SPATIAL EXPERIENCE IN METAVERSE EXHIBITIONS:

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REALITY-BASED AND

VIRTUALITY-BASED DESIGN APPROACHES

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE

OF BILKENT UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

ARCHITECTURE

By

Zeynep Uzun

July 2024
 SPATIAL EXPERIENCE IN METAVERSE EXHIBITIONS:

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REALITY-BASED AND

VIRTUALITY-BASED DESIGN APPROACHES

By Zeynep Uzun

July 2024

We certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in

scope and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

_______________________________________________

Burcu Şenyapılı Özcan (Advisor)

_______________________________________________

Aktan Acar

_____________________________________________

Giorgio Gasco

Approved for the Graduate School of Engineering and Science:

_____________________________________________

Orhan Arıkan

Director of the Graduate School

i
 ABSTRACT

Spatial Experience in Metaverse Exhibitions: A Comparative

Analysis of Reality-Based and Virtuality-Based Design Approaches

Zeynep Uzun

M.S. in Architecture

Advisor: Burcu Şenyapılı Özcan

July 2024

Technological advancements have initiated the realisation of the metaverse concept,

which provides an alternative environment for human experience. Within this digital
frontier, while some architectural designs transcend the boundaries of reality `
adaptation, certain spaces adhere to mimicking the physical realm. As a consequence,
two design approaches have emerged in the metaverse: reality-based (RB), which
replicates the appearance of real-life architecture, and virtuality-based (VB), which
takes advantage of the flexibility and limitlessness of virtual environments. However,
the impact of these different approaches to the design on spatial experience remain to
be investigated.

This thesis aims to find out how these two different approaches in metaverse
environment’s designs impact spatial experience of the users. By concentrating on two
different exhibition spaces in metaverses, the effect of architectural design approaches
on spatial experience is intended to be find out. Within this framework, an
experimental study was conducted with 118 architectural design students. The spatial
experience was analysed through the Questionnaire on Spatial experience in exhibition
environments with 6 subcategories (presence, immersion, engagement, flow,
judgement, and wayfinding) through a 5-point Likert Scale. As a result of the research,
the participants who experienced the RB environment felt significantly more present
than those who experienced the VB environment. The result aid in comprehending the
impact of design on spatial experience by providing insights from the perspectives of
architecture, art, and spatial experience. Future research may validate and expand upon
these discoveries in a more comprehensive framework through the utilisation of spaces
featuring diverse design methodologies, and in collaboration with individuals from
other disciplines.

Keywords: Metaverse, Spatial Experience, Virtual Environment, Exhibition Spaces,

Non-fungible Token

ii
 ÖZET

Metaverse Galerilerinde Mekansal Deneyim: Gerçeklik-Temelli ve

Sanallık-Temelli Tasarım Yaklaşımları Arasında Karşılaştırmalı
Analiz

Zeynep Uzun

Mimarlik, Yüksek Lisans

Tez Danışmanı: Burcu Şenyapılı Özcan

Temmuz 2024

Teknolojik gelişmeler, insan deneyimi için alternatif bir ortam sağlayan metaverse
kavramının hayata geçirilmesine ön ayak olmuştur. Bu dijital ortamda, bazı mimari
tasarımlar adaptasyon yoluyla gerçekliğin sınırlarını aşarken, bazı mekanlar fiziksel
alanı taklit etmeye bağlı kalmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, metaverse'de iki tasarım yaklaşımı
ortaya çıkmıştır: gerçek hayattaki mimarinin düzenlemelerini taklit eden gerçeklik
temelli (GT) ve sanal ortamların esnekliğinden yararlanan sanallık temelli (ST).
Tasarıma yönelik bu farklı yaklaşımların mekânsal deneyim üzerindeki etkisi
araştırılmaya devam etmektedir.

Bu tez, metaverse ortamlardaki bu iki farklı yaklaşımın kullanıcıların mekânsal

deneyimlerini nasıl etkilediğini ortaya koymayı hedeflenmektedir. Metaverse
ortamlardaki sergilere odaklanılarak, mimari tasarım yaklaşımlarının mekânsal
deneyim üzerindeki etkisinin ortaya çıkarılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu çerçevede 118
mimari tasarım öğrencisi ile deneysel bir çalışma yürütülmüştür. Ortamlardaki
mekânsal deneyim, mekânsal deneyim anketi ile 6 alt kategoride (mevcudiyet,
sürükleyicilik, katılım, akış, yargı ve yön bulma) 1-5 Likert Ölçeği ile analiz edilmiştir.
Araştırma sonucunda, GT ortamını deneyimleyen katılımcılar, ST ortamını
deneyimleyen katılımcılara kıyasla kendilerini anlamlı ölçüde daha mevcut
hissetmişlerdir. Bu çalışma, mimarlık, sanat ve mekânsal deneyim perspektiflerinden
içgörüler sağlayarak sanal ortam tasarımının mekânsal deneyim üzerindeki etkisini
anlama konusunda yardımcıdır. Gelecekteki araştırmalar, farklı tasarım
metodolojilerine sahip mekânların kullanılması ve diğer disiplinlerden kişilerle
işbirliği yapılması yoluyla bu keşifleri daha kapsamlı bir çerçevede doğrulama ve
genişletme fırsatına sahip olabilir.

Anahtar sözcükler: Metaverse, Mekansal Deneyim, Sanal Ortam, Sergi Alanları,

Değiştirilemez Token

iii
 To Suzan Ulucenk, my dearest
grandma, and Feriha Uzun, my
beloved grand aunt

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to begin to express my eternal gratitude to my advisor Dr. Burcu Şenyapılı

Özcan for their endless support. With her guidance and belief, I was able to complete

this study. I would also like to sincerely thank to the examining committee members

Giorgio Gasco and Aktan Acar for their contribution and time. I would like to thank

the 130 architecture students of Bilkent University who participated and contributed

their valuable time. Additionally, I am grateful to all my friends and professors who

provided assistance and support throughout this process. Above all, I would like to

extend my deepest gratitude to my family; Leman Uzun, Refik Uzun, and Murat Uzun

for their endless love and belief in me throughout my life. With their support and

presence, everything has been possible. Finally, I would love to dedicate this thesis for

the two most important women figures in my life; Feriha Uzun, and Suzan Ulucenk;

To Feriha Uzun, my beloved grand aunt and the wisest person I know, thank you for

showing me that women are capable of achieving whatever they set their minds to.

Your lectures, which you gave to me when I was young, and your life itself are

invaluable lessons that cannot be taught by any other school.

To Suzan Ulucenk, Suzi, my dear grandmother, my eternal source of joy, thank you

for expressing me that there is always a reason to smile. You have also found a way

to brighten the world around you. With your warmth and wisdom, you have filled my

life with light and made me see the beauty in every moment.

Thank you both for your endless support, and love. The courage, wisdom, hope and

comfort you both bring in my life will forever remain as a part of who I am.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 2 METAVERSE ENVIRONMENT ..................................................... 7

Web 3.0 .................................................................................................. 15

Blockchain Technology ......................................................................... 16

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) ................................................................. 19

CHAPTER 3 EXHIBITION SPACES AND SPATIAL EXPERIENCE ............ 25

NFTs in the Art Industry ........................................................................ 32

Impact of Technology in Physical Settings ............................................ 35

CHAPTER 4 THE STUDY OF TWO METAVERSE EXHIBITIONS.............. 47

vi
 - Presence, Engagement, Immersion Subscales: ................................................ 60

- Flow Subscale: ................................................................................................. 60

- Judgement Subscale: ........................................................................................ 61

- Wayfinding Subscale: ...................................................................................... 61

Pilot Study .............................................................................................. 61

Main Study ............................................................................................. 63

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS .......................................................................................... 65

Analysis of Spatial Experience Subscales ............................................. 74

Analysis of Spatial Experience Subscales in Relation to Previous

Metaverse Experiences....................................................................................... 75

Analysis of Spatial Experience Subscales in Relation to Previous Virtual

Exhibition Space Experience ............................................................................. 77

Analysis of the Effects of The Exhibition Space within Metaverse

Duration on Spatial Experience ......................................................................... 79

Analysis of Open-ended Questions: Question 1 .................................... 86

Analysis of Open-ended Questions: Question 2 .................................... 91

vii
 Analysis of Open-ended Questions: Question 3 .................................... 96

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION .......................................... 104

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 117

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 125

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: The List of Selected Exhibition Spaces Within Metaverses and Their

Features ...................................................................................................................... 50

Table 4.2: A Matrix System for the RB and VB Features of Exhibition Spaces Within

Metaverses.................................................................................................................. 55

Table 4.3: Items of the Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces

within Metaverses ...................................................................................................... 59

Table 4.4: Pilot Study's Sessions................................................................................ 62

Table 4.5: Main Study's Sessions ............................................................................... 64

Table 5.1: Descriptive analysis .................................................................................. 69

Table 5.2: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the

Metaverse: Presence Subscale.................................................................................... 70

Table 5.3: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the

Metaverse: Engagement Subscale .............................................................................. 71

Table 5.4: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the

Metaverse: Immersion Subscale ................................................................................ 71

Table 5.5: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the

Metaverse: Flow Subscale.......................................................................................... 71

Table 5.6: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the

Metaverse: Judgement Subscale ................................................................................ 72

Table 5.7: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the

Metaverse: Wayfinding Subscale ............................................................................... 72

ix
Table 5.8: The Normality Distribution Results of Virtual Exhibition Space Scale by

Group ......................................................................................................................... 73

Table 5.9: Independent Sample t Test Result of Virtual Exhibition Space Scale by

Group ......................................................................................................................... 74

Table 5.10: RB Group’s Independent Sample t-Test Result (Previous Metaverse

Experience) ................................................................................................................ 75

Table 5.11: VB Group’s Independent Sample t-Test Result (Previous Metaverse

Experience) ................................................................................................................ 76

Table 5.12: RB Group’s Independent Sample t-Test Result (Previous Virtual

Exhibition Experience)............................................................................................... 77

Table 5.13: VB Group’s Independent Sample t-Test Result (Previous Virtual

Exhibition Experience)............................................................................................... 78

Table 5.14: The Pearson Correlation Results of Questionnaire on Spatial Experience

in Exhibition Spaces within the Metaverse by RB and VB Group ............................ 80

Table 5.15: Reliability Analysis Results of Virtual Exhibition Space by RB and VB

Group ......................................................................................................................... 81

Table 5.16: The Pearson Correlation Test Results of Virtual Exhibition Space Scale

Score by Reality-Based Group ................................................................................... 82

Table 5.17: The Pearson Correlation Test Results of Virtual Exhibition Space Scale

Score by Virtuality-Based Group ............................................................................... 83

Table 5.18: Open-ended Questions in the Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in

Exhibition Spaces within Metaverses ........................................................................ 84

Table 5.19: The Most Frequent Words in Question 1 ................................................ 86

Table 5.20: Correlation Analysis of Open-ended Question 1 .................................... 88

Table 5.21: Contextual Analysis of RB group Open-ended Question 1 .................... 89

x
Table 5.22: Contextual Analysis of VB group Open-ended Question 1 .................... 90

Table 5.23: The most frequent words in Question 2 .................................................. 91

Table 5.24: Correlation Analysis of Second Open-ended Question 2 ....................... 93

Table 5.25: Contextual Analysis of RB Group Open-ended Question 2 ................... 94

Table 5.26: Contextual Analysis of VB Group Open-ended Question 2 ................... 95

Table 5.27: Frequent words of responses to Open-ended Question 3........................ 96

Table 5.28: Correlational Analysis of Open-ended Question 3 ................................. 98

Table 5.29: Contextual Analysis of RB Group Open-ended Question 3 ................... 99

Table 5.30: Contextual Analysis of VB Group Open-ended Question 3 ................. 100

Table 6.1: Quotations from Open-ended Questions about Spatial Experience ........ 107

Table 6.2: Quotations from Open-ended Questions about Architecture .................. 110

Table 6.3: Quotations from Open-ended Questions about Art ................................ 113

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Second Life ............................................................................................. 11

Figure 2.2: Roblox .................................................................................................... 11

Figure 2.3: Avatar in VRChat ................................................................................... 14

Figure 2.4: Different Styles of Metaverses, Empowered by Web2.0 and Web3.0 ... 15

Figure 2.5: Illustration of a Transaction by the Blockchain Technology .................. 17

Figure 2.6: Decentraland ........................................................................................... 21

Figure 2.7: The Sandbox Marketplace ...................................................................... 22

Figure 2.8: The Sandbox Map .................................................................................... 22

Figure 2.9: Map of Voxels ........................................................................................ 23

Figure 2.10: Voxels Metaverse ................................................................................. 23

Figure 2.11: Templates in Spatial io ......................................................................... 24

