本研究探討多感官技術在教育中的整合，使用VR構建一個虛擬咖啡廳情境以促進情境學習。通過運用VR創造沉浸式多感官刺激的環境，本研究旨在透過研究學習者的參與度、認知負荷、壓力、心理意象，進而改善學習成效。同時利用顯性自我報告和腦電圖（EEG）來評估隱性行為信念，解決資訊系統中常見的共同方法變異問題。研究結果顯示科技體現程度高對於參與度、壓力、認知負荷、心理意象有顯著影響，也對提升學習成效有顯著影響。但在視覺體現與嗅覺體現，主觀和客觀學習成效的認知過程中展現了受試者的不同反應。這項研究不僅驗證了VR和多感官學習在教育中的有效性，也為利用學習者顯性與隱性信念來優化學習表現的教育技術提供方向。

This study explores the integration of multisensory technology in education by using VR to create a virtual café scenario for situational learning. By creating an immersive, multisensory environment, the study aims to improve learning performances by examining learners' engagement, cognitive load, stress, and mental imagery. Both self-reports and EEG (electroencephalography) are used to assess implicit behavioral beliefs, addressing common method variance issues in information systems. Results indicate that high levels of technological embodiment significantly affect engagement, stress, cognitive load, and mental imagery, enhancing learning performances. However, subjective and objective cognitive processes showed different responses to visual and olfactory embodiment. This study not only verifies the effectiveness of VR and multisensory learning in education but also provides directions for designing educational technologies that optimize learning performance by leveraging learners' explicit and implicit beliefs.

目錄
第一章 緒論	1
1.1	研究動機與背景	1
1.2	研究目的	4
第二章 文獻探討	5
2.1	腦波與感官刺激（Sensory Stimulation）	5
2.2	虛擬實境與科技體現（Technological Embodiment）	5
2.3	使用者行為的顯性與隱性信念（Explicit and Implicit Antecedents of Users’ Behavioral Beliefs）	6
2.3.1	隱性參與度（Implicit Engagement）	7
2.3.2	隱性壓力（Implicit Stress）	8
2.3.3	顯性認知負荷（Explicit Antecedents of Behavioral Beliefs: Cognitive Load）	8
2.3.4	顯性心理意象（Explicit Antecedents of Behavioral Beliefs: Mental Imagery）	9
2.4	學習成效（Learning Performance）	9
第三章 研究方法	11
3.1	研究模型	11
3.2	研究流程	12
3.3	研究假說	12
3.3.1	虛擬實境與科技體現	12
3.3.2	感官刺激	14
3.3.3	隱性參與感	15
3.3.4	顯性心理意象	16
3.3.5	隱性壓力	16
3.3.6	顯性認知負荷	16
3.4	研究設計	17
3.4.1	虛擬教學的分類架構	17
3.4.2	實驗流程設計	17
3.4.3	實驗對象	21
3.5	問卷設計	21
3.5.1	本研究問卷	21
3.5.2	問卷題項	22
第四章 資料分析與結果	27
4.1	資料分析方法	27
4.2	樣本結構描述	27
4.3	變異數分析	29
4.4	學習成效比較分析	30
4.5	共線性分析	30
4.6	測量測模型分析	31
4.7	結構模型分析	33
4.8	假說結果驗證	37
第五章 結論與建議	39
5.1	研究結果與討論	39
5.2	理論意涵	41
5.3	實務意涵	42
5.4	研究限制與建議	42
References	44
附錄研究問卷之問項	57

表目錄
表3.1 研究流程	12
表3.2 虛擬教學分類架構	17
表3.3 科技體現問項	22
表3.4 感官刺激問項	23
表3.5 認知負荷問項	24
表3.6 心理意象問項	25
表3.7 學習成效問項	26
表4.1 樣本結構	28
表4.2 科技體現與感官刺激變異數分析	29
表4.3 學習成績基本統計量	30
表4.4 共線性分析	30
表4.5 敘述性統計	31
表4.6 科技體現程度高情境之交叉分析	32
表4.7 Fornell-Larker分析	32
表4.7 假說結果驗證	37

 
圖目錄
圖3.1 研究模型	11
圖3.3 實驗流程設計	19
圖3.4 配戴腦波儀器	20
圖3.5 配戴VR眼鏡	20
圖3.6 虛擬教學影片1	20
圖3.7虛擬教學影片2	20
圖4.1 客觀學習成效的認知過程結構模型分析	34
圖4.2 主觀學習成效的認知過程結構模型分析	36
圖5.1 科技體現程度低有嗅覺感官（TML-S）個案	41
圖5.2 科技體現程度高有嗅覺感官（TMH-S）個案	41

References
1.	Aafreen MM, Priya VV, Gayathri R. (2018). Effect of stress on academic performance of students in different streams. Drug Invent Today. 10:5.
