A Survey of Immersive Technologies in Cultural Heritage

1 Introduction

In recent decades, the relationship between technology and cultural heritage has undergone a profound transformation. What once seemed an unlikely alliance between the timeless monuments, artifacts and traditions and the fast-paced evolution of digital tools has gradually become one of the most dynamic intersections in contemporary cultural practice. At first, the digital turn in heritage was modest: databases, digitized catalogues and online archives sought to preserve and organize information, ensuring that fragile materials could be safeguarded against the erosion of time (Melnyk et al. 2025). These early initiatives marked the beginning of a shift, where technology was not only a tool for conservation but also a medium for dissemination.

As the internet expanded and multimedia platforms matured, cultural institutions began to experiment with new forms of digital communication. Virtual tours, interactive websites and multimedia exhibitions opened the doors of museums and archaeological sites to audiences far beyond their physical reach. This stage represented a democratization of access, allowing people across the globe to explore cultural heritage without geographical or temporal constraints (Pesce and Franzè 2025). Yet, these experiences remained largely observational, offering information but limited immersion.

The emergence of immersive technologies, such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and later mixed reality (MR), marked a turning point in this trajectory. VR refers to fully computer-generated environments that replace the user’s surroundings, enabling complete immersion in synthetic spaces, while AR overlays digital information onto the physical world, enriching real-time perception without substituting it (Tremosa 2022). MR, in turn, integrates both approaches by allowing digital and physical elements to interact in real time, creating hybrid environments where virtual objects are anchored to and responsive within the physical space (Speicher, Hall and Nebeling 2019). These three modalities fall under the broader umbrella of extended reality (XR), a term that encompasses all immersive technologies and describes the continuum between fully virtual and fully physical experiences (Burke, Crompton and Nickel 2025). Unlike earlier digital tools, these technologies invited audiences to step inside reconstructed environments, to interact with artifacts and to experience heritage in ways that blurred the boundaries between the physical and the digital (Lian and Xie 2024). VR headsets transported users to ancient temples or lost cities, AR applications layered historical narratives onto urban landscapes, and MR combined both approaches to create hybrid spaces where past and present coexisted. These innovations shifted the focus from passive reception to active participation, transforming cultural heritage into an experiential domain.

Italy has played a pioneering role in the development of digital cultural heritage, particularly through the journal Archeologia e Calcolatori, which has published key thematic issues in this domain. The special issue edited by Baldoni (2021) brings together contributions on virtual reconstruction and interpretative modelling, while the issue curated by Arrighetti and Pansini (2022) focuses on digital documentation and management of historical architecture, including HBIM workflows, photogrammetry, 3D reconstruction, diagnostic imaging and preservation strategies. These Italian contributions illustrate a consolidated national ecosystem where archaeological expertise, computer science and conservation converge.

Parallel to these developments, approaches rooted in edutainment, the integration of educational content within entertaining formats (Aksakal 2015), began to reshape how heritage could be communicated and learned. Within this umbrella, serious games introduced game-based environments designed primarily for learning rather than leisure, enabling users to explore historical scenarios through goal-oriented interaction (Dörner et al. 2016). Gamification, by contrast, applied game elements such as points, challenges or feedback loops to non-game contexts, motivating engagement and supporting knowledge acquisition in cultural settings (Deterding et al. 2011). Digital storytelling also emerged as a key edutainment strategy, using narrative structures and multimedia resources to connect personal emotions with collective memory and to foster deeper interpretative experiences (Sadik 2008). Together, these approaches expanded the possibilities of heritage communication, making it not only informative but also interactive, affective and participatory.

Of course, this integration has not been without challenges. The tension between traditional preservation practices and digital innovation raises questions about authenticity, sustainability and inclusivity. Concerns persist regarding the accuracy of reconstructed experiences, the longevity of digital platforms and the accessibility of these tools across diverse communities. Institutional inertia, limited funding and uneven digital literacy often slow down adoption, while the risk of superficial engagement looms when immersive projects prioritize spectacle over rigorous research (Wang et al. 2025b).

These debates have gained new layers of complexity with the recent incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI), a technology that both amplifies opportunities and intensifies concerns within the cultural heritage domain. Machine learning algorithms are increasingly used to analyze large collections of artifacts, detect patterns in archaeological data and support the reconstruction of damaged or incomplete heritage objects (Ghaith 2024). Natural language processing enables the creation of conversational agents that guide visitors through museums and historical sites, while computer vision facilitates the automatic recognition and classification of artworks. When combined with VR, AR and serious games, AI contributes to more adaptive and personalized experiences, tailoring narratives to individual users and enhancing accessibility for diverse audiences (Sánchez-Martín, Guillén-Peñafiel and Hernández-Carretero 2025). This integration signals a new stage in the digital transformation of heritage, where intelligent systems not only preserve and interpret the past but also actively mediate how it is experienced in the present. These examples highlight the importance of user-centered design, participatory methodologies and policy-driven innovation in ensuring that immersive technologies serve as bridges rather than barriers in cultural mediation.

