Extended Reality (XR) offers many learning affordances. Yet the specific XR modality—whether Augmented (AR), Mixed (MR), or Virtual Reality (VR)—alters how these affordances are realized. Through the lens of 4E cognition–embodied, embedded, enacted, and extended cognition–we disaggregate the affordance of presence across each of the XR modalities, synthesizing interdisciplinary findings on XR interaction and design to develop a deeper understanding of how these technologies shape and enrich learner experiences. Specifically, we focused on how presence may be affected by immersion, multimodality, interactivity, attention, and instructional design across VR, MR, and AR contexts. Through this synthesis, we formulate practical implications for optimizing XR-based education and training experiences, grounded in 4E principles and concepts.
BucyE. P. (2004). Interactivity in society: Locating an elusive concept. The Information Society, 20(5), 373–383.
5.
BucyE. P.TaoC. C. (2007). The mediated moderation model of interactivity. Media Psychology, 9(3), 647–672.
6.
ChengK. H.TsaiC. C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 449-462.
7.
ChongI.ProctorR. W. (2020). On the evolution of a radical concept: Affordances according to Gibson and their subsequent use and development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 117-132.
8.
CuervoE.ChintalapudiK.KotaruM. (2018). Creating the perfect illusion: What will it take to create life-like virtual reality headsets? In Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems & Applications (pp. 7–12). Association for Computing Machinery.
9.
DalgarnoB.LeeM. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10-32.
10.
EricksonA.ReinersD.BruderG.WelchG. F. (2021). Augmenting human perception: Mediation of extrasensory signals in head-worn augmented reality. In 2021 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality adjunct (pp. 373–377). IEEE.
11.
GibsonJ. J. (1979[2015]). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. Psychology Press. Originally published 1979.
12.
GoodwinM. S.WiltshireT.FioreS. M. (2015). Applying research in the cognitive sciences to the design and delivery of instruction in virtual reality learning environments. In ShumakerR.LackeyS. (Eds.), Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality 2015 (vol. 9179, Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Springer, Cham.
13.
GrossD. C.StanneyK. M.CohnL. J. (2005). Evoking affordances in virtual environments via sensory-stimuli substitution. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 14(4), 482-491.
14.
HartsonR. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 315-338.
15.
HeftH. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environmental description. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 29–37.
16.
HuttoD. D.AbrahamsonD. (2022). Embodied, enactive education: Conservative versus radical approaches. In MacrineS. L.FugateJ. M. B. (Eds.), Movement Matters: How Embodied Cognition Informs Teaching and Learning (pp. 39-52). MIT Press.
JenkinsH. S. (2008). Gibson’s “affordances”: evolution of a pivotal concept. Journal of Scientific Psychology, 12(2008), 34-45.
19.
KaptelininV.NardiB. (2012). Affordances in HCI: Toward a mediated action perspective. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 967–976). ACM.
20.
KuzmičováA. (2012). Presence in the reading of literary narrative: A case for motor enactment. Semiotica, 2012(189), 23–48.
21.
LatoschikM. E.WienrichC. (2022). Congruence and plausibility, not presence: Pivotal conditions for XR experiences and effects, a novel approach. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3, 694433.
22.
LebertA.VilarroyaÓ. (2024). The links between experiential learning and 4E cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1541(1), 37-52.
23.
LeeK. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27-50.
24.
MakranskyG.PetersenG. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 937-958.
25.
McGowinG.FioreS. M. (2025, June). Interactivity in extended reality: Towards a hierarchical model for defining and designing learning experiences. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2025). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
26.
McGowinG.FioreS. M.OdenK. (2021). Learning affordances: Theoretical considerations for design of immersive virtual reality in training and education. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 65(1), 883–887.
27.
McGowinG.FioreS. M.OdenK. (2023). Towards a theory of learning in immersive virtual reality: Designing learning affordances with embodied, enactive, embedded, and extended cognition. In Bridging the XR Technology-to-Practice Gap: Methods and Strategies for Blending Extended Realities into Classroom Instruction (pp. 35–54). AACE.
28.
McGowinG.CohnJ.Folsom-KovarikJ. T.DalyT.PotworowskiG.FioreS. M.PhillipsJ. (2024). Towards a cognitive framework for assessing students and adapting interventions in extended reality (XR). In Proceedings of the 2024 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (p. 24373). National Training & Simulation Association.
29.
McGowinG.SonnenfeldN. A.FussellS. G. (in press). Which reality are we in? Deconstructing XR terms and taxonomies–Survey of who cares and why it matters. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
30.
NavarroJ.HancockP. A. (2023). Did tools create humans?. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 24(2), 206–232.
31.
NewenA.GallagherS.De BruinL. (2018). 4E cognition: Historical roots, key concepts, and central issues. In NewenA.De BruinL.GallagherS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition (pp. 3–16). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.1
32.
NilssonN. C.NordahlR.SerafinS. (2016). Immersion revisited: A review of existing definitions of immersion and their relation to different theories of presence. Human Technology, 12(2), 108–134.
33.
NormanD. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.
34.
RegenbrechtH.SchubertT. (2002). Measuring presence in augmented reality environments: Design and a first test of a questionnaire. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Workshop Presence2002, 138–144.
35.
RenshawT. J.SonnenfeldN. A.MeyersM. D. (2016). Fundamentals for a Turing test of virtual reality. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 2113–2117
36.
RietveldE.KiversteinJ. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352.
37.
SkarbezR.SmithM.WhittonM. C. (2021). Revisiting Milgram and Kishino's reality-virtuality continuum. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, 647997.
38.
SlaterM. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3549-3557.
39.
SlaterM.BanakouD.BeaccoA.GallegoJ.Macia-VarelaF.OlivaR. (2022). A separate reality: An update on place illusion and plausibility in virtual reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3, 914392.
40.
SlaterM.WilburS. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616.
41.
SonnenfeldN. A.DanilivV.JentschF. G. (2025). Procedures training in VR & the role of episodic memory: Literature review & synthesis. Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction International Conference (vol. 15790, Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Springer.
42.
SpeicherM.HallB. D.NebelingM. (2019). What is mixed reality? In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–15). Association for Computing Machinery.
43.
StoffregenT. A.WagmanJ. B. (2024). Higher order affordances. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 32, 1–30.
44.
VauclinP.WheatJ.WagmanJ. B.SeifertL. (2023). A systematic review of perception of affordances for the person-plus-object system. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(6), 2011–2029.
45.
VenkatakrishnanR.VenkatakrishnanR.CanalesR.RaveendranathB.PaganoC. C.RobbA. C.LinW.-C.BabuS. V. (2024). Investigating the effects of avatarization and interaction techniques on near-field mixed reality interactions with physical components. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(5), 2756–2766.
46.
WaterworthE. L.WaterworthJ. A. (2001). Focus, locus, and sensus: The three dimensions of virtual experience. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 203–213.
47.
WienrichC.KommaP.VogtS.LatoschikM. E. (2021). Spatial presence in mixed realities–considerations about the concept, measures, design, and experiments. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, 694315.
48.
WirthW.HartmannT.BöckingS.VordererP.KlimmtC.SchrammH.SaariT.LaarniJ.RavajaN.GouveiaF. R.BioccaF.SacauA.JänckeL.BaumgartnerT.JänckeP. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9(3), 493–525.
