## 4 Discussion
### Methodologies Used to Quantify Sense of Presence  
One of the findings of this review was that subjective self-reported measures had overwhelming predominance over objective indicators in the evaluation of sense of presence [32]. While post-experience virtual questionnaires are useful, several authors warn that they provide a limited view by relying completely on participants' conscious judgments [31]. This is because presence involves multiple cognitive, affective and physiological processes [4] that operate outside the individual's conscious deliberation [32]. Therefore, it is key to complement questionnaire analyses with objective measures that address automatic responses such as facial expressions, physiological responses and emerging behavior patterns [31]. It will be essential to increase the use of this type of objective indicator, together with the triangulation of subjective and objective techniques, to achieve a more comprehensive and solid understanding of the complex phenomenon of sense of presence. This will also require methodological advances to improve the viability and analysis of objective measures in virtual environment contexts.  
The systematic literature review revealed that there is great diversity of methodological approaches and a general lack of standardization in measuring sense of presence. This situation was observed across many investigations into this complex, multidimensional phenomenon [1; 5; 7; 9; 12; 19; 20; 22; 29; 31; 32]. The results showed that a wide variety of scales and questionnaires have been used to measure sense of presence in the examined studies, and that there has been little coincidence in the measuring instruments. The scale most utilized was the ITC-SOPI [29], employed in five of the works, followed by the Presence Questionnaire (PQ) of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [7] and the Presence Questionnaire (SUS) of [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [58], both used in three studies. The authors of five articles developed their own sense of presence measures. The most examined subdimensions were spatial presence (12 times), involvement/user attention (7 times) and subjective sense of realism (6 times).  
Even in research using the same scale, such as the ITC-SOPI, different questionnaires were employed, based on the conceptual frameworks used, for example, to evaluate attention/involvement [22] and affective responses [5; 12; 20; 24; 26].  
This situation hinders the tabulation and categorization of methodologies, as some constructs (e.g., attention) appear in the presence scale in some studies, while in others they are complementary determinants.  
The variety of scales, techniques and operationalized constructs makes it difficult to directly compare studies and systematically replicate results. As the instruments used to measure sense of presence differ, and there is no unified definition of its dimensions, it is unclear to what extent the various investigations are examining the same phenomenon. This hampers coordinated advancement in building knowledge about sense of presence and its determinants. Overcoming these conceptual and methodological limitations will be key for consolidating research in the field. Greater standardization of psychometric and physiological scales and techniques is required. This will facilitate the more precise measurement of sense of presence and allow effective comparisons to be made between studies.