2.	A. K. Bashabsheh, H. H. Alzoubi, and M. Z. Ali, “The application of virtual reality technology in architectural pedagogy for building constructions,” Alexandria Engineering Journal, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 713–723, 2019.
3.	Albus, P., Vogt, A., & Seufert, T. (2021). Signaling in virtual reality influences learning outcome and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 166, 104154.
4.	Amaral, J. A. A., and F. Fregni. (2021). Applying Neuroscience Concepts to Enhance Learning in an Online Project-Based Learning Centred Course. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), 142–159.
5.	Andonova, V., Reinoso-Carvalho, F., Jimenez Ramirez, M. A., & Carrasquilla, D. (2023). Does multisensory stimulation with virtual reality (VR) and smell improve learning? An educational experience in recall and creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.
6.	Asad, M. M., Naz, A., Churi, P., & Tahanzadeh, M. M. (2021). Virtual Reality as Pedagogical Tool to Enhance Experiential Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. Education Research International, 2021.
7.	Ayres, A. J. (2005). Sensory integration and the child: Understanding hidden sensory challenges. Western Psychological Services
8.	Bagozzi, r.P. (2011). Measurement and meaning in information systems and organizational research: Methodological and philosophical foundations. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 261–292.
9.	Balaji, M.; Raghavan, S.; and Jha, S. (2011). Role of tactile and visual inputs in product evaluation: A multisensory perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 23(4), 513–530.
10.	Barki, H., Paré, G., and Sicotte, C. (2008). Linking IT implementation and acceptance via the construct of psychological ownership of information technology. Journal of Information Technology, 23(4), 269-280.
11.	Barki, H.; Titah, R.; and Boffo, C. (2007). Information system use-related activity: An expanded behavioral conceptualization of individual-level information system use. Information Systems Research, 18(2), 173–192.
12.	Barlow, H. B. (Ed.). (1982). The senses. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 152–157.
13.	Basar, E. (1999). Brain function and oscillations. Integrative brain functions. Neurophysiology and cognitive processes, vol. 2. Berlin: Springer.
14.	Beckman, T. (1999). The current state of knowledge management. In J. Liebowitz (Ed.), Knowledge management: Handbook (pp. 1-22). New York, NY: CRC Press.
15.	Billet, S. (2001). Knowing in practice: re-conceptualising vocational expertise, Learning and Instruction, 11, 431–452.
16.	Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook 1 Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company Inc.
17.	Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented reality in education–cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International, 51(1), 1–15.
18.	Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
19.	Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). "Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716-733.
20.	Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Improving the authentic learning experience by integrating robots into the mixed-reality environment. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1572–1578.
21.	Chang, S. C., Hsu, T. C., Chen, Y. N., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2020). The effects of spherical video-based virtual reality implementation on students’ natural science learning effectiveness. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(7), 915–929.
22.	Chen, Y. L. (2016). The effects of virtual reality learning environment on student cognitive and linguistic development. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 637–646.
23.	Cheong, R. (1995). The virtual threat to travel and tourism. Tourism Management, 16(6), 417–422.
24.	Cleland, C. C., and Clark, C. M. (1966). Sensory deprivation and aberrant behavior among idiots. Am. J. Ment. Defic. 71, 213–225.
25.	Combi, C. (2015). Generation Z: Their Voices, Their Lives. Windmill Books.
26.	Compton, P. (2013). Situated cognition and knowledge acquisition research, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71, 184–190.
27.	Cunningham, W.A., Packer, D.J., Kesek, A., and Bavel, J.V. (2010). Implicit Measurement of Attitudes: A Physiological Approach. In Petty, R.E., Fazio, R.H., and Brińol, P., (eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the Implicit Measures (pp. 485-512). New York Hove: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
28.	Dimoka, A. (2010). What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a functional neuroimaging study. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 373–396.