Figure 2.12: Boss Immersive Showroom’s space on Spatial io ................................ 24

Figure 3.1: Palazzo Medici's Courtyard .................................................................... 26

Figure 3.2: Guggenheim Museum's Atrium .............................................................. 27

Figure 3.3: British Museum ...................................................................................... 28

Figure 3.4: Guggenheim Bilboa ................................................................................ 29

Figure 3.5: Guggenheim Bilbao Plan ........................................................................ 29

Figure 3.6: Types of Spatial Combination ................................................................ 31

Figure 3.7: Everydays: The First 5000 Days by Mike Winkelmann ........................ 34

Figure 3.8: One of the Cryptopunks NFT ................................................................. 34

Figure 3.9: Bored Ape Yach Club NFT .................................................................... 35

Figure 3.10: Penn Museum ....................................................................................... 36

xii
Figure 3.11: The Story of Forest ............................................................................... 37

Figure 3.12: Artlens 2.0 ............................................................................................ 38

Figure 3.13: AR experience by Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle ..................... 38

Figure 3.14: Musee de Louvre .................................................................................. 39

Figure 3.15: imnotArt NFT Gallery in Chicago ....................................................... 39

Figure 3.16: Virtuality-based and Reality-based environments ................................ 42

Figure 3.17: Spectrum of VB and RB environments ................................................ 42

Figure 3.18: Sotheby's in Decentraland .................................................................... 43

Figure 3.19: Sotheby's in London ............................................................................. 43

Figure 3.20: World of Colours in Spatial io .............................................................. 43

Figure 4.1: Verses Gallery (i.e. RB environment) ..................................................... 49

Figure 4.2: NFT Biennial Ouroboros Gallery ............................................................ 49

Figure 4.3: Photos from Session 6 (top row), Session 2 (bottom left), Session 7

(bottom right) ............................................................................................................. 64

Figure 5.1: The Ages of the Participants .................................................................... 67

Figure 5.2: Spending Hours on the Computer Per Week ........................................... 67

Figure 5.3: Been in a Metaverse Environment Before ............................................... 68

Figure 5.4: Been in an Exhibition Space Before ........................................................ 68

Figure 5.5: A Screen View from [Link] ...................................................... 85

Figure 5.6: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 1, RB Group ........................... 87

Figure 5.7: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 1, VB Group ........................... 87

Figure 5.8: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 2, RB Group ........................... 91

Figure 5.9: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 2, VB Group ........................... 92

Figure 5.10: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 3, RB Group ......................... 96

Figure 5.11: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 3, VB Group ......................... 97

xiii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2D Two Dimensional

3D Three Dimensional

AR Augmented Reality

CPU Central Processing Unit

DAPP Decentralized Applications

GAC Google Art & Culture

GPS Global Positioning System

MPOVE Multi-Participant Online Virtual Environment

MUD Multi User Dungeon

NFT Non-fungible Token

RB Reality-based

VB Virtuality-based

VR Virtual Reality

xiv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

With cryptocurrencies and advancements in computer technology, virtual

environments have reached a whole new level, and almost like in Neal Stephenson's

Snow Crash novel (1992), the concept of the "metaverse" is turning into reality. In

Stephenson's metaverse, users can engage through avatars, create their own houses,

attend events, explore museums, and buy digital assets tailored for utilization. The

incorporation of ownership into virtual environments is becoming a reality through

cryptocurrency technology, realizing Stephenson's notion of the metaverse.

Although the term "metaverse" is commonly associated with a single concept, there

are numerous platforms that function as metaverses, including Decentraland, Roblox,

and The Sandbox. Each of them distinguishes themselves through their unique user

experiences, aesthetics, and economies. For example, Roblox and The Sandbox

provide users with gamified experiences via their low-poly, pixel environments,

whereas Decentraland provides players with the freedom to explore an open map and

attend events. Despite the apparent diversity among the platforms, their creation is

guided by a singular objective: to provide an alternative to the physical world by

imitating real life's functions and sometimes its appearance.

1
Exhibition spaces in the metaverse are such examples, which redefine the artworks as

NFTs. Such implementations support the appeal to wider audiences without regard to

time or location (Marty, 2011). As Ortaç (2021) states, virtual spaces allow displaying

artworks that would be impractical to do in physical venues logistically and

physically.

However, while virtual spaces, especially metaverses, offer flexibility in what one can

do, such as experiencing zero-gravity space and the creation of customisable

environments, the current state of design approaches for these spaces doesn't fully

utilise their limitlessness. As Moneta (2020) mentions, virtual environments can

transcend the boundaries of mimetic realism by adopting an unconventional approach

to using the virtual environment's limitlessness as a catalyst for being creative. Also,

according to Novak (1991), these environments are visionary habitats, which allow

"it-can-be-so" to take priority over "it-should-be-so". Nonetheless, many metaverses

replicate the architectural style of the physical realm, while a few test the limits of

virtual space.

Currently, metaverses encompass various design approaches that can be categorised

under two titles: reality-based environments (RB), which represent the real world

accurately with high representational fidelity, and virtuality-based environments (VB),

which refer to a surreal environment with low representational fidelity (Chung et al.,

2024). The objective of this thesis is to determine how these two attitudes in design

impacts the users’ spatial experience in metaverse exhibitions. Within this framework,

the thesis focuses on exploring the concept of the metaverse, exhibition spaces, and

the increasingly varied experiences of art as technology develops. It also explores the

use of NFTs in both the physical realm and metaverses, the implementation of the RB

2
and VB approaches to exhibition spaces within metaverses, and the correlation

between the design approach and the visitors' spatial experience.

Problem Statement

For many years, the technology behind virtual environments had a gradual growth that

led to the introduction of metaverse environments. However, the design of these

environments does not fully respond to the technology behind them, and most of the

environments in the metaverse act as reproductions of the physical environments by

underutilizing the limitlessness of virtuality. There are some studies that discuss the

issue of virtual reality and real-life architecture (Moneta, 2020; Horne & Thompson,

2008), but they do not investigate the impact of applying a realistic design approach

to the virtual world and how it effects the spatial experience of users.

There is a recent study by Chung et al. (2024) that aims to analyse the effect of different

design styles, the RB and VB, in terms of presence and enjoyment in virtual reality

exhibitions. In this study, VB design styles are defined as a surreal, abstract space

without any boundaries. However, there is still a research gap that focuses on the

spatial experience from a broader perspective, looking at diverse subscales rather than

focusing on two subscales and comparing the RB and VB environments. Also, there is

still room for focusing on the metaverse environments and investigating the potential

of art within the metaverses. This thesis specifically focuses on the experiences of

young architects, who are the potential future designers of such environments. The

findings may aid designers in designing exhibition spaces in virtual environments,

especially metaverses.

3
 Aim and Scope of The Thesis

This thesis aims to reveal the effects of exhibition space designs in the metaverse on

the spatial experiences of, especially, younger generations. Within this conception, an

experiment is conducted about spatial experience in two different exhibition

environments in metaverses: Verses Gallery ([Link]

Gallery-62053ee64202c9000136e63e?share=7454859656663147052), which mimics

real-life architectural styles (i.e., RB), and NFT Biennial-Ouroboros Pavilion

([Link]

63a8bcc15b82ea00013a981a?share=3767397328367021398), which features space

that is free of physical building characteristics (i.e., VB). These two exhibition settings,

while not entirely comprehensive like real-life exhibition spaces, provide a distinct

viewpoint on exhibition and redefine them in the metaverse. The participants of the

experiment are the students at İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, Department of

Architecture, who are in the second, third, and fourth grades and are graduate students.

The participating students were divided into two groups, and each group experienced

one of the exhibition spaces and responded to the questionnaire regarding their spatial

experience in the environment. The experiment was carried out on the personal

computers of students during their scheduled studio hours. After providing their

demographic information via the Google Forms link, respondents were then redirected

to the designated exhibition space in the metaverse. After they completed touring the

exhibition space, they responded to 32 items on a five-point Likert scale and 3 open-

ended inquiries.

With this experiment, this thesis aims to discuss the effects of different architectural

approaches on the spatial experience of the participants by focusing on the presence,

4
engagement, immersive, flow, judgement, and wayfinding subscales. Frequency and

percent analysis, relationship analysis (independent sample t-test and Pearson

correlation analysis), and reliability analysis (Cronbach's alpha) were applied, and the

results of the questionnaire were analysed by SPSS software. In addition, the answers

to open-ended questions were analysed with the Voyant tool. This free web-based tool

operates a range of text analysis functions, including summary, circus, correlation, and

context, within its framework.

This thesis hypothesises that implementing RB design approaches in exhibition spaces

within metaverses leads to an enhanced spatial experience. Consequently, it is

expected that this thesis can respond to the following research questions:

 What are the differences in design approaches between RB and VB exhibition

spaces within metaverses?

 How do visitors perceive space in VB compared to RB exhibition spaces within

metaverses?

 When designing spaces in the metaverse in the future, should designers adopt

a design approach that closely follows the principles of the physical realm, or

should they innovate and create an entirely new design language?

Structure of the Thesis

This thesis consists of five chapters. The chapters are arranged, respectively, as

follows: The first chapter states the problem, aim, and structure of this thesis. The

second chapter defines the concept of the metaverse, discusses its evolution both

conceptually and technologically, and mentions sample metaverse platforms. The

5
following chapter highlights the museum and exhibition spaces by discussing their

evolutions throughout history and the impact of technology in the process.

Additionally, in this chapter, RB and VB approaches to the design of virtual exhibition

spaces, and spatial experience in virtual environments are presented. The fourth

chapter presents the experiment conducted using a Questionnaire on Spatial

Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the Metaverse. This chapter explores several

subjects, including the matrix system that outlines the selection criteria for selecting

RB and VB environments, subscales of the questionnaire, and the sample group. In

Chapter Five, the findings regarding the spatial experiences in RB and VB exhibitions

within metaverses are discussed. The Sixth Chapter discusses the results of this study

within three subtitles: spatial experience, architecture, and art, and states the

suggestions for further studies. Finally, the thesis concludes with references and

appendices.

6
 CHAPTER 2

METAVERSE ENVIRONMENTS

The concept of metaverse is defined as a ground-breaking technological development

that redefines human interaction and activities in virtual environments and digital

commerce. Technological advancements, from immersive technologies to the

blockchain, assist in the creation of the notion of the metaverse as a parallel universe

to socialise, entertain, and educate.

The concept of the metaverse is first mentioned in Neal Stephson’s book Snow Crash

(1992). The book envisions the metaverse as an alternative world where individuals

redefine their identities as avatars, cultivate relationships with others, and engage in

social activities. In the book, the metaverse also embodies the vision of exceeding the

limits of the physical world and blurring the boundary between physical and virtual

realities (Stephson, 1992). However, a more comprehensive definition of the term has

yet to be established based on the evolution of technological advancements and

existing metaverse platforms.

As in the book, the metaverse is introduced as an environment where people can meet

with their friends online, attend virtual events, and engage in collaborative work with

their colleagues (Lee et al., 2022). The definition of the metaverse remains unsettled,

7
with researchers expressing multiple perspectives on the concept. For instance,

according to Park and Kim (2022);

“Metaverse is a compound word of transcendence meta and universe and refers to a

three-dimensional virtual world where avatars engage in political, economic, social,

and cultural activities. It is widely used in the sense of a virtual world based on daily

life where both the real and the unreal coexist." (p.3)

Yang et al. (2023) define the metaverse concept as a hybrid world that encompasses

both physical and virtual realms, surpassing the physical realm's boundaries and

created by merging the terms meta (beyond) and verse (universe abbreviation). Also,

Lee (2021) state that the word "metaverse" highlights the vision of a shared,

immersive, unified realm at its core. Despite variations in defining the notion of the

metaverse, Lee, et al. (2022) suggest that it is a unique space that blends virtual

environments and physical reality within a computer-generated environment, and they

refer to it as a crucial milestone of today's cyberspace.

The History of Metaverse

The advent of the metaverse opened a different door in many disciplines, such as

economics, architecture, and art, through its advanced technology and infrastructure.

Thanks to technological advancements, the metaverse is transformed from a basic

concept into a tangible reality. The advancements in technology, including virtual

reality glasses, augmented reality, touchscreens, and controllers, substantiate the era

of the metaverse, which is a blend of two realities and relies on the disappearance of

the boundary between them (Ball, 2022). The evolution of the metaverse represents an

8
intricate and diverse process of creation that comprises several layers. Therefore, it

should be comprehended both conceptually and technologically.

As Yuang et al. (2023) state, the evolution of the metaverse started with the conception

forming period. Before the idea was transformed into an actual encounter, it underwent

conceptualization. One concrete instance of these notions is cyberspace, which serves

as the primary term for literature and films. Then these conceptualizations were

amplified with technology into virtual worlds and then into the metaverse.