Recent initiatives have also contributed to structuring the digital heritage landscape, although with objectives different from those of a systematic survey. For example, the work by Mancuso et al. (2025) presents a methodological overview of how the H2IOSC project integrates digital tools, workflows and data-management practices to support collaborative research in heritage science. Its contribution lies in describing operational infrastructures and standards rather than analyzing user experience, educational impact or immersive methodologies. There, the Digital Heritage Landscaping platfOrm (DHeLO) is explained to provide an online environment designed to map, classify and disseminate digital heritage resources, functioning as a knowledge base and discovery platform rather than a critical review. Hosted by the Institute of Cultural Heritage Sciences (CNR), DHeLO aggregates projects, tools and training materials to support open science practices in cultural heritage.

It should be noted that the DHeLO initiative originates from a questionnaire-based survey aimed at identifying the needs, priorities and expectations of relevant user and stakeholder communities. This preliminary assessment informed the platform’s structure, taxonomy and functional requirements, ensuring alignment with real-world practices in heritage science.

Another relevant contribution is the doctoral thesis Delamare (2025) deposited in the HAL Open Science repository. This work offers an in-depth examination of 3D modelling practices in archaeology, focusing on methodological challenges, epistemological questions and the transition from field documentation to virtual reconstruction. Although the thesis provides a rich conceptual and technical analysis, its scope is centered on specific case studies and methodological reflections rather than on a broad, cross-project synthesis.

A recent contribution to the field is the survey by Wang and Ametefe (2026), which offers a structured synthesis of VR and AR applications within digital museum environments, focusing primarily on virtual reconstruction, interface design and visitor experience metrics. While this review provides valuable insights into immersive technologies in controlled indoor settings, its scope remains limited to museum-based implementations and does not address broader methodological frameworks such as gamification, serious games or AI-driven personalization. In contrast, the present survey expands the analytical lens to include archaeological parks, open-air heritage sites and educational contexts, integrating immersive technologies with edutainment methodologies and examining their impact on learning, accessibility and public engagement. This broader perspective allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how immersive tools operate across diverse cultural heritage environments, filling a gap not covered by museum-centered reviews.

Unlike the studies mentioned above, this survey addresses three dimensions that are rarely integrated in previous reviews: Firstly, the use of immersive technologies (VR, AR, MR, AI), secondly, their integration with edutainment methodologies, gamification, serious games, and digital storytelling, and thirdly, their specific application in archaeological parks and open heritage environments (see Figure 1). The aim is not only to catalog existing projects but to understand the methodologies that sustain them, the challenges they face and the visions they project for the future. Ultimately, the goal is to show how immersive technologies are reshaping cultural heritage communication, education and public engagement. Transforming the way societies remember, experience and transmit their past.

Figure 1

In this regard, the main contribution of this work lies in offering a structured synthesis that connects technological innovation, experience design, and cultural sustainability, bringing together fields that are typically analyzed separately in the literature. By focusing on recent studies and real-world applications, this survey fills a critical gap: the lack of an integrated vision that allows for an assessment of how immersive technologies are simultaneously transforming heritage education, digital preservation, and public engagement in archaeological contexts. This holistic perspective is particularly relevant at a time when artificial intelligence and extended reality are redefining the ways in which heritage is accessed, interpreted, and transmitted.

The primary studies included in this review were conducted, evaluated and published between 2020 and 2025, reflecting how research has rapidly evolved at the intersection of immersive technologies and cultural heritage engagement. The review allows for the identification of longitudinal trends, technological advancements and shifts in methodological or experiential approaches across different cultural settings and time (see Figure 2). Over the years, the application of immersive technologies in the field of cultural heritage has gained increasing attention, reaching its peak in 2025 with 23 published studies. Several factors may explain this trend, on the one hand, the emergence of new journals dedicated to technology in contexts where it was previously less welcomed has attracted researchers’ interest. On the other hand, the rise of artificial intelligence has prompted a new question among scholars: whether or not AI can be applied to cultural heritage.

