# Virtual Humans in Museums and Cultural Heritage Sites
## 4 Discussion  
The findings suggest that researchers' interest shifts from users' avatars to digital humans used as mediators of cultural content (e.g., virtual guides), as the data presented in Figure 8 illustrate. In the last five years (2018 to 2022) only four out of a total of fifteen publications exclusively focused on users' avatars as the interest shifted toward the potential of digital agents. Moreover, these four instances of research on user avatars investigate very specific aspects or uses of avatars, e.g., testing new technologies such as the Brain-Computer Interface or addressing users with special needs. Therefore, recent research on users' avatars has examined very specific applications rather than the potential of using avatars, such as in contradistinction, to research digital humans, in which researchers appear to invest in promoting engagement with CH. More specifically, [40] examines the effect of non-realistic representations of humans in a social setting, [41] investigates the ability of avatars to foster the interest of users with autism, [46] presents research on directing an avatar through the Brain-Computer Interface, and [9], in an onsite installation, projects users' avatars as an on-screen digital human. Recent publications, e.g., in 2018, that focus on user avatars either in a social setting [40] or not [41] include minimal visual and (in the case of social avatars) interaction or communication functionalities. In fact, users' avatars in [40] are rendered as pillars slightly larger than their actual body size, with no anatomic detail whatsoever. They based their minimalist approach on existing research that showed no significant contribution of visual realism in the sense of social presence, and embarked on investigating specific parameters such as the visualization of points of mutual interest on exhibits, captured by eye tracking sensors, as well as of eye contact amongst them. In particular, they quote [47], who did not find significant differences between low- and high-fidelity avatars, as well as [48], who found that users tend to have higher acceptance of avatars as realistic as their own bodies, but this does not affect their social presence perception. Interestingly [PERSON] et al. [40] did not find any significant changes in learning or the enjoyment of the experience, or, put otherwise, in overall engagement, apart from the fact that the visualization of points of interest attracted users' gaze (mutually visible bright spots hovering before the exhibit seen by all participants in the experiment) and increased curiosity about these specific parts of the artefact. Moreover, even though the sense of co-presence was amplified by the pillar-like avatar visualisations, this did not translate into tangible benefits in terms of engagement with the exhibition. Lastly, even the innovative visualization of mutual gaze (eye contact amongst users) with floating, coloured shapes, despite being assumed to be a positive manifestation of social behaviour, added little to the interaction with the exhibits (see Figure 9a-c). This shows that users' own avatars may generate a sense of co-presence, but neither behavioural nor visual realism adds significantly to the ways visitors relate to cultural content. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Publication** & **Interface Device** & **Description of Use and Interaction** \\  & **and Type of Technology** & **Type** \\ \hline
36 & [PERSON] et al. (2021) [44] & Large screen, PC, sensors, camera & Users interact with content, DH \\ \hline
37 & [PERSON] et al. (2021) [45] & VR HMD, 3D VE, sensors & Users interact with content, DH \\ \hline
38 & [PERSON] et al. (2022) [46] & BCI equipment/sensors, PC screen & Users interact with content \\ \hline
39 & [PERSON]. \& [PERSON] [PERSON]. (2022) [8] & VR headset, 3D VE & Users watch and mimic DH \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}