The term “cyberspace” was introduced and became popular with the release of the

Neuromancer novel by William Gibson (1984). It is defined as:

“Consensual hallucination that felt and looked like a physical space but actually was

a computer-generated construct representing abstract data” (p. 79)

Consequently, Benedikt (1991) defined cyberspace as a parallel universe that relates

to “virtual reality", “data visualisation", "networks" and "multimedia". Cyberspace has

a broad definition as a virtual space, which includes communication interactions over

networks and the internet. It involves digital networks and systems that are connected,

such as websites, social media, and more.

One way of interacting in cyberspaces was achieved by multi-user dungeon (MUD)

games that enable users to have a text-based interaction with their specific roles inside

the context. They were first introduced in 1985 and provided the groundwork for social

interactions through gaming. (Ball, 2022; Lee, 2021). With the introduction of the

online game “Habitat” by Lucasfilm, users got a chance to experience MPOVE (a

multi-participant online virtual environment) that actualizes cyberspace, as in Gibson’s

Neuromancer. In this game, players can depict virtual environments and avatars in a

9
2D pixelated format (Ball, 2022). As Ball (2022) mentions, during the ’90s, users

started to experience the premature 3D worlds (known as 2.5D virtual worlds), which

commonly allowed them to interact with other users and enabled them to experience

the environments through the movement along two axes. Then, the first 3D virtual

environment game, Active Worlds, was launched. In this game, people create their

avatars and build their worlds collaboratively in real-time, with the support of web-

based chat with their friends (Ball, 2023; Wikipedia contributors, 2023). In the late

90s, many other 3D games were launched, such as Tomb Raider and EverQuest, which

assisted the immersive experience in 3D game environments with human-like avatars

and environments (Lee et al., 2022). The experience within these environments laid

the foundation for the metaverse concept.

After the conceptual framing of the metaverse, technical formation is started, as

mentioned by Yuang et al. (2023). In this period, 3D virtual environments and virtual

reality (VR) technologies evolved. The popular multiplayer virtual platform, Second

Life, made its debut in 2003. It is defined as an early attempt at creating a metaverse

where users do not have any specific objective other than experiencing the

environment through using their avatars, constructing their properties, buying assets

(using the game currency, Linden dollars), and attending events. (Lee et al., 2022;

Sparkes, 2021) (Figure 2.1). Soon after it was released, real-life corporations

participated in the platforms, such as Adidas and BBC (Ball, 2022).

10
 Figure 2.1: Second Life (Source: [Link]
spiritual-sequel)

The emergence of Second Life was followed by Roblox in 2006, which is defined as

a precursor to the metaverse since users interacted online with others by creating their

avatars in 2006 (Yang et al., 2023). Minecraft emerged as another platform that

functions similarly to Roblox and can be considered an early version of the metaverse.

These two platforms differ from Second Life in terms of their technology and user-

friendliness, with a specific focus on children and teenage users (Ball, 2022). After

thirteen years, the popularity of Roblox reached another level, with over 100 million

monthly active users (San Matteo, 2019). In addition, another well-known metaverse

platform, Fortnite, is known to have over 45 million players around the globe (Yang

et al., 2023) (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2: Roblox (Source: [Link] /games/roblox)

11
During the early 2000s, the advent of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR)

headsets, including Google Glass and Meta Oculus, provided users with the

opportunity to interact with computer-mediated environments in virtual physical

blended environments, including VR Chat and Horizon (Lee et al., 2022).

Metaverse’s formation accelerated in the 2000s. This was a period when metaverse

platforms and technology reached more people and attracted more attention (Damar,

2021). With COVID-19, which led to a worldwide lockdown in March 2020, people's

offline social activities were restricted, and therefore interest in virtual worlds grew

(Dwivedi et al., 2022). During the lockdown, the blockchain technology that forms the

metaverse's infrastructure and NFTs, which were introduced in 2014, gained

popularity (Yang, et al., 2023). At the same time, Roblox, which went public in the

US in 2021, started to attract more attention. Facebook, one of the big ventures, has

also drawn attention to this concept by changing its name to "meta" (Yang et al., 2023).

Various statements question the full realization of the metaverse's potential.

Developments support the shift of the metaverse from a concept that is introduced in

a novel to an alternative world. According to Ball (2022), the metaverse has gained

significant prominence among consumers with its technology, from MUDs to Fortnite.

It combines digital and physical realities in various aspects such as socializing,

entertainment, and work. The continuous progress in its technology is expected to be

implemented in a more immersive and interactive way to the metaverse (Yang et al.,

2023).

12
 Technological Advancements Behind Metaverse

Metaverses are digital environments that are created through the implementation of

Web3 technology, blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and NFTs. Metaverses are

differentiated from traditional three-dimensional virtual environments through the

implementation of advanced technologies, such as decentralized ownership, enhanced

security, and the seamless capability to create and exchange digital content. In addition

to these technological advancements, there are features that elevates the experience in

metaverses including virtual-reality (VR) technology, real-time rendering and avatar

integrations.

VR technology offers an immersive environment that can be implemented by some

metaverse platforms. The first VR headset was introduced by the Japanese company

Sega in 1993 to provide a synthetic view (Lee et al., 2022). With their ongoing

development, these headsets offer a conventional method to immerse users in virtual

settings by separating them from physical reality (Lee et al., 2022).

VR technology is crucial for metaverses since these virtual environments offer an

alternative world, and feeling immersed in this virtual world may leverage the

experience. Various metaverse platforms support VR, like Horizon Worlds, Spatial io,

and VRChat. However, the support of VR headsets requires specific hardware, and

several metaverses are unable to implement this technology, such as Decentraland and

Voxels.

Another important feature of the metaverse is its real-time rendering capacity, which

affects the experience. In the absence of real-time rendering, the experience of the

users would be constrained to the pre-rendered images that are depicted in a sequence

13
(Ball, 2022). With this feature, users can have a fluent experience with infinite choices

(Ball, 2022). As Yang et al. (2022) suggest, high-quality and real-time rendering

creates stunning metaverse environments, and these features support immersion in

virtual worlds.

Moreover, virtual worlds offer users the chance to define their identity as avatars. In

metaverses, the interpretation and designs of avatars are evolved. As Dwivedi et al.

(2022) define the concept of an avatar, it is a representation of a person as a digital

twin within the metaverse. Also, Lee et al. (2021) suggest that avatars serve as digital

representations of users that communicate with other avatars (users) and with non-

player characters. The virtual worlds allow users to have multiple personas and

identities (Park & Kim, 2022). Various metaverse platforms are offering diverse

advancements for the creation of avatars so that users can redefine their personas,

genders, and appearances with the assistance of virtual world tools. For instance, in

VR chat, users are enabled to scan their faces, and the system automatically generates

an avatar that looks like their real-life appearance (Lee et al., 2021; Figure 2.3).

However, in Spatial IO, users design their avatars within the options among those the

platform offers.

Figure 2.3: Avatar in VRChat (Source: Lee et al., 2021)

14
 Web 3.0

Web 3.0, also known as the third-generation Internet, evolved from Web 1.0 and Web

2.0 (Yang et al., 2023). Web 1.0, which was introduced around the 1990s, enabled

“readable” or “read-only” files and offered websites that could be accessed via

desktops only (Yang et al., 2023). Web 2.0 created a shift from “readable” to “readable

and writable” with the arrival of blogs, Twitter, and WeChat that provide a platform

for users to generate their content and interact with other users within the platforms.

These platforms are controlled by big tech companies such as Google, Meta, and

Amazon (Gilbert, 2022). Web 3.0, on the other hand, offers the ownership feature,

which enables users to possess authority over the content data and accelerates the

addition of “writable” to “readable” (Yang et al., 2023).

Metaverse platforms utilise the decentralised architecture of Web 3.0. However, as

Figure 2.4 by Yang et al. (2023) shows, there are Web 2.0-based closed metaverses

that are overseen by a centralised authority and also Web 3.0-enabled metaverses that

operate on a decentralised system with their own blockchains. While all of these

metaverse platforms share the goal of creating a 3D virtual environment and providing

various experiences to users, the specific experiences offered vary, depending on

whether they are based on Web 2.0 or Web 3.0 technology.

Figure 2.4: Different styles of metaverses, empowered by Web2.0 and Web3.0 (Source: Yang et al.,
2023)

15
 Blockchain Technology

Metaverse merges the physical and digital worlds and enhances the experiences and

interactions within them. According to Ball (2022), people’s interests, leisure time,

work, and social connections can be transferred to metaverse environments since they

offer a parallel world of existence in every aspect of life, including the economy.

Blockchain technology is an advancement that enables this economic system. It is

essential for ensuring the security and transparency of this digital realm's economy and

data. It enables the virtual world to establish its own decentralized economy system,

enabling users to own digital assets in the form of both non-fungible tokens, which

define a unique digital asset, and fungible tokens, which refer to interchangeable

assets, for financial transactions to enhance the user experience (Gilbert, 2022).

Blockchain and cryptocurrencies are the main elements that enable this financial

structure. As Harwick (2016, p. 570) states,

“A cryptocurrency is a method of constituting virtual "coins."“.

In this system, each user has a unique wallet ID, and the transactions are stored on the

network as "blockchain," whereas they are recorded in central banks in the physical

realm. This blockchain system is decentralised since it consists of many blocks that

govern each transfer, in contrast to the real-life scenario where there is only one central

bank (Harwick, 2016).

It is a distributed database that stores each transaction with a string of “blocks” of

information (The Economist Group Limited, 2021; Lee et al., 2022). The blockchain

generates a block for each transfer, generating data from users, and connects these

16
blocks to the preceding block in chronological order (Yang et al., 2023). Each user is

defined as a node on the blockchain, and once it is linked, every node retains a

comprehensive record of the data saved on the blockchain. If any error happens on the

chain, millions of other nodes can reference and rectify the issue (Lee et al., 2022;

Yang et al., 2023) (Figure 2.5). Since there are thousands of nodes around the globe,

the blockchain system functions as a decentralised system of individuals (The

Economist Group Limited, 2021). Thus, the system is secure as it is decentralised, not

under the authority of a single entity like a firm or a bank but rather governed by

multiple centers. Users can use this technology easily without worrying about hidden

fees or sharing individual data; all transaction processes happen transparently (Ball,

2022).

Figure 2.5: Illustration of a transaction by the blockchain technology (Source: Gadekallu et al., 2022)

Gilbert (2022) outlines three fundamental characteristics of blockchain technologies:

first, decentralisation, achieved through the absence of a central authority; second,

immutability, ensuring the storage of all data without deletion or undoing; and third,

transparency, enabling the public to track all transactions. Additionally, the main

17
element of this system, wallets, enables users to access blocks and transfer cryptos.

(Gilbert, 2022)

One of these blockchains, Bitcoin, known as the first digital coin, is a digital current

proposed in 2009 (Lee et al., 2012). It was introduced in an article called “Bitcoin: A

Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” by Nakamoto (2008). In this article,

decentralisation is highlighted by peer-to-peer transactions.

Vitalik Buterin and Gavin Wood introduced Ethereum in 2015 as a decentralised

mining network and software platform following the creation of the Bitcoin blockchain

(Ball, 2022). Ethereum, being the second-largest cryptocurrency, serves as a

foundation for the creation of other cryptocurrencies (Gilbert, 2022). The ERC-20

serves as the foundational framework for the extensive range of tokens developed on

the Ethereum platform, including coins like SAND and MANA (Gadekallu et al.,

2022).

The advanced blockchain provides users with not only a token to use, as in the Bitcoin

blockchain, but also a base for developing decentralized apps. With the Solidity

programming language, users are enabled to build without permission and trustless

apps (Cai, et al., 2018). These apps, referred to as "decentralized apps" (Dapps), can

utilize their tokens, akin to cryptocurrencies (Ball, 2022), and function independently

on the blockchain system, free from central authority control. This technology is

employed in several domains, such as finance and entertainment. Metaverses function

as Dapps, which are applications developed on a blockchain. For instance,

Decentraland is a 3D virtual world that functions on the Ethereum blockchain, which

allows users to purchase and own properties, like land and homes, and immerse

themselves in the virtual environment (Decentraland, n.d.).

18
 Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT)

Non-fungible tokens (NFT) represent unique assets that cannot be modified. In recent

years, the popularity of NFT technology is increased in many industries, with

particular relevance to the art industry.

The main feature that differentiates non-fungible tokens from fungible tokens, such as

Bitcoin, is their uniqueness. In fungible tokens, users can purchase fractions as tiny as

0.1, while the lowest unit available for purchase is 1 with non-fungible tokens, as it

represents a specific digital asset (Cheng, et al., 2022).