Figure 2

2 Research Questions

The formulation of the present research questions derives from an initial scoping of the literature, which revealed recurring themes related to the use of immersive technologies in archaeological contexts, as well as notable gaps concerning accessibility, educational impact and audience engagement. Following the methodological guidelines proposed by Petersen et al. (2008) for defining research questions in mapping studies, the questions were structured to capture the breadth of existing applications, to identify how these technologies are being implemented in archaeological parks, and to detect areas where empirical evidence remains limited. Thus, the research questions are not based on subjective motivations, but on observable patterns, emerging trends and documented gaps within the current body of knowledge.

Therefore, this analysis process will be guided by the following research questions (see Table 1). As part of this process, each article will be examined not only for its thematic and methodological contributions, but also for its relevance and alignment with the research questions. This will allow us to identify which works offer meaningful insights or practical applications that directly support the objectives of this study.

3 Methodology

This review protocol follows a carefully structured sequence designed to ensure methodological rigor and comprehensive coverage. It begins with the formulation of research questions, which serve as the foundation for exploring key digital sources and identifying the most relevant literature. This is followed by the development of a precise and well-planned search strategy, including the construction of effective search strings. Clear inclusion and exclusion criteria are then established to guide the systematic evaluation of the studies retrieved. To gather articles, comprehensive electronic databases were used, covering research from multiple disciplines and institutional repositories. Specifically, two major academic databases were consulted: Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). These platforms were selected for their broad interdisciplinary coverage and their extensive indexing of peer-reviewed literature in the fields of digital humanities, computer science, and cultural heritage studies. The search was conducted simultaneously on both databases using the same search string, yielding 1,650 records from Scopus and 852 from Web of Science, for a total of 2,502 records.

Once the relevant works are identified, they are selected for detailed review and data is extracted and integrated in a consistent manner to generate meaningful insights from the collective body of literature. This entire framework adheres to established best practices for systematic literature reviews, as outlined by Kitchenham and Charters (Kitchenham and Charters 2007) and Petersen et al. (Petersen et al. 2008).

3.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The process of article selection is iterative and different selection rules are applied to each article. It should be noted that at this point, a set of relevant articles will be selected and analyzed in depth in the next section when the filters based on the criteria established here are applied. Therefore, to complete the selection of works, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established in Table 3.

Table 3

Inclusion and exclusion criteria applicable to research work.

INCLUSION CRITERIA
They apply gamification, digital storytelling, serious games or edutainment as central methodologies.
They use immersive technologies.
They are implemented in heritage-related and archaeological. Including but not limited to archaeological parks, open-air museums or urban historical spaces.
They involve real-world applications with documented user interaction, evaluation or deployment.
They are published in peer-reviewed journals.
They are written in English, Spanish or Italian.
They were published between 2020 and 2025.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
They lack practical implementation, such as purely theoretical proposals, conceptual frameworks without case studies or speculative designs without user engagement.
They do not provide sufficient methodological information for evaluation.
Works that do not focus on cultural heritage as a primary domain.
Papers that describe commercial products without scientific analysis.
Duplicated studies or extended versions of previously included works.
Are not accessible in full text.

Primary Articles Selection

The selection of primary studies followed a transparent and reproducible process inspired by the PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines, which emphasize clarity in documenting identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion procedures (Page et al. 2021). After retrieving the initial corpus of records from major academic databases, duplicate entries were removed and all remaining titles and abstracts were screened according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies that met the eligibility requirements were then subjected to full-text assessment to verify methodological completeness, relevance to immersive technologies and alignment with the research questions. This multi-stage workflow ensured that only rigorously documented and peer-reviewed contributions were retained. Following deduplication, which removed approximately 340 overlapping records across the two databases, a total of 2,162 records were screened by title and abstract. Of these, 2,058 were excluded as they did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria — primarily due to lack of relevance to immersive technologies in cultural heritage, absence of practical implementation, or publication outside the defined temporal range. The remaining 104 records underwent full-text assessment, of which 61 were further excluded for reasons including lack of documented user interaction, focus on commercial products without scientific analysis, or inaccessibility of the full text. The final corpus of 43 studies was retained for analysis. To further ensure methodological transparency, each included study was assessed against three quality indicators: presence of a user evaluation component or empirical data collection, explicit description of the technology employed, and documentation of outcomes or results. Studies failing to meet at least two of these criteria were excluded during full-text review. The final set of 43 papers (detailed in Appendix A) constitutes a coherent and methodologically robust dataset from which the subsequent analysis was conducted (see Figure 3). Building on this curated corpus, the following section presents the results, highlighting the main patterns, thematic clusters and technological trends that emerged from the reviewed literature.