29.	Dimoka, A.; Banjer, r.D.; Benbasat, I.; Davis, F.D.; Dennis, A.r.; Gefen, D.; Gupta, A.; Ischebeck, A.; Kenning, P.; Pavlou, P.A.; Müller-Putz, G.; riedl, r.; vom Brocke, j.; and Weber, B. (2012). On the use of neurophysiological tools in IS research: Developing a research agenda for NeuroIS. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 679–702.
30.	Dimoka, A.; Pavlou, P.A.; and Davis, F.D. (2011). NeuroIS: the potential of cognitive neuroscience for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 22(4), 687–702.
31.	Dunn W, Little L, Dean E, Robertson S, Evans B. The state of the science on sensory factors and their impact on daily life for children: a scoping review. OTJR Occup Participat Health. (2016) 36:3S−26S.
32.	Faisal, A. (2017). Computer science: Visionary of virtual reality. Nature, 551, 298–299.
33.	Feng, M., Dey, A., and Lindeman, R. W. (2016). “An initial exploration of a multi-sensory design space: tactile support for walking in immersive virtual environments,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), Greenville, SC, 95–104.
34.	Flavián, C., Ibáñez-Sánchez, S., & Orús, C. (2019). The impact of virtual, augmented and mixed reality technologies on the customer experience. Journal of Business Research, 100, 547–560.
35.	Fortin, D. R., and Dholakia, R. R. (2005). Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. J. Bus. Res. 58, 387–396.
36.	Fu, S., Chen, X., and Zheng, H. (2021). Exploring an adverse impact of smartphone overuse on academic performance via health issues: a stimulus-organism-response perspective. Behav. Inform. Technol., 40, 663–675.
37.	Furió, D., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Vivó, R. (2015). Mobile learning vs. traditional classroom lessons: A comparative study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 189–201.
38.	Georgiou, Y., & Ioannou, A. (2019). Embodied learning in a digital world: A systematic review of empirical research in K-12 education. In P. Díaz, A. Ioannou, K. Bhagat, & J. Spector (Eds.), Learning in a digital world (pp. 155–177). Springer.
39.	Glenberg, A. M., Witt, J. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2013). From the revolution to embodiment: 25 years of cognitive psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(5), 573-585.
40.	Goel, L., Johnson, N., Junglas, I., & Ives, B. (2010). Situated learning: Conceptualization and measurement. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(1), 215-240.
41.	Gomila, T., & Calvo, P. (2008). Directions for an embodied cognitive: Toward an integrated approach. In P. Calvo & A. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive Science: An embodied approach (pp. 1-25). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science.
42.	Gonen, A., Lev-Ari, L., Sharon, D., & Amzalag, M. (2016). Situated learning: The feasibility of an experimental learning of information technology for academic nursing students. Cogent Education, 3(1).
43.	Holmes T.H., Rahe R.H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. J. Psychosom. Res., 11, 213–218.
44.	Hohmann, V., Paluch, R., Krueger, M., Meis, M., and Grimm, G. (2020). The virtual reality lab: realization and application of virtual sound environments. Ear Hear. 41, (Suppl. 1):31S.
45.	Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana, IN: Indiana University Press.
46.	Jamieson, J. P., Crum, A. J., Goyer, J. P., Marotta, M. E., & Akinola, M. (2018). Optimizing stress responses with reappraisal and mindset interventions: An integrated model. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 31(3), 245–261.
47.	Jamieson, J. P., Mendes, W. B., & Nock, M. K. (2013). Improving acute stress responses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 51–56.
48.	Jenlink, P. M. (2013). Situated cognition theory. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Theories for Theoretical Frameworks (pp. 185–198). Information Age Publishing.
49.	Jenkins, Henry. (2004). Game Design as Narrative Architecture. In First Person: New Media as Story, edited by Pat Harrigan and Noah Wardrip-Fruin, 118–130. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.	Jung, S., Wood, A. L., Hoermann, S., Abhayawardhana, P. L., and Lindeman, R. W. (2020). “The impact of multi-sensory stimuli on confidence levels for perceptual-cognitive tasks,” in Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), (Atlanta, GA: IEEE), 463–472.
51.	Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.
52.	Kapralos, B., Collins, K., and Uribe-Quevedo, A. (2017). The senses and virtual environments. Sens. Soc., 12, 69–75.
53.	Karahanna, E., and Straub, D.W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information & Management, 35, 237-250.
54.	Keech, J. J., Hagger, M. S., & O'Callaghan, F. V. (2018). "The influence of motivational and stress mindset on the academic performance of university students." Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 140-144.