These tokens establish an innovative space of practice for blockchain technology with

their creative content that answers the needs of users, creators, and collectors with

digital objects as a form of assets/video/ images, etc. (Cheng et al., 2022). NFTs are

particular indications on the blockchain that have a link with a digital asset, and their

prices vary depending on their rarity (Wang et al.,2021).

Even though any person can download a copy of that NFT file as a digital asset format,

it does not represent the ownership of the token since its ownership can be proved with

the smart contracts (Cheng et al., 2022). Smart contracts are the main innovation that

Ethereum blockchain (Gadekallu et al., 2022). It is a contract that is automatically

executed, and the conditions of the contract between the buyer and seller are encoded

inside the logical structure of the code (Yang, et al. 2023) In other words, the rules of

smart contracts are stored in blockchain and establishes an ecosystem that fulfill the

terms of the agreement without any intermediaries (Techtarget, 2023).

As Murray (2021) states, NFTs are digital or physical assets that can be a game asset,

a video, clothes, painting, etc. that utilizes blockchain technology for ownership. As

19
an example, the ownership of an object, like an artwork, in the physical realm can also

be defined with a file in the form of NFT (Murray,2021). However, since NFTs are

working as a block on the blockchain, there is a tendency to make a correlation

between NFTs with digital assets (Murray, 2021).

With the establishment of Blockchain technology, and the introduction of Bitcoin, the

investigation of NFT’s potential gained momentum. Also, the participation of auction

houses, such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s along with other galleries encourage the

familiarity of NFTs especially in the art industry (We Are Museums, 2023).

Metaverse Platforms and Their Features

Various metaverse platforms are shaped around the same concept and utilise similar

technologies. Despite their establishment in decentralised ecosystems, each platform

maintains its uniqueness. As the transition phase from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 progresses,

the features of each platform differ based on their web capacities. Roblox, Fortnite,

and Second Life are examples of Web 2.0 metaverse platforms that act as forerunners

of metaverse platforms with the potential to mimic real-life experiences with

interactions and social activities (Dwivedi et al., 2022).

As previously mentioned, Second Life, the oldest of these three examples, is a

simulated environment that allows users to experience the world through their avatars.

The virtual currency used is Linden Dollars, which can be exchanged for US dollars,

thereby establishing a robust economy (Boulos et al., 2007). It provides a platform

where users can meet, play games, create their own locations, and trade assets with

one another.

20
Roblox is another widely recognised platform where players create their experiences

within virtual worlds. On this platform, individuals have the opportunity to meet with

others, engage in social interactions, participate in gaming activities, and exchange

their assets. Based on the 2021 statistics, Roblox had monthly users of around 150

million individuals, with 40 million users engaging in the platform on a daily basis

(Lee, 2021).

On the other hand, the typical Web 3.0 metaverses that allow ownership are

Decentraland, The Sandbox, and Voxels. Each of them offers unique experiences with

the shared aim of creating a virtual world that has decentralised, user-created content

and various engaging activities to immerse in. Decentraland is a metaverse that

operates on the Ethereum blockchain and enables users to experience the world and

monetize economic assets (Gadekallu et al., 2022). On the platform, users can see the

upcoming events or attend the current events, ranging from art exhibitions to music to

fashion events (Figure 2.6). Decentraland presents a virtual world that is partitioned

into parcels. Users can trade these parcels as NFTs, and by purchasing a parcel, they

can customise their own experiences. Additionally, when a player visits a parcel, they

may observe both the neighbouring parcel and the activity taking place there. Users

must link their Ethereum digital wallets to trade NFTs, as the platform operates on the

Ethereum blockchain (Guidi & Michienzi, 2022).

Figure 2.6: Decentraland (Source: [Link]

21
The Sandbox is another example of a user-generated and Ethereum blockchain-based

(using SAND coin for monetized activities) metaverse platform (Gadekallu et al.,

2022). Basically, this platform allows players to design digital assets as NFTs and

upload them to the marketplace or integrate them into the games (Figure 2.7). Similar

to Decentraland, individuals can trade lands as NFTs and create their own experiences

upon purchase (Figure 2.8). It was launched in 2021 and attracts almost 30,000

monthly active users now (Weinberger & Gross, 2023). The unique feature that

distinguishes The Sandbox from other metaverse platforms is the play to earn (P2E)

specialty, which allows users to earn SAND coins by completing the game's quests.

Also, it has a voxelated style in terms of graphics. It cannot be reached via the web but

through The Sandbox application.

Figure 2.7: The Sandbox Marketplace (Source: [Link]

Figure 2.8: The Sandbox Map (Source: [Link] )

22
Voxels, formerly known as Cryptovoxels, is another metaverse where parcels can be

traded on the Ethereum blockchain, while assets of avatars are in the Polygon

blockchain as NFTs. In 2022, it is reported that there are 7355 land parcels on the

Ethereum blockchain (Dappradar, 2023) (Figure 2.9; Figure 2.10). Voxels bears a

similarity to Decentraland in that it allows users to interact with nearby parcels. On the

platform, avatars can also interact via messages. This metaverse’s focus is more on

socialising activities with various events and exhibitions.

Figure 2.9: Map of Voxels (Source: [Link]

Figure 2.10: Voxels Metaverse (Source: [Link]

Spatial io is another metaverse platform, where users can attend to events and play

games. It is a Unity-powered platform that enables users to construct their environment

23
or game inside the platform. It provides pre-designed environment templates and

empty places to upload new models (Figure 2.11). The platform is accessible through

web browsers, mobile devices, and VR glasses. The platform offers games, art

galleries, and architectural experiences created by brands or users for visitors to

explore (Figure 2.12).

Figure 2.11: Templates in Spatial io (Source: [Link]

Figure 2.12: Boss Immersive Showroom’s space on Spatial io (Source:

[Link]

24
 CHAPTER 3

EXHIBITION SPACES AND SPATIAL EXPERIENCE

Exhibitions and museums are the areas where artistic expressions are encountered by

audiences. These spaces enable audiences to acquire knowledge and experience about

various fields such as art, history, and science. The exhibited materials range from

artworks to multimedia installations that offer unique experiences. Beside the

exhibited materials, the architectural design of these spaces is another factor that

impacts the experience inside of these spaces (Chung et al., 2024). As Schorch (2014)

stated, the visitor experience has a relationship with the physical context of the space,

the design, the content, and the narrative.

An exhibition is defined as an organised presentation of selected items in a designated

place, such as a museum or a gallery (Tzortzki, 2016). Inside museums, exhibitions

play a crucial role in providing information in a narrative context that can be permanent

or temporarily allocated in a museum space. The word "museum" comes from the

Greek word "mouseion," which originally refers to a temple dedicated to the Muses,

the goddesses of art and science (Tzortzki, 2016). Over time, the concept expanded to

include institutions that store collections used for recreational and educational

purposes. During the Renaissance, there was a developing interest in antiques

(Macgreggor, 2007), and collectors exhibited their collections in their private

25
residences to invitees, scholars, and experts. Among the other Renaissance palaces that

are used to display the collections, Palazzo Medici in Florence (around 1440) was

defined as the first museum in Europe (Greenhill, 1992). In the late 17th century, the

museums' architectural design mirrored the Neo-classical and Renaissance styles of

the palaces (Manssour & Morsi, 2018). After the World Wars, the approach to

museums changed. In the 20th century, the rise of architectural pioneers and schools

implemented a new vision of architecture, which affected the design of museums

(Greenhill, 1992).

In terms of architectural style, museums depart from conventional columnar structures

and layouts (Figure 3.1) and reinterpret them by developing a new approach, such as

Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum (Figure 3.2) (Tzortzki, 2016). As time

progresses, technological breakthroughs continue to impact museums. Museums are

technology intertwined, as seen by digital interactions in physical places, creating

"wall-less" museums with virtual spaces (Schewibenz, 2004).

Figure 3.1: Palazzo Medici's Courtyard (Source:

[Link]

26
 Figure 3.2: Guggenheim Museum's Atrium (Source: [Link]

Furthermore, even though the content, the way of displaying the materials, and the

architecture of the exhibition spaces in the museums have all undergone changes, the

primary goal of facilitating social interaction remains. Flame (2013) asserts that

museums do not prioritize any particular belief; instead, they present various aspects

of a concept, fostering a multifaceted environment where individuals can interact with

those who are different from them. Museums offer a space for people to express

themselves and broaden their perspectives with their participation (Wollentz &

Kuhlefelt, 2021). Additionally, museums aid in alleviating the feelings of loneliness

and disconnection from society by engaging in social activities (Christidou & Hansen

2015).

The International Council of Museums (n.d.) (ICOM) defines a museum as follows:

“A museum is a not-for-profit, permanent institution in the service of society that

researches, collects, conserves, interprets, and exhibits tangible and intangible

heritage. Open to the public, accessible, and inclusive, museums foster diversity and

sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally and with the

participation of communities, offering varied experiences for education, enjoyment,

reflection and knowledge sharing.”

27
 Architecture of Exhibitions

The design of conventional museums follows the architectural style of Grace-Roman

structures (Johnson, 2019), characterized by classical columns, pediments, stairs at the

entrances, and giant iron gates that may overwhelm visitors (Flame, 2013) (Figure 3.3).

This conventional approach to museum architecture, which resembles a "temple,"

reveals an authoritarian protection over the spaces that guard intellectualism and

knowledge, characterised by cordoned routes, glass cases, security guards, and "do not

touch" labels (Johnson, 2019). Tzortzki (2016) asserts that the current state of museum

architecture resembles a sculpture. For instance, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, with

its organic form, is referred to as “plastic architecture” by Naredi-Rainer & Hilger

(2004), which breaks conventional approaches aesthetically, and its plan does not

evolve the sequence of rooms nor a conventional square plan (Figure 3.4; Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.3: British Museum (Source: [Link]

28
 Figure 3.4: Guggenheim Bilboa (Source: [Link]

Figure 3.5: Guggenheim Bilbao Plan (Source: [Link]

by-frank-gehry-a-symphony-of-shapes/)

Artefacts and architectural elements influence the spatial experience in exhibition

spaces. As Tröndle and Tschacher (2012) state, artworks create their own space that

affects the visitor’s perception and spatial experience. Artworks become an integrated

element of architecture and cannot be isolated (Tzortzi, 2016). Museum displays and

exhibition spaces allocate sculptures on pediments and paintings in a content and

sequence that aligns with the curatorial message of the exhibition (Tröndle et al.,

2014).

29
Spatial arrangement with the architectural elements in the exhibitions plays a crucial

role in shaping both the experience and effectively showcasing the artworks. As Self

(2014) states, architectural elements and the layout of the space guide visitors to have

an experience in a narrated atmosphere that may affect their appreciation for art and

history. The architecture in museums and exhibition spaces provides new definitions

for the narratives within them, thereby nourishing them. (Burke et al., 2020)

The circulation path establishes a thematic relation between the content of the spatial

arrangement (Psarra, 2005). In the exhibition spaces, the circulation path is shaped by

the architecture and layout of the spaces. The organisation pattern that links the spaces

can be linear, radial, network, or other forms, assisting visitors’s orientation and

movement in the museums, and these paths can operate as an integrated element to the

spaces or additional circulation corridors (Hsu, 2004). According to Hsu (2004), the

relation between the circulation paths and spaces can be in three ways: the circulation

paths, or corridors, can be open to the gallery spaces, pass through the space, or

terminate the space and operate as a way to the final destination. Black (2005) and

Tzortzki (2016) define exhibition layouts in two forms: the first is sequential

exhibitions that allow visitors to experience exhibitions in an order, and the second is

organised as discovery lines that enable them to move independently without any

specific path and many entry points. Additionally, Zang and Zhou (1998) stated that

there are four types of spatial regulations in exhibitions (Figure 3.6). The rooms can

be allocated as in the tandem type, which allows visitors to move in a specific order,

while the radial type provides flexibility. However, these flexible spatial organisations

may also cause overlapping visitor routes and noise (Zang and Zhou, 1998). In addition

to spatial layout, wayfinding aids, signs, and maps are the design elements that impact

the visitor’s orientation, their position, and their spatial awareness (Chiu, et al., 2000).

30
Also, Tzortzki (2016) refers to the Lynchean urban concept of districts, edges, and

landmarks to define the impact of architectural elements in a museum building. He

mentions that districts resemble each section or room in the building that can be

noticed by the visitor during their visit. Also, edges are the boundaries that distinguish

each area from others, and landmarks are the visual elements that assist visitors in

orienting themselves (Tzortzki, 2016). Although the architecture dictates the artworks

inside of the constructed space, each viewer has their unique relationship with artworks

in each time (Repina & Sopin, 2023).

Figure 3.6: Types of spatial combination (Source: Zang and Zhou, 1998)

Furthermore, architectural design influences the overall spatial experience within these

areas while also mirroring the intended functions of those areas (Self, 2014). As stated

by Bayer (1961), architectural elements, which are fundamental components that shape

and define space, influence visitors' perceptions of space through their

interactions. Hence, the aesthetic qualities and diverse approaches to architectural

arrangement and flow influence the experiences of visitors.

