## 3 Results: Publication Analysis
### Set-Ups (Support and Format)  
This section discusses the supports and formats used for the simulation of built spaces in the analyzed studies, with the aim of identifying which have been the most used in relation to presence. The \"support\" category relates to the technological devices used during the experiments. The \"format\" category relates to the type of content offered, in terms of its technological characteristics. This systematic approach makes it possible to identify trends in the technologies used to simulate built environments and evaluate their connections with sense of presence. In the examination of formats, a distinction was made between auditory VEs, i.e., virtual environments experienced exclusively through hearing, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Times Used** & **Ref.** & **Definition (Context of Study)** & **Authors** & **Data** & **Ref.** \\ \hline
5 & [1,5,22,26,69] & Independent Television Commission Sense of Presence Inventory (ITC-SOPI) & [PERSON] et al. & 2001 & [29] \\ \hline
3 & [12,21,31] & Presence Questionnaire (PQ) & [PERSON] \& [PERSON] & 1998 & [7] \\ \hline
3 & [5,21,31] & Slater-Usoh-Steed Questionnaire (SUS) & [PERSON], [PERSON] \& & 1994 & [58] \\ \hline
2 & [32,70] & Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) & [PERSON] et al. & 2001 & [75] \\ \hline
1 & [1] & Reality judgment and presence questionnaire (RJPQ) & [PERSON] et al. & 2000 & [76] \\ \hline
1 & [24] & Presence-SAM & [PERSON] et al. & 2004 & [74] \\ \hline
1 & [20] & Presence Subscale Questionnaire on User Experience in Immersive Virtual Environments (QUXIVE) & [PERSON] et al. & 2016 & [77] \\ \hline
1 & [9] & Adaptation of the Presence Questionnaire (Multiple references) & [PERSON] \& & 1993 & [78] \\  & & & & 1993 & [79] \\  & & & & 1996 & [80] \\ \hline
1 & [19] & Adaptation of AR presence questionnaire & [PERSON] \& & \\  & & & & & \\ \hline
5 & [5,12,22,23,59] & Presence brief verbal measure & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Presence measurement scale. and traditional VEs, environments that incorporate the visual experience. Three recurring subcategories were found in the traditional VEs: VE-MIPs, environments designed to induce a specific mood state; VE-DTs (Digital Twins), environments that replicate a physical built environment; and VE/PEs, scenarios developed to carry out tests in specific physical environments. On the other hand, the supports were identified based mainly on whether head-mounted displays (HMDs) were used; if they were, account was taken of whether accessories were used or if the purpose was to compare the devices with other supports. The results are shown in Table 9.  
The analysis revealed that traditional VEs were predominant, being used in 14 of the 17 studies. Within the VEs, most frequently they had no subcategory specifications, this being the case in seven studies, followed by the VE-MIP subcategory, used in five studies. Spatialized audio formats, physical vs. virtual environments and digital twins were observed less. HMDs were the main support for the virtual environments studied, being present in ten of the 17 works examined. Second in frequency of use were head-phones/earphones, incorporated into five studies, three of which used only these devices. Other devices, such as motion trackers, smell systems and fans, were used in two or fewer studies. Although HMDs predominated, in only two works were they the only device used, in most cases they were combined with complementary supports, such as headphones,