# A Comparative Study of Real and Virtual Environment via Psychological and Physiological Responses
## 4 Discussion  
This paper analyses the validity of IVE in terms of its capacity to evoke a similar (psychological and physiological) response to that generated by physical space. A classroom is selected as the IVE environment since it is a space in which important cognitive processes are activated, such as attention and memory, and it is a space of interest for architects and designers due to its potential design interventions. In general, IVEs can help architects make better design decisions. They can provide a more comprehensive understanding of physical environments, human interaction, and user needs. This seamless integration of technology not only empowers architects but also fosters effective communication between clients and design professionals, ultimately contributing to the refinement and optimization of architectural projects. This study validates the use of IVEs as effective tools for visualizing environments that act as stimuli in studies related to environmental psychology and architecture. These virtual environments not only allow for a precise and detailed representation of different spaces, but they also make it possible to collect the simultaneous responses of subjects related to their interaction and perception of these environments. With a validated IVE, researchers could analyse a wide range of design configurations in a controlled and relatively low-cost manner. This is especially advantageous as it pro \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**ATTENTION PERFORMANCE**} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Task-Time} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Mean} & F & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Physical & 437.72 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.825} & \multirow{2}{*}{_0.367_} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.009} \\  & IVE & 448.51 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Task-Errors} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Mean Rank} & U & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Physical & 36.00 & \multirow{2}{*}{575} & \multirow{2}{*}{_0.878_} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.004} \\  & IVE & 36.77 & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**MEMORY PERFORMANCE**} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Task-Memory-answ} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Mean Rank} & U & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Physical & 29.86 & \multirow{2}{*}{279} & \multirow{2}{*}{_0.514_} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.009} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-5}  & IVE & 26.60 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Statistical differences in attention and memory performance. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**NEUROPHYSIGOLOGICAL RESPONSES**} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{EEG-C3-Beta} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{Physical }} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{33.00} & \multirow{2}{*}{377} & \multirow{2}{*}{_0.332_} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.009} \\  & IVE & 28.59 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{EEG-F3-Higbbeta} & Physical & 25.50 & \multirow{3}{*}{312} & \multirow{2}{*}{_0.200_} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.012} \\  & IVE & 31.10 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{HRV-HF} & Physical & 24.22 & \multirow{3}{*}{281} & \multirow{2}{*}{_0.250_} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.020} \\  & IVE & 29.13 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{EDA-Phasic} & Physical & 18.93 & \multirow{3}{*}{160} & \multirow{3}{*}{_0.975_} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.006} \\  & IVE & 19.04 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Statistical differences in physiological response. vides the opportunity to explore diverse environmental and architectural design variables without the inherent restrictions of experimentation in real-world physical spaces. This advance represents an important milestone in this field, as until now most studies that have analysed the impact of classroom design variables on student performance have been conducted primarily in conventional physical environments [15; 58]. However, these stimuli have certain limitations that could affect the accuracy and breadth of the results obtained.