55.	Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
56.	Kosmyna, N., & Maes, P. (2019). AttentivU: An EEG-Based Closed-Loop Biofeedback System for Real-Time Monitoring and Improvement of Engagement for Personalized Learning. Sensors, 19(23), 5200.
57.	Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2010). The case for mental imagery. Oxford psychology series: Vol. 39. New York: Oxford University Press.
58.	Krishna, A.; Lee, S.W.; Li, X.; and Schwarz, N. (2017). Embodied cognition, sensory marketing, and the conceptualization of consumers’ judgment and decision processes: Introduction to the issue. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(4), 377–381.
59.	Lave, J. (1996). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin, & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice. Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
60.	Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press
61.	Lecuyer, A. (2017). Playing with senses in VR: alternate perceptions combining vision and touch. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., 37, 20–26.
62.	Lécuyer, A. (2017). Playing with senses in VR: alternate perceptions combining vision and touch. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., 37, 20–26.
63.	Leftheriotis, I., et al. (2017). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance.
64.	Leitan, N. D., & Chaffey, L. (2014). Embodied cognition and its applications: A brief review. Sensoria: A Journal of Mind, Brain & Culture, 10(1), 3-10.
65.	Liu, Y. (A.), Jiang, Z. (J.), & Chan, H. C. (2019). Touching Products Virtually: Facilitating Consumer Mental Imagery with Gesture Control and Visual Presentation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(3), 823-854.
66.	L. Jarmon, T. Traphagan, M. Mayrath, and A. Trivedi, “Virtual world teaching, experiential learning, and assessment: an interdisciplinary communication course in second life,” Computers & Education, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 169–182, 2009.
67.	Mai, R., & Dickel, P. (2023). What we say = what we think? How implicit beliefs shape nascent entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(6), 2986-3026.
68.	Martinez, M. E. (2010). Learning and cognition: The design of the mind. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
69.	Melo, M., Gonçalves, G., Monteiro, P., Coelho, H., Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., and Bessa, M. (2020). Do multisensory stimuli benefit the virtual reality experience? A systematic review. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 28, 1428–1442.
70.	Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40.
71.	Michael, T. (2011). Deconstructing Digital Natives: Young People, Technology, and the New Literacies. Routledge.
72.	Moccozet, L. (2012, July). Introducing Learning Performance in Personal Learning Environments. Paper presented at the International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies 2012.
73.	Monroe S.M. (2008). Modern approaches to conceptualizing and measuring human life stress. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol., 4, 33–52.
74.	Moya, P. (2014). Habit and embodiment in Merleau-Ponty. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 542.
75.	Mukai, A., Yamagishi, Y., Hirayama, M. J., Tsuruoka, T., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Effects of stereoscopic 3D contents on the process of learning to build a handmade PC. Knowledge Management and E-Learning, 3(3), 491.
76.	Newbutt, N., Bradley, R., & Conley, I. (2020). Using Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays in Schools with Autistic Children: Views, Experiences, and Future Directions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(1), 23-33.
77.	Niedermeyer, E., & Lopes da Silva, F. H. (1993). Electroencephalography: Basic principles, clinical applications and related fields, 3rd edition. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia.
78.	O’Brien, h.L. (2010). the influence of hedonic and utilitarian motivations on user engagement: the case of online shopping experiences. Interacting with Computers, 22(4), 344–352.
79.	Omdia. (2023, December). VR Industry Braces for Setback: Omdia Forecasts Declining Sales Until 2026. Omdia. https://omdia.tech.informa.com/pr/2023/dec/vr-industry-braces-for-setback-omdia-forecasts-declining-sales-until-2026
80.	Ortiz de Guinea, A.; titah, r.; Léger, P.-M.; and Micheneau, t. (2012). Neurophysiological cor-relates of information systems commonly used self-reported measures: A multitrait multimethod study. In r.h. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings of the 45th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
81.	Ortiz de Guinea, A., Titah, R., & Léger, P.-M. (2014). Explicit and Implicit Antecedents of Users’ Behavioral Beliefs in Information Systems: A Neuropsychological Investigation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(4), 179–209.
82.	Ortiz de Guinea, A., and Markus, M.L. (2009). Why break the habit of a lifetime? Rethinking the roles of intention, habit, and emotion in continuing information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 433–448.
83.	Ortiz de Guinea, A., and Webster, j. (2013). An investigation of information systems use patterns: technological events as triggers, the effects of time, and consequences for performance. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1165–1188.