Figure 3

4 Results

To better understand how immersive technologies are being applied across cultural heritage projects, we can examine the distribution of technologies used in the reviewed studies (see Figure 4). AI emerges as the most predominant, appearing in 12 papers, followed closely by VR and 3D digitization with 11 each and AR with 10. This upward trend suggests that the field is increasingly focusing on immersive experiences such as virtual tours and customizable environments supported by AI. In contrast, fewer studies explore web or mobile applications that integrate gamification to share heritage knowledge (8 papers), while video games account for 6, GPS-based features for two and only one simulator. These figures indicate that serious games and entertainment-oriented applications remain relatively underexplored within cultural heritage research.

Figure 4

Beyond listing the technologies used in each study, the distribution shown in Figure 4 helps visualize how unevenly these tools are adopted across the field. The prominence of AI, VR and 3D digitization contrasts sharply with the limited presence of video games, GPS-based systems and simulators, revealing a technological landscape where immersive visualization and computational analysis dominate over playful or location-aware approaches. This visual overview clarifies the internal balance of the corpus and highlights which technologies shape current research trajectories, while also pointing to areas that remain comparatively underexplored. This uneven distribution raises an important question: whether these imbalances reflect technological limitations or rather the specific objectives and contexts in which each project operates. To address this, it is necessary to examine how these technologies are applied across the selected studies.

A first group of papers focuses on the educational potential of immersive technologies. For instance, the studies by Bonacini and Giaccone (2022), Bontchev et al. (2022), Capecchi et al. (2024), Casillo et al. (2024), Clini et al. (2023), Kleftodimos, Moustaka and Evagelou (2023) and Liamruk et al. (2025) explore how serious games and gamified AR applications can foster historical awareness and active learning among younger audiences, whether through simulations of Etruscan society, climate resilience in Venice or treasure hunts in Caldana. The studies by Heath (2022), Pietroni et al. (2023) and Rizvic, Boskovic and Mijatovic (2025) highlight how game engines and national VR projects can transform archaeological sites into didactic platforms. These works collectively demonstrate how gamification and interactive storytelling enhance student engagement and knowledge retention.

Another set of contributions is more closely tied to historical preservation and digital documentation. Papers such as Aricò et al. (2024), Clini et al. (2025), Wang et al. (2025a), Gaspari et al. (2024) and Sebastiani (2021) describe the use of 3D modeling, Heritage Building Information Modeling (HBIM) and open-source platforms to digitally reconstruct sites like Santa Maria della Grotta, Palazzo Olivieri and Farnese Castle, ensuring long-term accessibility and conservation. In the same vein, Kyropoulou et al. (2025) and Linchamps et al. (2025) integrate AI and machine learning to interpret archaeological data and reconstruct paleoclimates, while Wang et al. (2025c) and Yang et al. (2025) apply diagnostic tools, ranging from expert-level AI models to YOLOv8 on Raspberry Pi, for monitoring architectural and rural heritage deterioration. Studies like He and Tao (2025), Zhou et al. (2025) and Yujie, Haotian and Chi (2025) go further by experimenting with generative AI to design new kite patterns or restore porcelain motifs, showing how innovation can coexist with preservation.

A third cluster of papers emphasizes public engagement and accessibility. Marfoglia et al. (2025), Fiorenza et al. (2025), Zhang, Luo and Pan (2025) and Suiçmez et al. (2025), for example, design VR museum experiences tailored to people with vision impairments or autism spectrum disorder. Urban and open-air heritage contexts are addressed in Cerreta et al. (2021), Fazenda et al. (2025), Amore et al. (2025), Gonçalves, Dorsch and Figueiredo (2022), Čejka, Zsíros and Liarokapis (2020), Manglis et al. (2021) and Mantzou, Bitsikas and Floros (2023), where mobile apps and gamified routes activate community participation in Salerno, Tavira and Ioannina. Likewise, Mauro et al. (2021) and Pagano et al. (2020) use digital storytelling and VR/AR apps to manage cultural heritage in Trieste, Florence and Paestum, while Vosinakis et al. (2025) recreate historic monuments and ships in VR for immersive visitor experiences. Wu et al. (2025) highlight the emotional dimension of cultural practices through the gesture-based KaiBiLi ceremony. While Vasic et al. (2024), with Vice Versa VR tracking algorithm, analyze user behavior in the Virtual Museum of Ascoli Piceno, identifying regions of interest and patterns of interaction to guide design and future recommender systems, just like Zhang, Shao and Li (2025) analyze the dissemination of cultural presence in digital games, showing how phenomena like Black Myth: Wukong spread across social media.