31
 The Impact of Technology

The integration of technology facilitated the expansion of museums and exhibition

spaces by transforming their role from solely conserving to also providing

entertainment (Vom Lehn & Heath, 2005). The limitations of conventional displays

are transformed into interactive experiences with the implementation of multimedia,

touchscreens, AR, VR simulations, and also NFTs. As a result of the technological

development, exhibitions and museums evolve from a static context to a participatory

environment. Additionally, technology allows individuals to experience artistic

expressions and artefacts without the constraints of geographical locations.

Fernström & Bannon (1997) assert that transforming the artefacts from still images to

video and sound creates a more engaging experience, as opposed to showcasing them

within identical "black boxes" for a more captivating encounter. It enables a shift from

a passive observation to interactive engaging experiences. According to Paul (2008),

the progress of technology has led to a redefinition of the traditional roles of artists,

curators, and the presentation of artworks, creating a new world for people to

experience.

NFTs in the Art Industry

NFT is a technological advancement that enhance the exhibition experience/ NFT

enables artists to tokenize their work by providing evidence of ownership and validity.

Therefore, it is a pivotal development in the creative sector. It establishes a new

platform for artists to interact directly with viewers, bypassing traditional

intermediaries. It enriches the collector's collections by including a diverse range of

digital assets that combine the physical and digital art markets.

32
During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals adapted to virtual environments due to

global lockdowns. Their educational, professional, social, and leisure activities

(concerts, exhibitions, etc.) shifted to virtual platforms. Since all the museums and art

galleries were closed, digital platforms were used to exhibit the artworks. For instance,

the Google Arts and Culture Platform enabled virtual 360-degree tours by applying

Google’s Street View Technology (Burke et al., 2020). In the meantime, metaverse

platforms offered an alternative space to experience art galleries and museums within

a 3D virtual world. They expanded the method of exhibiting by engaging users and

displaying NFT collections. Diverse metaverses, like Decentraland and Voxels

(formerly known as Cryptovoxels), offer an interface for exhibitions, but they rely on

land ownership. In contrast, metaverses like Spatial and Oncyber provide a more

affordable option because they allow users to create and share exhibition spaces using

templates without requiring land ownership (We Are Museums, 2023). These

metaverse platforms assist in having an immersive engagement with the environment

and NFTs, which in turn redefines the value of artworks. (Wang et al., 2021). In other

words, people interact in virtual spaces by accepting the value of virtual assets, and

thanks to NFT collectibles, users can trade and transfer these virtual goods (Cheng et

al., 2022). Furthermore, the websites of these marketplaces showcase NFTs for visitors

to view. On the selected marketplace, the digital asset owner initiates the NFT minting

process (Guljajeve & Sola, 2023). Various markets showcase NFTs ranging from art

to music and serve as an interface for both their presentation and sale, thus acting as

real-life auction houses. Some of the marketplaces have a curated selection, such as

Art Blocks, fx(hash), and Superrare, while others do not, and their sizes also vary, such

as OpenSea and Objkt (Guljajeve & Sola, 2023).

33
Both the pandemic and the significant sales in the NFT industry contributed to the

exaggerated enthusiasm around NFTs. The sale of Beeple's work "Everydays: The

First 5000 Days" for 69.3 million at Christie's auction boosted their popularity on

Google Trends, marking the first time Christie's accepted Ethereum as a payment

(Kastrenakes, 2021) (Figure 3.7). Following this sale, there was a notable increase in

both demand for NFTs and production of NFTs (Guljajeve & Sola, 2023). There are

other noteworthy NFTs, such as NBA Top Shots by Dapper Labs, Cryptopunks, which

are algorithmically generated 24 x 24 pixelated monkey avatars (Figure 3.8),

Pokemon-inspired NFTs called Axies, and Bored Apes, which serve as profile pictures

(Figure 3.9) (Ball, 2022).

Figure 3.7: Everydays: The First 5000 Days by Mike Winkelmann (Source: The New York Times,
2021)

Figure 3.8: One of the Cryptopunks NFT (Source: [Link]

34
 Figure 3.9: Bored Ape Yach Club NFT (Source: [Link]

The increase in the popularity of NFTs is created an opportunity for artists who have

previously struggled to gain recognition. Simultaneously, NFT technology provides an

opportunity for well-known artists in the art realm to expand their popularity through

digital formats as well. Marina Abramovic, for example, sold her performance video

as NFT, which enables collectors to acquire specific frames of her performance

(Guljajeve & Sola, 2023). Refik Anadol had a dynamic video mapping on Gauidi’s

Casa Battlo’s facade that was sold as a video NFT format at Christie’s New York.

(Guljajeve & Sola, 2023).

Impact of Technology in Physical Settings

The technology implementation in the museum and exhibition spaces can be defined

as adding a digital layer over the physical environment and enhancing the visitor's

experience with both tangible and digital components. As Devine & Tarr (2019) state,

the digital layer in museums is dispersed seamlessly throughout the whole museum

experience. All these digital layers work with the physical context coherently, tell a

story, and connect themes, which contribute to the visitor’s experience (Devine & Tarr,

2019).

This integration of the digital layer into the physical setting affects the visitor’s

interactions and experiences (Mason, 2020). For instance, the Native American Voices

35
exhibition in the Penn Museum integrates screens and projections into the physical

setting in order to present information about objects. On those screens, visitors acquire

the object type, date, and location and observe it from all directions by rotating the 3D

model on the screen. Also, tall screens are allocated in the exhibitions to display

interviews with the Native Americans about their problems (Mason, 2020). The

significance of such implementations lies in their ability to reinterpret conventional

labels and offer a wide range of opportunities across multiple media types. (Vom Lehn

& Heath, 2005) (Figure 3.10).

Figure 3.10: Penn Museum (Source: Baugh, 2020)

As Li & Huang (2023) state that immersive experiences centralize the whole

experience itself rather than each object, by creating an illusion of being inside of a

virtual world. The immersive art exhibitions enable visitors to engage with the

experience and construct a connection between the artwork and the ideas behind it (Li

& Huang, 2023). The Story of the Forest (2017) exhibition at the National Museum of

Singapore serves as an example of an immersive exhibition (Figure 3.11). The

collection features flora and fauna native to the region, by the historical drawings of

William Farquhar (teamLab, 2023). The exhibition is interactive, meaning that as

visitors move around, the forest reacts by displaying animated creatures.

36
 Figure 3.11: The Story of Forest (Source: teamLab, 2023)

The digital layer in a physical setting can be experienced via augmented reality. AR

applications for smartphones work with a Global Positioning System (GPS) that

detects the location and orientation of the users with a compass and overlays new

information to the existing physical setting (Ding, 2017). Visitors can get further

information about artwork engagingly and observe details of the display. According to

Ding (2017), augmented reality (AR) enhances the understanding of artwork by

providing an additional layer of information and allowing users to absorb more

detailed information instead of only relying on labels. For instance, Artlens 2.0 by the

Cleveland Museum of Art is an AR app that utilises image recognition software for

two-dimensional pieces to provide a deeper understanding of the artworks to visitors

(Ding, 2017; Figure 3.12). Another example that enhances the visitor’s experience is

Revivre by the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, which displays various animals

and plants that are extinct. It is equipped with AR glasses that display 3D models of

animals while a narrator tells the story of the animals and their relation to humankind

(Muséum national d'Histoire Naturelle, 2023; Figure 3.13).

37
 Figure 3.12: Artlens 2.0 (Source: [Link]

Figure 3.13: AR experience by Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (Source:

[Link]

Furthermore, instead of superimposing the digital layer onto the physical environment,

the digital realm can function as a separate reality through the use of VR technology.

VR creates a more immersed experience that makes paintings more alive while

enhancing the experience and, as a result, increasing appreciation of the artwork

(Shehade & Stylianou-Lambert, 2020). As Shehade and Stylianou-Lambert (2020)

mention, VR provides a strong narrative where visitors are immersed and allows them

to time-travel in history. The Louvre Museum's Mona Lisa: Beyond the Glass is one

example of VR technology in museum experiences. It is a VR experience into Mona

Lisa's painting that allows visitors to learn about the painter's techniques and the sitter's

identity (Louvre Museum, 2021), (Figure 3.14). The experience, which was presented

in 2019 to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Leonardo da Vinci’s death, revealed

the latest scientific research about artistic breakthroughs via VR. This experience can

38
be accessed by downloading the app, which enables users to engage with the art even

when they are physically.

Figure 3.14: Musee de Louvre (Source: [Link]

lisa-beyond-the-glass-the-louvre-s-first-virtual-reality-experience)

With the NFT technology, the digital and physical layers are superimposed through

displaying NFTs on the screen in a physical realm. There are NFT art galleries that

showcase NFTs on the screens positioned around the room, such as imnotart Chicago

NFT Gallery (We Are Museums, 2023) (Figure 3.15). The world's first NFT Biennial

took place in nine different countries over a two-month period in 2023, featuring

special curation of NFTs at each location (We Are Museums, 2023).During the

biennial, the NFTs can be experienced in three different settings: screens, metaverse

galleries with VR, and the physical realm with AR (Heller, 2023), which is further

example that reveals the impact of technology in the art industry.

Figure 3.15: imnotArt NFT Gallery in Chicago (Source: [Link] /chicagos-first-

[Link] )

39
 Artworks in Virtual Spaces

There are various virtual exhibitions in cyberspaces, including a virtual tour of the area

and a multimedia archive (Shioede & Kanoshima, 1999). These virtual exhibitions

may be two-dimensional representations created with a set of 2D images or 3D virtual

environments that enable exploration with an avatar. They create an environment that

allows visitors to experience artefacts without any physical or time limitations (Marty,

2011), enables spontaneous conversations with other visitors (Bandelli, 1999),

facilitates updating the collection (Kim, 2018), and provides further information about

the artworks (Pivec & Kronberger, 2016).

One of the best-known examples of digital platforms to experience artefacts is Google

Art & Culture (GAC). Within the platform, users can see various museums’

collections, acquire information about artistic movements through stories, and play

games about artworks. As Vosinakis & Tsakonas (2016) state, GAC replicates the

experience of visiting a museum. It is a recent platform that is already featuring a large

number of well-known museum collections (Diziekan & Proctor, 2011). By including

navigation mechanisms, visitors can explore the captured spots and have a virtual tour

of the exhibition space (Vosinakis & Tsakonas, 2016). It also allows users to zoom in

and out of artefacts, move around them, and observe cracks or spots that the human

eye would miss, creating a “hyperreal” experience (Davis, 2011). In general, these

reinterpretations of the experience contribute to the creation of more dynamic spaces

as opposed to static environments, and the integration of gamified experiences onto

platforms facilitates an enjoyable and efficient art visitation (Çetin & Erbay, 2021).

In addition to GAC, some of the museums also develop digital platforms that allow

them to observe their collections. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam established its own

40
application, which is called Rijksstudio. It provides high-resolution images of the

artworks and a detailed story behind them. Additionally, users can create new products

using images, such as personal sets, and distribute digital artworks (Pivec &

Kronberger, 2016).

According to Shioede & Kanoshima (1999), a virtual museum is an electronic

reproduction of an art gallery with a collection of artefacts with all relevant information

and a space for visitors to interact. They also add that these kinds of museums have

both advantages and disadvantages when they are compared with conventional

museums. Virtual museums eliminate the physical barrier between visitors and the

collection, making it accessible online. This allows visitors to examine the objects

based on their interests, and the artefacts may include texts, sounds, and movies

(Shioede & Kanoshima, 1999). However, virtual museums may lack an immersive art

experience if the design and curation are not visually pleasing and replicate reality,

resulting in a monotonous encounter (Shioede & Kanoshima, 1999).

The advent of metaverse platforms enabled the creation of museum and exhibition

spaces within these platforms. For instance, Spatial io, Decentraland, Voxels, and The

Sandbox are more instances of metaverses that exhibits artworks. In these metaverses,

the approach towards design may vary. While in the physical world, special

architectural elements assist in forming the identity and establishing the functionality

of museums and exhibitions (Scarpa, 2006), virtual settings prioritize interactivity and

content richness to mirror the digital identity of museums and exhibitions (Pivec,

Kronberger, 2016). Despite these differences; virtual spaces may also employ the

architectural elements of physical realms to create a cohesive experience.

