## 3 Results: Publication Analysis
### Methodologies Used to Quantify Sense of Presence  
When categorizing the methodologies used in the studies, a complexity was observed in terms of the scales and questionnaires used to measure sense of presence. Some research employed scales specifically validated for presence, such as [PERSON]'s Presence Questionnaire (PQ) [7] and [PERSON] et al.'s ITC-SOPI [29]. However, other studies complemented these scales with additional questionnaires that assessed constructs described as determinants or subdimensions of presence. For example, the PQ features the Involvement/Attention subscale, while some studies, for example, [22], measured this factor independently using The Modified Tellegen Absorption Scale (MODTAS) [72]. In this way, the studies addressed presence more comprehensively by using measurements that, while not in the core presence scale, estimate relevant constructs based on their conceptual framework. This situation makes tabulation and categorization of the methodologies difficult, as some constructs (e.g., attention) are in some studies part of the presence scale, while in others they are determinants evaluated in a complementary way. Therefore, to perform a comprehensive analysis, it is necessary to tabulate both the core presence scales and any additional questionnaires used in studies to examine dimensions or factors considered relevant based on their theoretical perspectives. The results of this analysis are shown in Tables 7 and 8.  
The results reveal that a great diversity 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 instruments used to make the measurements. The scale used most was the ITC-SOPI [29], employed in five of the analyzed works. This is followed in frequency of use by [PERSON]'s PQ [7] and [PERSON]'s Presence Questionnaire (SUS) [58], both used in three studies. The authors of five articles developed their own measures of sense of presence. The most examined presence subdimensions were spatial presence (12), participant involvement/attention (7) and subjective sense of realism (6). Regarding scales complementary to the core presence scales, emotion and affect measures were used five times, employing, for example, PANAS-X [73] and the Self-Assessment Manikin(SAM) [74]. Cybersickness (4), spatial memory and attentional tendency evaluations, used twice each, followed in frequency of use. An analysis of when the measurements were taken showed that the instruments were applied post-experience in all cases, and only five during the experience, two of which coincided with physiological measurements, and the remaining were made by simply asking participants, while they were in the VE, what level of presence they were experiencing (on a scale of 1 to 100). Psychological self-report measures predominated, with few studies (two) incorporating complementary physiological indicators. The methods used are shown in Table 8.  
In synthesis, the analysis highlighted the lack of methodological standardization that still characterizes research into sense of presence. This situation has several implications for the advancement of knowledge in the field. The diversity of scales and techniques makes direct comparison between studies, and determining to what extent they are examining the same phenomenon, difficult. It also reduces the possibilities for systematic replication of the findings, which is key to consolidating the theoretical and empirical aspects of presence. The lack of standardization also hinders the integration of results from different lines of work, since it is unclear to what extent they start from coinciding conceptions of the construct. In addition, the very limited incorporation of complementary physiological indicators into self-report measures restricts the comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon with physical and psychological aspects.