84.	Oubibi, H., et al. (2023). Student Engagement, Academic Motivation, and Academic Performance. International Journal of Novel Research in Education and Learning, 10(1), 133-149.
85.	Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
86.	Pandit, V. (2015). We are Generation Z: How Identity, Attitudes, and Perspectives are Shaping our Future. Brown Books Publishing Group.
87.	Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Panigrahi, P. K. (2021). Effectiveness of e-learning: The mediating role of student engagement on perceived learning effectiveness. Information Technology & People, 34(7), 1840–1862.
88.	Pavlov, I. P. (1902). The work of the digestive glands. London: Griffin.
89.	Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76, 97–105.
90.	Pope, A.t.; Bogart, E.h.; and Bartolome, D.S. (1995). Biocybernetic system evaluates indices of operator engagement in automated task. Biological Psychology, 40(1), 187–195.
91.	Rajabalee, B. Y., Santally, M. I., & Rennie, F. (2020). A study of the relationship between students’ engagement and their academic performances in an eLearning environment. E-Learning & Digital Media, 17(1), 1–20.
92.	Roth, W-M. & Jornet, A. (2013). Situated cognition, WIREs Cogn Sci, 4, 463–478.
93.	Ryan, M. L. (1999). Immersion vs. interactivity: virtual reality and literary theory. SubStance, 28, 110–137.
94.	Schroeder, E. L., & Kirkorian, H. L. (2016). When seeing Is better than doing: Preschoolers’ transfer of STEM skills using touchscreen games. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1377
95.	Selye H. (1965). The stress syndrome. Am. J. Nurs., 65, 97–99.
96.	Sharma, r.; yetton, P.; and Crawford, j. Estimating the effect of common method vari-ance: the method-method pair technique with an illustration from tAM research. MIS Quarterly,33, 3 (2009), 473–490.
97.	Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 1(1), 120-126.
98.	Shin, Donghee, and Frank Biocca. (2018). Exploring Immersive Experience in Journalism. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2800–2823.
99.	Shams, L., and Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends Cogn. Sci., 12, 411–417.
100.	Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2018). Embodied learning: Introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 1–10.
101.	Slater, M., & Usoh, M. (1993). Representations systems, perceptual position, and presence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 2(3), 221–233.
102.	Spence, C.; and Gallace, A. (2011). Multisensory design: Reaching out to touch the consumer. Psychology & Marketing, 28(3), 267–308.
103.	Straub, D.W., and Burton-jones, A. (2007). Veni, vidi, vici: Breaking the tam logjam. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 223–229.
104.	Streicher, M.C.; and Estes, Z. (2016). Multisensory interaction in product choice: Grasping a product affects choice of other seen products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(4), 558–565.
105.	Sun, R., Wu, Y. J., & Cai, Q. (2019). The effect of a virtual reality learning environment on learners’ spatial ability. Virtual Reality, 23(4), 385–398.
106.	Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
107.	Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 434–458.
108.	Thomas, Nigel J. T. (2016). Mental Imagery. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta.
109.	Van Kerrebroeck, H., Brengman, M., and Willems, K. (2017a). When brands come to life: experimental research on the vividness effect of virtual reality in transformational marketing communications. Virt. Real. 21, 177–191.
110.	Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Cambridge University Press.
111.	Weiner I.B., Craighead W.E. (2010). State-Trait anxiety inventory. Corsini Encycl. Psychol., 4, 2002.
112.	Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.
113.	Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7(3), 225–240.
114.	Wolfe, P. (2010). Brain Matters: Translating Research Into Classroom Practice. Alexandria: ASCD.
115.	Yang, J. C., Chen, C. H., & Jeng, M. C. (2010). Integrating video-capture virtual reality technology into a physically interactive learning environment for English learning. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1346–1356.
116.	Yeager, D. S., Lee, H. Y., & Jamieson, J. P. (2016). How to improve adolescent stress responses: Insights from integrating implicit theories of personality and biopsychosocial models. Psychological Science, 27(8), 1078–1091.
117.	Zhai, X., Wang, M., and Ghani, U. (2020). The SOR (stimulus-organism-response) paradigm in online learning: an empirical study of students’ knowledge hiding perceptions. Interact. Learn. Environ., 28, 586–601.
118.	Zheng, J. M., Chan, K. W., and Gibson, I. (1998). Virtual reality. Ieee. Potentials, 17, 20–23.