41
Even though architectural elements define the space and spatial experience within

virtual spaces (Chung et al., 2022), they may also lead to a variety in the design

approaches within virtual exhibition spaces. Chung et al. (2022) categorise these two

different approaches as reality-based and virtuality-based. A reality-based

environment is one that specifically represents the real world without any aspects of

imagination (Chung et al., 2022). The virtuality-based environment definition,

Bukatman’s (1992) statement, which describes it as an imagined area that abstracts or

contradicts ordinary elements, is cited in Chung et al. (2022) (Figure 3.16). Without a

binary distinction between these two types of spaces, the virtual world can be

categorised as either a less familiar reality-based place or a less abstract virtuality-

based space (Figure 3.17; Chung et al., 2022).

Figure 3.16: Virtuality-based and Reality-based environments (Source: Chung et al., 2022)

Figure 3.17: Spectrum of VB and RB environments (Source: Chung, et al., 2022)

42
For instance, Decentraland constructs the digital twin of Sotheby's Auction House in

London that can be defined as a reality-based environment (Figure 3.18; Figure 3.19).

The model of the auction house reflects the original space, which includes the facade,

indoor circulation, and even the commissioner. Sotheby’s hosts various NFT art sales

and utilises this space to showcase that curation (NFT Plazas, 2024). In contrast to this

example, World of Colours in Spatial io is closer to virtuality-based on the spectrum

(Figure 3.20)

Figure 3.18: Sotheby's in Decentraland (Source:

[Link]

Figure 3.19: Sotheby's in London (Source: [Link]

Figure 3.20: World of Colours in Spatial io (Source: [Link]

642029f36127ed8eaffa03ad?share=99566991124710089 )

43
 Spatial Experience in Virtual Environments

Developing technology creates virtual environments that offer a unique spatial

experience, similar to physical reality. Several factors that affect the user's spatial

experience have an impact on their engagement in all of virtual environments,

including virtual exhibition spaces. Therefore, virtual environments also create a sense

of presence (Takato et al., 2008) as physical realm do. This sense of presence is defined

as the state of cutting ties with the media and forgetting that this experience is within

the cyber world (Hartmann et al., 2015; Kljajevic, 2021). Feeling present is an

important factor affecting immersion and interaction in the virtual environment, and it

may vary according to people's prior experiences, abilities, and the characteristics of

the virtual environment (Azarby & Rice, 2022). According to Laarni (2003), physical

presence in virtual realms is linked with three elements: the realism of the virtual

environment, the ability to navigate in the virtual environment, and immersion in the

virtual environment rather than the physical environment (Takatalo et al., 2008). The

person’s physical space, which have an impact on their level of presence, can either

enhance or diminish their presence in the virtual environment (Slater et al., 1994).

One of the factors that impacts the sense of presence is the projection of users as

avatars in the virtual environment. Virtual realities support user bilocation and create

a sense of presence through avatars in both the physical realm and virtual space

(Kljajevic, 2021). Havranek et al. (2012) stated that the first-person perspective creates

a stronger sense of presence in digital environments than the third-person perspective.

According to Kljajevic (2021), the first-person view allows visitors to perceive their

avatars as virtual bodies. As Slater (2009) notes, self-positioning in a virtual

44
environment creates an illusion of place through avatars, which is an important

component of feeling present in a computer-generated environment (Kljajevic, 2021).

Interaction in a virtual environment is significant aspect affecting the spatial

experience and the sense of presence (Takatalo et al., 2008). According to Azarby &

Rice (2022), interaction is a factor that facilitates understanding the environment by

allowing users to have an active experience through manipulation. It also has a

relationship with navigation, which allows users to change their perspective while

moving inside the environment (Azarby & Rice, 2022). According to Meijer et al.

(2019) navigation utilizes visual realism to help visitors identify landmarks and

navigators to provide a semantic value in virtual environments.

Feeling immersed in the virtual environment is crucial for the spatial experience.

According to Azarby & Rice (2022), immersion is associated with the perception that

a person experiences and interacts with. The feeling of immersion is defined as feeling

physically present in a non-physical environment (Carlos et al., 2022). There are

different technologies that offer users different levels of immersion. This can range

from highly immersive systems like virtual reality (VR) headsets to less immersive

presentations on computer screens, which are often called "low-immersion desktop

environments" (Pallavicini et al., 2021; Carlos et al., 2022). These desktop-based

systems provide a lower sense of presence compared to immersive virtual reality

(George et al., 2017). Desktop computers provide users with a 360-degree view of the

complete environment. Various navigation interfaces, such as abstract navigation,

keyboard, and mouse, accomplish this (Zhao et al., 2020). Users can observe the virtual

environment from various perspectives by using the mouse to pan, rather than relying

on head movements and rotations as performed with VR headsets (ibid.). In these

45
environments, movements by pressing keys and mouse lack appropriate bodily

engagement that may not be associated with physical space movements (Kljajevic,

2021).

Additionally, avatars in virtual worlds enable the formation of digital representations

of real-life individuals. The avatar helps the user comprehend the size of the place

and proxy (Waltemate et al., 2018). Furthermore, they enhance our sense of presence

and immersion within the virtual realm by serving as direct extensions of our

physical body image (ibid.).

The level of detail in virtual environments is another component that affects people's

spatial perception (Azarby & Rice, 2022). Spatial perception helps people form a

mental image of the environment (ibid.). The detailing of the wall displays and

illumination, in addition to the rendering quality of the spaces, influence individuals'

judgements regarding the environment and their perceptions of distance (Paes et al.,

2017). Stanney et al. (1998) state that the effectiveness of the virtual environment as a

spatial experience is dependent upon a comparison of real and virtual environments or

various virtual environments.

46
 CHAPTER 4

THE STUDY OF TWO METAVERSE EXHIBITIONS

This study locates itself at the intersection of art, architecture, and the metaverse by

analysing the effects of changes in the exhibition space environment’s design on the

users’ spatial experience. Two virtual spaces within metaverses that differ in terms of

their design approaches are selected. The first one incorporates more realistic approach

in the selection of architectural elements, creating a reality-based metaverse exhibition

space. The latter implements freer forms, which can be defined as a virtuality-based

metaverse exhibition space. This study utilises a mixed-methods approach involving a

5-point Likert scale combined questionnaire and open-ended questions to gather

quantitative and qualitative data, ensuring a comprehensive exploration of both

environments in terms of spatial experience.

The Selection of Exhibition Environments within Metaverses

This study aims to investigate changes in spatial experience in relation to exhibition

settings with diverse visual characteristics within the metaverse. The selection process

for these exhibition spaces within metaverses involves highlighting the distinctive

architectural features of numerous potential spaces. As discussed in Chapter 2, there

are various exhibition spaces within metaverses. With the increasing popularity of

47
metaverses and the developing technology, most of the metaverse platforms already

introduce exhibition spaces. To simplify the selection process, a filter for these spaces

is utilised, and only the exhibition spaces that display NFTs are taken into account.

As highlighted in Chapter 2, NFT is an important development in the concept of

metaverses, not only for the technical aspect but also for the digital art sector. NFTs

can be exhibited in different ways both in the tangible realm and in the virtual world,

as stated in Chapter 3. This thesis specifically focuses on exhibitions that display NFTs

on metaverse platforms and categorises these virtual exhibition spaces as reality-based

and virtuality-based, following the framework applied by Chung et al. (2024).

According to Chung et al. (2024), RB environments keep to the regulations of the

physical world and display architectural characteristics, whereas VB designs utilise

the infinite possibilities of the virtual world to create an imaginary setting. To enable

the representation of these diverse design approaches, a selection within NFT galleries

in metaverses is performed. This selection includes exhibitions of NFT marketplaces

on metaverse platforms, metaverse versions of galleries that are popular in the physical

world, such as Serpentine Gallery, galleries of the NFT Biennial, and other popular

galleries.

The exhibition spaces within metaverses are analysed using a systematic observation

method with the criteria for reality-based and virtuality-based environments as

specified by Chung et al. (2024). The observation method examines structural

elements, architectural components (windows, doors, staircases, ramps, and

ventilation systems), interior furnishings, as well as the exhibition materials, including

wayfinding aids, nametags, and the modes of display of the artworks (Table 4.1). Then,

the frequent features are grouped under two categories: features that can be depicted

48
in the physical realm, RB features, and the ones that can be implemented in metaverses,

VB features, as in the following:

 Reality-based features: enclosed spaces, openings, realistic textures, structural

elements, interior furniture, plan of the museum at the entrance, guidebook,

room labels, nametags of the artworks, stanchion ropes, lighting fixtures,

vertical circulation with stairs, artworks on the walls, artworks with frames,

ramps with railings.

 Virtuality-based features: portals, ramps without railings, interaction with

artworks by clicking, flying 3D objects; open spaces, flying planes, moving 3D

objects, freestanding artworks, artworks without frames.

The features and the metaverses are then combined on a matrix system to determine

the most representative environments (Table 4.2). The matrix indicated the

environment with the most RB features, such as Sotheby’s Gallery on the Decentraland

platform. However, due to the high CPU requirement of the Decentraland platform, it

is preferred Verses Gallery on the Spatial IO platform to avoid potential problems

during the experiment (Figure 4.1). For the VB environment, the NFT Biennial

Ouroboros Pavillion is selected based on the matrix (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.1: Verses Gallery Figure 4.2: NFT Biennial Ouroboros Pavilion

49
Table 4.1: The list of selected exhibition spaces within metaverses and their features

Name of The
Photo Platfrom Features
Space
Enclosed building, architectural
elements (windows, appliances,
Serpentine fire alarm, ventilation, exit sign),
Fortnite
Gallery structural elements, realistic
textures, artworks on the wall,
freestanding 3D object

Free plan of artworks,

architectural elements (windows,
railings), structural elements,
Museum of
Somnium Space artworks on the walls,
Crypto Art
freestanding artworks , ramps for
vertical circulation, flying sphere
in the middle

Space defined with divided walls,

textures. nametags, artworks on
Museum of
Voxels the wall, architectural elements
Crypto Art
(lighting appliances) , stairs for
vertical circulation

structural elements, architectural

elements (rails, ramps), moving
Momus
Decentraland platform for vertical circulation,
Collection
realistic textures, freestanding
artworks

Enclosed building, architectural

elements (window, door,
The Vordun
Second Life appliances), interior furnitures ,
Museum
artworks on the walls, nametags,
gift shop, stanchion ropes

Enclosed building, architectural

elements ( lighting fixtures,
The Muzee The Muzee doors, stairs) , interior furnitures,
Dezantral Dezantral wayfinding aids (arrows, a map to
show the areas), artworks with
frames, nametags

50
 Enclosed building, digital twin,
architectural elements (doors,
windows, stairs, escalator),
Sotheby's Decentraland
artworks on the wall, artworks
with frames, roomtags, stanchion
ropes

Freestanding roof structure,

Neustras Art
Spatial io nametags, artworks on walls,
Gallery
freestanding artworks, portals

Flying platforms, interior

hi CeeCee AI
Spatial io furnitures, portals, ramps,
gallery
artworks with frames

Enclosed building, architectural

Makersplace elements (door, window, lighting
Decentraland
Gallery fixtures), interior furnitures,
artworks with frame on the walls

Realistic textures, architectural

elements (stairs, ramps, windows,
Rarible Gallery Decentraland
doors) interior furnitures,
artworks on the walls with frames

Makersplace Artworks on the walls, further

Voxels
Gallery information by clicking

Open space, realistic textures,

Primakolor
Voxels interior furnitures, freestanding
Gallery
3D Objects

Enclosed building, digital twin,

architectural elements (doors,
windows, stairs) interior
imnotArt Voxels furnitures, artworks with frames
on the walls, nametags of the
marketplaces, more information
by clicking

51
 Open area, artworks on the wall,
knownorigin Voxels interior furnitures, more
information by clicking

Moving platforms for vertical

Sciart Lab circulation, freestanding
Decentraland
District artworks, structural elements,
interaction by clicking

Structural elements, architectural

elements (ramps without railings
Tower Art
Spatial io for vertical circulation), interior
Gallery
furnitures, portals, freestanding
artworks

architectural elements (stairs for

vertical circulation) , portals,
Chill Henge Spatial io
interior furnitures, freestanding
artwork with frames, nametags

Enclosed building, architectural

elements (windows, doors,
escalator) , frestanding artworks
Metaqueen's
Spatial io in frames, 3D objects (elephant ,
Lobby
tree, flying particules), nametags,
more information by clicking ,
interior furnitures

Enclosed building, a virtual

gallery of a gallery in sweeden,
architectural element (windows,
Galleria granen Spatial io
doors, stairs), portals artworks
with frames on the walls , interior
furnitures

Cubes for artwork exbihition

areas, ramps for vertical
circulation and also as a design
Rubiks Cube Spatial io
itself,moving platfrom, flying
objects, artworks without frames,
freestanding artworks with frames

52
 Open space, vertical circulation
with freefall, architectural
elements (stairs, lighting fixtures)
Pink Gallery Spatial io
vertical circulation with stairs,
realistic textures, structural
frames

