This systematic review examines how Extended Reality (XR) technologies, i.e., Virtual (VR), Augmented (AR), Mixed (MR), and Spatial Augmented Reality (SAR) are designed, implemented, and evaluated in cultural heritage (CH) applications, addressing five research questions: (RQ1) How were XR technologies applied in CH
[...] Read more.
This systematic review examines how Extended Reality (XR) technologies, i.e., Virtual (VR), Augmented (AR), Mixed (MR), and Spatial Augmented Reality (SAR) are designed, implemented, and evaluated in cultural heritage (CH) applications, addressing five research questions: (RQ1) How were XR technologies applied in CH between 2021 and 2025? (RQ2) What interaction paradigms are used, and how do they shape engagement and meaning making? (RQ3) What user experience outcomes are reported in XR CH applications? (RQ4) What evaluation methods are employed and what methodological gaps remain? (RQ5) What challenges persist across XR heritage implementations? Peer-reviewed, English-language studies reporting on implemented XR systems in CH contexts with empirical or evaluative data were included; conceptual articles without a described implementation, non-English publications, and studies published before January 2020 were excluded. Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and the ACM Digital Library were searched for publications dated January 2020 through March 2025, complemented by manual proceedings screening (SIGGRAPH, CHI, IMX, VRCAI) and backward/forward citation tracking. All databases were last searched in March 2025. Two independent researchers screened all records and extracted data; disagreements were resolved through structured discussion. Bias toward positive novelty outcomes was mitigated by including conference proceedings alongside journal articles to broaden the evidence base. A qualitative thematic synthesis was employed, as methodological heterogeneity across studies precluded statistical meta-analysis. Findings were organized inductively into four thematic domains through iterative coding and inter-author consensus. From an initial corpus of 359 records, 287 unique records were retained after deduplication; following title/abstract screening and full-text eligibility assessment, 64 studies were included in the final synthesis. The majority (60/64) were published between 2021 and 2025, with study sample sizes ranging from small expert cohorts (n ≈ 6) to large public deployments (n > 125). The thematic analysis across technology, interaction design, user experience, and evaluation reveals trends toward participatory, multiuser, and multimodal XR designs, reporting benefits including immersion, engagement, learning, and accessibility, alongside recurring challenges such as cost, usability, cybersickness, content authenticity, and lack of longitudinal evaluation. Beyond thematic description, using a cross-domain analytical synthesis, we identify the Design Coherence Framework for XR Heritage (DCF-XR); this is a four-dimensional interpretive model spanning technology, interaction design, user experience, and evaluation, which provides an original diagnostic lens for understanding the conditions under which XR effectively serves cultural heritage goals. A typology of four recurring design failure modes, derived inductively from the corpus, demonstrates that the most persistent shortcomings in the field arise not from the weakness of individual dimensions but from their misalignment with one another. Evidence is limited by the predominance of small convenience samples, single-session laboratory evaluations, and the absence of domain-specific standardized assessment instruments for XR in CH, which constrains the generalizability of reported outcomes. Targeted recommendations for rigorous, ethical, and inclusive XR practice in CH are presented, highlighting the need for longitudinal studies, open datasets, and standardized evaluation frameworks. This review received no external funding. This review was not pre-registered in a prospective register.
Full article