Article

Received 12.07.2025

Revised 01.11.2025

Accepted 27.11.2025

Retrieved from Vol. 29, No. 2, 2025

Pages 47 -58

Karmanov, R., & Zubretska, N. (2025). Taxonomical analysis of the virtuality continuum components. The National Transport University Bulletin, 29(2), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.33744/2308-6645-2025-2-29-47-58

Taxonomical analysis of the virtuality continuum components

Roman Karmanov Nataliya Zubretska

The aim of the research was to develop a universal virtuality continuum model for future grouping and structuring of applicable technologies and their future potential analysis. The object of research was the continuum of virtuality as a theoretical model of interaction of the real and virtual world. The problem addressed was the lack of specific terminological base and conditions for dividing the elements of virtuality, which hinders their inclusion in science, business, and everyday life. To reach a solution, the paper did a taxonomic investigation of components of the continuum, namely: Extended Reality (XR), Mixed Reality (MR), Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR) and Augmented Virtuality (AV). It offered a generalised conceptual framework which reveals their interdependencies, shared and distinguishing features. According to the findings of the research, XR technology received the highest score (4.00/5) because it combined the benefits of VR, AR, and AV. AR experienced high autonomy and mobility (3.57/5), hence it was convenient for mobile application. VR (3.43/5) was defined by its popularity and availability of the equipment. MR (2.57/5) was rated lower due to its high technical complexity to implement and AV (2.43/5) due to its limited applications and high cost to implement. The conclusions of the study were made on the grounds of formal object classification algorithms and comparison thereof on seven dimensions: mobility, autonomy, affordability, popularity, market growth, applicability, technological maturity. The method was distinguished by the integration of concept base analysis with consideration of practical examples of technology use in various industries, and quantitative analysis based on open-source statistics. The practical value of the results lies in their potential application in the development of user interfaces, the design of advanced information technology tools, and the modelling of virtual environments. The obtained indicators are determined by the high accuracy of the analysis, which is directly proportional to the number of characteristics considered

virtual technologies; prospect index; taxonomic analysis; technological maturity; market indicators; mobility
  1. Azuma, R.T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385.
  2. Blackman, T., & Harley, D. (2024). Interpreting Apple’s visions: Examining the spatiality of the Apple Vision Pro. Platforms & Society, 1. doi: 10.1177/29768624241283913.
  3. Bruder, G., Steinicke, F., Valkov, D., & Hinrichs, K. (2010). Augmented virtual studio for architectural exploration. In Proceedings of virtual reality international conference. Laval: Laval Virtual.
  4. Casini, M. (2022). Extended reality for smart building operation and maintenance: A review. Energies, 15(10), article number 3785. doi: 10.3390/en15103785.
  5. Caudell, T.P., & Mizell, D.W. (1992). Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 659-669). Kauai, HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.1992.183317.
  6. Chuah, S.H.-W. (2019). Why and who will adopt extended reality technology? Literature review, synthesis, and future research agenda. Journal of Technology Marketing, 13(3/4), 205-259.
  7. Coupry, C., Noblecourt, S., Richard, P., Baudry, D., & Bigaud, D. (2021). BIM-based digital twin and XR devices to improve maintenance procedures in smart buildings: A literature review. Applied Sciences, 11(15), article number 6810. doi: 10.3390/app11156810.
  8. Dey, M., & Jambhale, R. (Ed.). (2025). Augmented reality statistics by market, advertising, users, software, hardware and trends. Retrieved from https://electroiq.com/stats/augmented-reality-statistics/.
  9. Duan, L., Zhang, Y., Wang, T., & Liu, J. (2022). Confusing image quality assessment: Towards better augmented reality experience. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31, 7206-7221. doi: 10.1109/TIP.2022.3220404.
  10. Grand View Horizon Databooks. (n.d.). Europe augmented reality in e‑commerce market size & outlook, 2030. Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/horizon/outlook/augmented-reality-in-e-commerce-market/europe.
  11. Gruca, A., Czachórski, T., Deorowicz, S., Harężlak, K., & Piotrowska, A. (Eds.). (2020). Man-machine interactions 6. 6th International conference on man-machine interactions, ICMMI 2019. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-31964-9.
  12. Guo, X., Chen, H., & Zhao, L. (2025). An empirical study on meta virtual reality applications: Security and privacy perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 51(5), 1437-1454. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2025.3553283.
  13. Hu, J. (2024). From a new product: Apple Vision Pro – impact of VR technology development on VR gaming. Computational Engineering, 34(1), 47-51. doi: 10.54254/2755-2721/34/20230295.
  14. IT‑Enterprise. (n.d.). Augmented reality, AR. Retrieved from https://www.it.ua/knowledge-base/technology-innovation/dopolnennaja-realnost-ar.
  15. Kanarskyi, O., Oriekhov, V., & Stadnyk, A. (2022). Evaluation of the quality of augmented reality systems: Analysis of research state. Scientific Works of SUNZ, 4(70), 79-87. doi: 10.26906/SUNZ.2022.4.079.
  16. Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1995). In Proceedings volume 2351, telemanipulator and telepresence technologies. Boston: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). doi: 10.1117/12.197321.
  17. Möhring, M., Lessig, C., & Bimber, O. (2004). Video see-through AR on consumer cell-phones. In ISMAR’04: International symposium on mixed and augmented reality, proceedings of the 3rd IEEE/ACM (pp. 252-253). Arlington, VA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi: 10.1109/ISMAR.2004.63.
  18. O’Hara, E., Al-Bayati, R., Chiu, M., & Dubrowski, A. (2024). User experience testing of the meta quest 2 for integration with the virtual reality simulation for dementia coaching, advocacy, respite, education, relationship, and simulation (VR-SIM carers) program. Cureus, 16(8), article number e66314. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66314.
  19. Pangarkar, T. (2025). Mixed reality statistics 2025 by users, technology, products. Retrieved from https://scoop.market.us/mixed-reality-statistics/.
  20. Rosenberg, L.B. (1992). The use of virtual fixtures as perceptual overlays to enhance operator performance in remote environments. San Antonio, TX: Armstrong Laboratory.
  21. Schmidt, S., Bruder, G., & Steinicke, F. (2015). A layer-based 3D virtual environment for architectural collaboration. Retrieved from https://sreal.ucf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SBS15.pdf.
  22. Sobota, B., Korečko, Š., Hudák, M., & Sivý, M. (2020). Mixed reality: A known unknown. London: IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.92827.
  23. Tu, X., Autiosalo, J., Ala-Laurinaho, R., Yang, C., Salminen, P., & Tammi, K. (2023). TwinXR: Method for using digital twin descriptions in industrial eXtended reality applications. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4, article number 1019080. doi: 10.3389/frvir.2023.1019080.
  24. Volynets, V. (2021). Virtual, augmented and mixed reality: Essence of concepts and specificity of relevant computer systems. Issues in Cultural Studies, 37, 231-243. doi: 10.31866/2410-1311.37.2021.237322.

https://doi.org/10.33744/2308-6645-2025-2-29-47-58