 (2003), 8.

[26] Ivette Motola, Luke A. Devine, Hyun Soo Chung, John E. Sullivan, and S. Barry Issenberg. 2013. Simulation in healthcare education: A best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82. *Medical Teacher* 35, 10 (Oct. 2013), e1511–e1530. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.818632

[27] James Nicholson, Ross Gillespie, Suzanne Bickerdike, Gareth Frith, and Taj Hasan. 2019. OP13 Immersive video for simulation debriefing: 'record and review' in 360-degrees using a virtual reality headset. *BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning* 5, Suppl 1 (July 2019). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2019-heecconf.13 Number: Suppl 1 Publisher: BMJ Specialist Journals Section: Oral Presentations.

[28] Sai Akhil Penumudi, Veera Aneesh Kuppam, Jeong Ho Kim, and Jaejin Hwang. 2020. The effects of target location on musculoskeletal load, task performance, and subjective discomfort during virtual reality interactions. *Applied Ergonomics* 84 (April 2020), 103010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103010

[29] Jody Piro and Catherine O'Callaghan. 2020. Constructive Destabilization in the Liminal Space: Doing, Debriefing and Deliberating in Mixed Reality Simulations. 21 (Dec. 2020), 178–208.

[30] Shelly J. Reed. 2012. Debriefing Experience Scale: Development of a Tool to Evaluate the Student Learning Experience in Debriefing. *Clinical Simulation in Nursing* 8, 6 (July 2012), e211–e217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2011.11.002

[31] Shelly J. Reed. 2020. Measuring Learning and Engagement during Debriefing: A New Instrument. *Clinical Simulation in Nursing* 46 (Sept. 2020), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2020.03.002

[32] Shelly J. Reed, Claire M. Andrews, and Patricia Ravert. 2013. Debriefing Simulations: Comparison of Debriefing with Video and Debriefing Alone. *Clinical Simulation in Nursing* 9, 12 (Dec. 2013), e585–e591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2013.05.007

[33] Georges L. Savoldelli, Viren N. Naik, Jason Park, Hwan S. Joo, Roger Chow, and Stanley J. Hamstra. 2006. Value of Debriefing during Simulated Crisis Management. *Anesthesiology* 105, 2 (Aug. 2006), 279–285. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200608000-00010

[34] Taylor Lee Sawyer and Shad Deering. 2013. Adaptation of the US Army's After-Action Review for Simulation Debriefing in Healthcare. *Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare* 8, 6 (Dec. 2013), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e31829ac85c

[35] Jennifer L Saylor, Susan Flannery Wainwright, E Adel Herge, and Ryan T Pohlig. 2017. Development of an Instrument to Assess the Clinical Effectiveness of the Debriefier in Simulation Education. (2017).

[36] Julia C Seelandt, Bastian Grande, Sarah Kriech, and Michaela Kolbe. 2018. DECODE: a coding scheme for assessing debriefing interactions. *BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning* 4, 2 (April 2018), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2017-000233

[37] Jon N. Van Heukelom, Tomer Begaz, and Robert Treat. 2010. Comparison of Postsimulation Debriefing Versus In-Simulation Debriefing in Medical Simulation. *Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare* 5, 2 (April 2010), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181be0d17

[38] Jeanine I.D. Vlasblom, Helena J.M. Pennings, Jelke Van Der Pal, and Esther A.P.B. Oprins. 2020. Competence retention in safety-critical professions: A systematic literature review. *Educational Research Review* 30 (June 2020), 100330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100330

[39] Cheng Yao Wang, Mose Sakashita, Uplol Ehsan, Jingjin Li, and Andrea Stevenson Won. 2019. RelivelnVR: Capturing and Reliving Virtual Reality Experiences Together. In *2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)*. IEEE, Osaka, Japan, 1217–1218. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8798363

[40] Séamas Weech, Sophie Kenny, and Michael Barnett-Cowan. 2019. Presence and Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Are Negatively Related: A Review. *Frontiers in Psychology* 10 (Feb. 2019), 158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00158