Within this broad panorama, AI emerges as a transversal technology. Papers such as Hu (2025), He and Tao (2025) and Lai, Tian and Zhang (2025) illustrate how artificial intelligence can curate soundscapes, generate innovative textile designs or analyze user engagement in digital heritage platforms. Ren (2025) and Suiçmez et al. (2025) explore its role in drama transmission systems and museum accessibility, while Wang et al. (2025c) and Zhou et al. (2025) demonstrate its diagnostic and generative capacities. These studies collectively suggest that AI is not only a tool for preservation but also a driver of new cultural questions, such as whether machine learning can replace expert evaluation or create novel artistic expressions.

Taken together, the 43 papers provide a clear overview of the immersive and intelligent technologies employed across the selected studies, showing how AI, VR, AR and 3D digitization appear with varying frequency and technical complexity. While this mapping clarifies which technologies are used and how often, it does not yet explain why they are adopted in each case or what specific objectives they serve within educational, preservation-oriented or public-engagement contexts. Understanding these underlying intentions is essential for interpreting the broader implications of these technological choices. These contextual and purpose-driven dimensions are examined in detail in the following Discussion section.

5 Discussion

Beyond the thematic differences identified across the corpus, the overall methodological quality of the selected studies shows considerable variability. While some contributions present well-defined research designs, transparent workflows and systematic evaluation procedures, many others rely on descriptive accounts, prototype demonstrations or user studies with limited methodological detail. Several papers do not report clear assessment metrics, sample characteristics or validation strategies, making it difficult to determine the robustness or generalizability of their findings. This uneven methodological rigor suggests that the field still lacks shared standards for evaluating immersive-heritage interventions, and highlights the need for more consistent reporting practices and stronger empirical grounding in future research.

In order to interpret the collective contribution of the selected studies, the discussion categorizes them into three overarching domains: Education, Historical Preservation and Public Engagement. This framework highlights how immersive and intelligent technologies are being mobilized to foster active learning and motivation in school and university contexts, to document and safeguard vulnerable cultural assets through digital reconstruction and diagnostic tools and to broaden accessibility and participation by engaging diverse audiences in inclusive and interactive heritage experiences. By distinguishing these categories, the analysis underscores both the diversity of approaches and the shared objective of reimagining cultural heritage through technological innovation.

These domains are not isolated; many projects operate across multiple pillars, reinforcing the idea of a multifaceted ecosystem where immersive technologies serve overlapping cultural missions.

The technological distribution observed in Figure 4 reinforces this reading. The dominance of AI (12 papers) and VR (11 papers) across the corpus is not evenly distributed among the three categories: AI-driven approaches cluster predominantly within Historical Preservation, where computational tools serve documentation, diagnostic, and generative purposes, while VR appears most consistently in Public Engagement and Education projects, where experiential immersion and narrative-driven interaction take priority. Conversely, the comparatively limited presence of video games (6 papers), GPS-based features (2 papers), and simulators (1 paper) suggests that playful and location-aware approaches remain underexplored across all three domains, pointing to a structural gap that future research should address.

6. Conclusion and Future Works

This systematic mapping contributes a structured overview of how digital-heritage research is evolving, offering a consolidated foundation for future work in a field that is rapidly diversifying. Rather than focusing on the specific technologies identified in the corpus, the broader significance of this review lies in clarifying the conceptual and methodological fragmentation that characterizes current practice. The analysis highlights the need for stronger integrative frameworks capable of connecting technological innovation with historically grounded interpretation, inclusive design and long-term sustainability. These dimensions remain insufficiently aligned across the literature, revealing a gap that future research must address.

At the same time, the review underscores the importance of moving beyond isolated case studies toward more systematic evaluation strategies. Robust assessment methods, whether centered on user experience, learning impact, preservation outcomes or accessibility, are essential for understanding not only what immersive technologies can do, but how effectively they support cultural-heritage goals in diverse contexts. The lack of shared metrics and cross-project comparability remains one of the most persistent limitations in the field.

Looking forward, the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence, multimodal interaction and hybrid physical-digital environments presents an opportunity to rethink how cultural heritage is mediated, interpreted and experienced. However, these developments also demand careful attention to ethical representation, transparency and the long-term stewardship of digital assets. Addressing these challenges will require interdisciplinary collaboration and methodological coherence, ensuring that technological innovation is matched by critical reflection and responsible implementation.

By consolidating current trends and identifying structural gaps, this review provides a foundation for future research agendas aimed at strengthening theoretical integration, improving evaluation practices and supporting sustainable, inclusive and context-sensitive applications of immersive technologies in cultural heritage.

Data Accessibility Statement

The data used in this study are available online.