Open space, a vertical circulation

with platforms, realistic textures,
Asleep Awake structural frames , architectural
Spatial io
Mode Gallery X2 elements (windows, doors ),
interior furnitures,more
information by clicking

Open space, architectural

elements (stairs, lighting
Asleep Awake
Spatial io fixtures), realistic textures,
Mode Gallery X3
structural frames, going a space
through portals

Open space, flying 3D elements,

more information by clicking,
World of colors Spatial io
going another space through
portals

Open space defined with

The Happy artworks, more information by
Spatial io
Gallery clicking, going another space
through portals

Enclosed building, architectural

elements (window, door, lighting
Parallel fixtures), more information by
Spatial io
Exhibition clicking, going another space
through portals, artworks on the
walls, interior furnitures

Enclosed Building, architectural

elements (stairs, lighting fixtures
Async Gallery Voxels
), stanchion ropes, more
information by clicking

53
 Enclosed Building, architectural
elements (windows), artworks on
Verses Gallery Spatial io walls, roomtags, nametags,
artworks within frames, textures,
interior furnitures

walls to define the boundary,

architectural elements (windows,
ACCA Oncyber io
stairs), wayfinding aids,
wayfinding map, name tags

Enclosed Building ,architectural

NFT Collection elements(window, door),
The Sandbox
Museum artworks on the walls, interaction
by clicking, interior furnitures

open space, going another space

NFT Biennial through portals, exhibiting
Sublime Shift Spatial io artworks through portals,
Pavilion nametags, interaction by clicking,
freestanding artworks

open space, going another space

NFT Biennial
through portals, nametags,
Chrysalis Spatial io
roomtags wayfinding aids,
Pavilion
interaction by clicking

open spaces, freestanding

NFT Biennial
artworks, nametags, interaction
Ouroborus Spatial io
by clicking, going another space
Pavilion
through portals

54
Table 4.2: A Matrix System for the RB and VB Features of Exhibition Spaces within Metaverses

55
 Sample Group

Before starting the experiment, the necessary permissions are acquired from the

Bilkent University Ethics Committee in order to be able to handle the experiment with

Bilkent University students. Each student signed a consent form containing

information about the study, its aim, procedure, and topics related to confidentiality

before the experiment began. The students participated in the experiment voluntarily

and were divided into two different groups randomly.

The study's participants are Bilkent University Department of Architecture second,

third, and fourth graders and graduate students. The purpose of this focal group is to

gain insights into the spatial experience of individuals with architectural design and art

backgrounds. The main experiment was conducted with 118 students in total (34 males

and 84 females) ages 18–27. The participants were randomly assigned to groups

experiencing either one of the exhibition spaces, and each group included 59

participants.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire that analyses users’ spatial experience in the metaverse exhibition

spaces within metaverses consists of three parts in general terms. The first part consists

of demographic questions. In the second part, there are questions about their spatial

experience in the metaverse exhibition spaces. The last part poses three open-ended

questions to elicit individuals' perspectives on the experience.

56
In the demographic section, questions are about participants' gender, age,

technological abilities, familiarity with the metaverse, and virtual exhibition venues.

These questions aim to determine their demographic profile and understand their

familiarity with virtual exhibition spaces and metaverses.

The second part of the questionnaire is about the spatial experience in the exhibition

space within the metaverse. This part of the questionnaire is formed by combining two

questionnaires: Carbonell-Carrera et al.'s (2021) and Kim, Han, et al.’s (2015). This

combined questionnaire is formed by taking five of the subscales, presence,

engagement, immersion, flow, and judgement, from Carbonell-Carrera et al.'s (2021)

research and adding the wayfinding subscale from Kim et al.’s (2015) research.

Carbonell-Carrera et al.'s (2021) study incorporated nine subscales, including

presence, engagement, immersion, flow, emotion, usability, technology adoption,

judgement, and experience consequence. Carbonell-Carrera et al.'s (2021) assessment

of participants' perceptions of interactive 3D geo-visualisation environments using the

Questionnaire on User Experience in Immersive Virtual Environments on desktops. In

this study, 25 architecture students were engaged in landscape design tasks within an

interactive 3D geo-visualisation environment displayed on a low-immersive desktop

screen. The researchers assessed participants' perceptions of this 3D environment

using the Questionnaire on User Experience in Immersive Virtual Environments across

various aspects, including presence, engagement, immersion, flow, usability, emotion,

judgement, experience consequence, and technology adoption. Participants are asked

to do various tasks by using their personal computers, like seeing selected places,

manipulating the design, and carving the landscape. To adopt the questionnaire for this

thesis, the devices are revised and questions about further technical means are

57
excluded, as the media of the two studies are different. Also, questions about the

judgements of other people are removed, and questions related to sound are eliminated

due to the absence of audio.

Wayfinding is added as an additional subscale from Kim et al. (2015). Kim et al.

(2015) developed a wayfinding questionnaire to understand why people become lost

in a large, complex hospital. Kim, Wang, et al.’s study evaluated wayfinding in a

complex environment, a university hospital. The questionnaire comprises 33 items,

focusing on four subcategories: the lobby's environmental image, information factors,

environmental factors, and the relationship between environmental factors and

information factors. While adapting this questionnaire, the questions about wayfinding

aids and vertical circulations are excluded. The remaining questions are converted

from question format to sentence format and are added to the thesis questionnaire.

The final questionnaire, titled 'Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition

Spaces within Metaverses,' includes six subscales with a total of 32 items (Table 4.3).

The open-ended question part is also adapted from Carbonell-Carrera et al.'s (2021).

The open-ended questions are the following:

 “In your opinion, what were the positive effects of your experience?”

 “In your opinion, what were the negative points of your experience?”

 “Do you have any suggestions to improve the virtual exhibition space?”

58
Table 4.3: Items of the Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within Metaverses

Subscale Definition Origin Questionnaire

“The user’s ‘sense of being

Presence there’ in the virtual

environment”

“The energy in action, the

connection between a

Engagement person and its activity The Presence Questionnaire, The

Subscales from Carbonell-Carrera et al.'s (2021) research

consisting of a behavioral, Immersive Tendency Questionnaire (ITQ)

emotional and cognitive form” by Witmer, Singer (1998)

The “illusion” that “the virtual

environment

Immersion technology replaces the user’s

sensory stimuli by

the virtual sensory stimuli”

“A pleasant psychological state

of sense of control, fun and joy”

Flow that the user feels when Flow 4D16 by Heutte (2011)

interacting

with the virtual environment."

“The overall judgment of the

AttractDiff2 questionnaire by Pekrun,
Judgement experience in the
Goetz, et al., (2011)
virtual environment”

"Wayfinding is an exceedingly User experience of

Additional Subscale

complicated cognitive process, environmental/information/linking

Wayfinding
especially in complex environmental factors and information

environments" factors by Kim, Wang, et al. (2015)

59
  Presence, Engagement, Immersion Subscales:

The definition of presence is linked to the sense of “being there” and is a subjective

experience (Witmer et al., 1998). In virtual environments, presence is related to being

in a computer-generated environment rather than physical reality. Therefore, the

presence subscale is crucial to assess in this study. The persuasiveness of these virtual

settings is evaluated according to the user’s feelings of presence and engagement

(Souza et al., 2021).

Presence depends on the environment that supports the feeling of immersion,

involvement, and interaction (Witmer et al., 1998), and engagement is related to the

dynamic relationship between an individual and their activity, including behavioural,

emotional, and cognitive aspects (Tcha-Tokey et al., 2016 as cited Carbonell-Carrera

et al., 2021). According to Tcha-Tokey et al. (2016 as cited Carbonell-Carrera et al.,

2021), immersion creates an illusion by substituting real sensory experiences with

virtual ones. This thesis integrates these three subscales to measure the impact of

environmental style on participants' sense of presence, engagement with the

surroundings, and feelings of immersion.

 Flow Subscale:

The flow subscale is about a sense of control over the experience, as well as

excitement. This factor is evaluated by the Flow4D16 questionnaire, which consists of

16 items and is utilised to detect the user and his or her level of immersion in an activity

constructed by Heutte in 2011 (as cited Carbonell-Carrera et al., 2021). The flow

subscale implementation provides insight into how exhibition space provides a more

exciting and controlled user experience.

60
  Judgement Subscale:

This subscale is about the overall judgement about the experience and was constructed

by Hassenzahl, Burmester, and Koller in 2003 in the AttracDiff 2 questionnaire. The

purpose of this questionnaire is to analyze people's perceptions of websites using

contrasting adjectives. This questionnaire is adapted for this thesis to comprehend

participants' experiences and their judgements about its beauty and originality in the

virtual architectural environment.

 Wayfinding Subscale:

This subscale is added to Carbonell-Carrera et al.'s (2021) user experience

questionnaire to address the changes in exhibition styles and wayfinding. As Passini

(1984) stated, it is a complex problem-solving process that involves making and

implementing decisions. The goal of incorporating this subscale is to determine the

degree to which changing approaches to design in exhibition spaces within metaverses

impact the process of identifying pathways and arriving at the intended destination.

Pilot and Main Study

This thesis comprises a pilot study and the main study. The survey sessions are

conducted during the participants’ architectural design studio hours via Google Forms.

The survey starts with a confirmation of consent form. At the request of the Ethics

Committee, this procedure is handled in hard-copy format.

Pilot Study

The pilot study was conducted with the participation of 12 people. 3 participants were

randomly selected from each grade. The pilot study was concluded in a week with 4

61
different sessions (Table 4.4). Undergraduate students participated in the pilot study

in their studios during the studio course, whereas graduate students were designated a

time slot to join in the pilot study.

The pilot study’s questionnaire included an experience subscale that dealt with the

relationship between interaction devices and the user experience. The pilot study

showed that this subscale was not easily comprehended by the participants. Given that

this study focuses on the spatial experience rather than the user experience, this

subscale was excluded from the main study. Also, the pilot study showed that the

participants had some hesitations about the meaning of some statements in the

questionnaire. For instance; “I was so involved in the virtual environment experience”

was not well understood, so it was replaced with “I was so engaged in the virtual

environment experience” for the main study. The additional clarification is provided

within the judgement subscale, in which all statements were originally written as

referring to a virtual environment. These statements are specifically modified to refer

to an architectural virtual environment to enhance clarity. For example, in the

judgement subscale, the statement "I found this virtual environment ugly (1)/beautiful

(5)." changed to "I found this virtual architectural space ugly (1)/beautiful (5).

Table 4.4: Pilot Study's Sessions

Sessions Grade Gender

1st Session Third grade 3 Female

1 Female
2nd Session Masters
2 Male
1 Female
3rd Session Fourth grade
2 Male
4th Session Second grade 3 Female

62
 Main Study

The main study was conducted in nine sessions (Table 4.5, Figure 4.1). Each student

participated in the study during their studio hours, using their own laptops and

maintaining their assigned seating positions. The study started with an explanation of

the experiment and the distribution of consent forms to the students. The students were

briefed that this study is about their experience in metaverse exhibition spaces, and it

analyses how virtual exhibition spaces in metaverses should be developed (following

conventional architectural styles similar to the real world or free of styles only possible

in cyberspace). Students were informed that after they receive the link to the digital

survey, they will be directed to one of the exhibition spaces, and the study was

conducted in a semi-controlled environment, meaning that it was allowed for the

participants to interact and communicate. The participants were divided into two

groups according to their seating locations before sharing the link to the surveys as

Group A and Group B. The art exhibition environment varies depending on the group.

The ones in Group A experience the RB exhibition space, whereas Group B

experiences the VB exhibition space. Participants were initially required to respond to

demographic questions, after which a link to the metaverse environment became

visible. The survey highlighted that participants could experience the exhibition

without any time limit. When a participant’s tour was completed, the link to Google

Forms was revisited to continue with the evaluation of the spatial experience.

Throughout the study, the participants’ reactions to the experience were observed and

logged by the researcher. The duration of their presence in the art exhibition space was

recorded.

63
 Figure 4.3: Photos from Session 6 (top row), Session 2 (bottom left), Session 7 (bottom right)

Table 4.5: Main Study's Sessions

Sessions Grade Gender

15 Female
1st Session Fourth grade
4 Male

10 Female
2nd Session Fourth grade
6 Male

4 Female
3rd Session Fourth grade
2 Male

5 Female
4th Session Second grade
5 Male

9 Female
5th Session Second grade
5 Male

18 Female
6th Session Third grade
5 Male

15 Female
7th Session Third grade
6 Male

8th Session Masters 3 Female

9th Session Masters 7 Female

64
 CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

This section presents the users' spatial experience in exhibition spaces within

metaverses. The data obtained from the analysis of the study are analysed using SPSS

29v software. Frequency and percent analysis, relationship analysis (independent

sample t-test and Pearson correlation analysis), and reliability analysis (Cronbach's

alpha) are carried out.

The analysis of the data uses descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage,

arithmetic mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum. The Kolmogorov-

Smirnov test was used as the normality distribution test, and parametric tests were used

because normality assumptions were provided as a result of the analysis. An

independent sample t-test was implemented in order to compare the means of two

distinct groups. The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed in order to examine

the relationships among the dimensions of the scale. Multivariate regression analysis

was used to estimate the dependent variable using independent (explanatory) variables.

Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used in the reliability analysis of the scales. All test

results were evaluated at 0.05 significance levels.

65
 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Students

The overall number of participants is 118, including 59 in the reality-based (RB) group

and 59 in the virtuality-based (VB) group. The mean age in the RB group is 21.47±1.52

years, with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 26 years, with 18 male and 41 female

participants (Table 5.1), (Figure 5.1). %88.1 use computers for more than 10 hours in

a week (Figure 5.2); %20.3 experienced a metaverse environment before (Figure 5.3).

%18.6 of the participants in the metaverse previously experienced Minecraft, %8.5

Fortnite. 16.9% of the participants have been in a metaverse environment for gaming

purposes (Table 5.1). Out of the 28.8% who experienced virtual exhibition space

before, 22% accessed Google Arts & Culture, and 18.6% experienced 3D online

exhibition platforms (Table 5.1).

The mean age in the VB group is 21.83±1.72 years, with a minimum of 18 and a

maximum of 27 years, with 16 male and 43 female participants (Table 5.1), (Figure

5.1). %91.5 use computers for more than 10 hours a week (Figure 5.2); %18.6

experienced a metaverse environment before (Figure 5.3). %15.3 of the participants

previously experienced Minecraft, %8.5 Roblox. 16.9% of the participants have been

in a metaverse environment with the purpose of gaming (Table 5.1). Out of %35.6 who

experienced virtual exhibition space before, %35.6 accessed Google Arts & Culture

(%20.3), and %20,3 practiced 3D online exhibition platforms (Table 5.1). Table 5.1

provides the overall demographic structure of participants.

66
 Figure 5.1: The Ages of the Participants

Figure 5.2: Spending Hours on the Computer Per Week

67
Figure 5.3: Been in a Metaverse Environment Before

Figure 5.4: Been in an Exhibition Space Before

68
Table 5.1: Descriptive analysis

Reality-based (n=59) Virtuality-based (n=59)

±SD Min.-Max ±SD Min.-Max

Age 21.47±1.52 18-26 21.83±1.72 18-27

n % n %
Gender: Male 18 30.5 16 27.1
Female 41 69.5 43 72.9
Spending hours on the 2-5 hours a week 1 1.7 1 1.7
computer per week 5-10 hours a week 6 10.2 4 6.8
More than 10 hours a 52 88.1 54 91.5
week
Been in a Metaverse Yes 12 20.3 11 18.6
Environment No 47 79.7 48 81.4
Metaverse Environment Decentraland 0 0,0 1 1.7
Experienced* Fortnite 5 8.5 3 5.1
Minecraft 11 18.6 9 15.3
Roblox 2 3.4 5 8.5
Second Life 1 1.7 0 0,0
Spatial io 1 1.7 0 0,0
The Sandbox 2 3.4 3 5.1
Other 1 1.7 3 5.1
Purpose of have been in Museum/Art exhibition 6 10.2 3 5.1
Metaverse* experience
Game 10 16.9 10 16.9
Been in a Virtual Exhibition Yes 17 28.8 21 35.6
Space No 42 71.2 38 64.4
Virtual Exhibition Experienced* Google Arts & Culture 13 22.0 12 20.3

Exhibition on 4 6.8 3 5.1

Metaverse platform
3D Online exhibition 11 18.6 12 20.3
platform
*Multiple response test results

69
 Descriptive Analysis

The descriptive analysis of each subscale in the Questionnaire on Spatial Experience

in Exhibition Spaces within the Metaverse is as follows: the mean of presence is 3.83

(Table 5.2), engagement is 4.18 (Table 5.3), immersion is 2.56 (Table 5.4), flow is

3.26 (Table 5.5), judgement is 3.58 (Table 5.6), and wayfinding is 3.58 (Table 5.7) in

the RB group. However, in the VB group, the mean of presence is 3.49 (Table 5.2),

engagement is 3.92 (Table 5.3), immersion is 2.65 (Table 5.4), flow is 3.13 (Table

5.5), judgement is 3.45 (Table 5.6), and wayfinding is 3.51 (Table 5.7).

Table 5.2: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the Metaverse: Presence

Subscale

Reality-based Virtuality-based
(n=59) (n=59)

Items SD SD

1. I was able to actively observe the virtual environment. 4.49 .73 4.20 .85
2. I was able to examine artworks closely. 4.42 .79 3.97 1.10
3. I could examine artworks from multiple viewpoints. 4.41 .87 3.92 1.00
4. I felt proficient in moving and interacting with the virtual 4.29 .89 3.85 1.10
environment at the end of the experience.
5. I found my experiences in the virtual environment to be 2.68 1.02 2.31 .97
consistent with my real-world experience.
6. The visual display quality distracted me from visiting the 2.93 1.03 3.02 1.06
virtual exhibition space.
7. The devices (keyboard and mouse), that controlled my 2.53 1.26 2.81 1.46
movement, distract me from experiencing the space.
Total 3.83 .61 3.49 .62

70
Table 5.3: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the Metaverse:
Engagement Subscale

Reality-based Virtuality-based
(n=59) (n=59)

Items SD SD

1. The visual aspects of the virtual environment engaged me. 4.03 .79 3.56 1.09
2. The sense of moving within the virtual environment was 4.39 .81 4.17 1.02
interesting.
3. I was involved in the virtual environment experience. 4.12 1.00 4.02 .90
Total 4.18 .70 3.92 .82

Table 5.4: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the Metaverse: Immersion
Subscale

Reality-based Virtuality-based
(n=59) (n=59)

Items SD SD

1. I felt excited by the virtual environment. 4.12 .87 3.90 1.08

2. I became so engaged in the virtual environment that I was not 2.69 1.12 2.80 1.24
aware of things happening around me.
3. I got scared by something happening in the virtual 1.22 .49 1.44 1.05
environment.
4. I become so involved in the virtual environment that I lose all 2.19 1.18 2.46 1.28
track of time.
Total 2.56 .63 2.65 .86

Table 5.5: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the Metaverse: Flow
Subscale

Reality-based Virtuality-based
(n=59) (n=59)

Items SD SD

1. I felt I could perfectly control my actions. 3.46 1.07 3.14 1.02

2. At each step, I knew what to do. 3.56 1.12 3.15 1.14
3. I felt I controlled the situation. 3.83 1.10 3.54 .99
4. Time seemed to flow differently than usual. 2.61 1.07 2.75 1.17
Total 3.26 .66 3.13 .61

71
Table 5.6: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the Metaverse: Judgement
Subscale

Reality-based Virtuality-based
(n=59) (n=59)

Items SD SD

1. I felt I could perfectly control my actions. 3.46 1.07 3.14 1.02

2. I found that this virtual architectural space was original. 3.39 .97 3.41 1.18
3. I found that this virtual architectural space was lame (1) / 3.92 .90 3.71 .93
exciting (5).
4. I found that this virtual architectural space was easy (1) / 2.17 1.23 2.64 1.36
challenging (5) in terms of wayfinding.
5. I found this virtual architectural space amateurish (1) / 3.53 .99 3.14 .99
professional (5).
6. I found this virtual architectural space unpresentable (1) / 3.83 .91 3.58 .93
presentable (5).
7. I found that this virtual architectural space is ugly (1) /beautiful 3.85 .94 3.54 1.01
(5).
8. I found that this virtual architectural space is disagreeable (1) / 4.02 .90 3.93 .83
likeable (5).
9. I found that this virtual architectural space is discouraging (1) / 3.93 .98 3.68 .92
motivating (5).
Total 3.58 .68 3.45 .67

Table 5.7: Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the Metaverse:
Wayfinding Subscale

Reality-based Virtuality-based
(n=59) (n=59)

Items SD SD

1. Entering the virtual exhibition space, I felt good about the 3.76 .97 3.66 1.03
environmental image.
2. With the help of the virtual exhibition space’s environmental 3.73 .98 3.47 1.07
image, I felt confident in wayfinding.
3. I relied on the virtual space’s environmental image to decide 3.51 1.21 3.73 1.01
how to reach my destination.
4. I had to make an effort to identify the locations of the pathways. 2.68 1.12 2.83 1.13
Total 3.58 .74 3.51 .56

72
Upon evaluating the normality distribution of the scale scores of students in the RB

and VB groups, the Kolmogorov Smirnov test confirms that the data belonging to the

scale scores are normally distributed since the kurtosis and skewness values, which are

the assumptions of normal distribution, are between ±2 and the sample volume was

n>30 and above (Table 5.8).

Table 5.8: The Normality Distribution Results of Virtual Exhibition Space Scale by Group

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Skewness Kurtosis

Group Statistic df Sig.

Reality-based Presence .117 59 .042 -.584 -.100

Engagement .145 59 .003 -.964 .912

Immersion .126 59 .021 .018 -.734

Flow .092 59 .200* -.002 -.298

Judgement .088 59 .200* -.524 -.069

Wayfinding .138 59 .007 .006 -.995

Virtuality-based Presence .102 59 .200* .015 .614

Engagement .151 59 .002 -.659 -.042

Immersion .114 59 .055 .579 .518

Flow .108 59 .087 -.097 -.479

Judgement .075 59 .200* -.247 -.049

Wayfinding .116 59 .046 -.129 -.589

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, *p>0.05

73
 Analysis of Spatial Experience Subscales

The average scores of the participants’ spatial experience in RB and VB metaverse

exhibition spaces are assessed with an independent sample t-test according to RB and

VB. The mean value of the presence subscale in the RB group (X = 3.83, SD = 0.61)

is significantly higher than the mean value (X = 3.49, SD = 0.62) of the same subscale

in the VB group (t(116) = 3.075, p = 0.003, p<0.01).

On the other hand, the mean values of engagement, immersion, flow, judgement, and

wayfinding subscales do not show any significant difference (p > 0.05) (Table 5.9).

Table 5.9: Independent Sample t Test Result of Virtual Exhibition Space Scale by Group

Group N SD t Df p

Presence Reality-based 59 3.83 0.61 3.075 116 0.003**

Virtuality-based 59 3.49 0.62

Engagement Reality-based 59 4.18 0.70 1.893 116 0.061

Virtuality-based 59 3.92 0.82

Immersion Reality-based 59 2.56 0.63 -0.674 116 0.501

Virtuality-based 59 2.65 0.86

Flow Reality-based 59 3.26 0.66 1.154 116 0.251

Virtuality-based 59 3.13 0.61

Judgement Reality-based 59 3.58 0.68 1.006 116 0.316

Virtuality-based 59 3.45 0.67

Wayfinding Reality-based 59 3.58 0.74 0.595 107.97 0.553

Virtuality-based 59 3.51 0.56

74
 Analysis of Spatial Experience Subscales in Relation to Previous

Metaverse Experiences

The objective is to determine whether there are any differences between those who

have previously experienced a metaverse setting and those who have not. When the

mean scores of the spatial experience subscales of the students in the RB group are

evaluated with the independent sample t-test according to the metaverse environment

experience status, no significant difference is observed (p > 0.05) (Table 5.10).

Table 5.10: RB Group’s Independent Sample t-Test Result (Previous Metaverse Experience)

Metaverse N SD t Df p
Environment
Presence Yes 12 3.94 0.51 0.687 57 0.495

No 47 3.81 0.63

Engagement Yes 12 4.22 0.66 0.227 57 0.821

No 47 4.17 0.72

Immersion Yes 12 2.65 0.48 0.557 57 0.579

No 47 2.53 0.66

Flow Yes 12 3.49 0.63 1.317 57 0.193

No 47 3.21 0.67

Judgement Yes 12 3.49 0.72 -0.502 57 0.618

No 47 3.60 0.68

Wayfinding Yes 12 3.46 0.74 -0.636 57 0.527

No 47 3.61 0.75

Independent sample t-test, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

75
When the mean scores of the spatial experience subscales of the students in the VB

group are evaluated with the independent sample t-test according to the metaverse

environment experience status, it is seen that the mean score of immersion of the

students who experienced metaverse environment before (=3.11, SD=0.96) is

significantly higher than the mean score of the students who did not (=2.54, SD=0.80)

(t(57)=2.053, p=0.022, p<0.05). However, the mean scores of presence, engagement,

flow, judgement, and wayfinding from the dimensions of the virtual exhibition space

do not differ significantly according to the previous metaverse experience of the

students in the VB group (p > 0.05) (Table 5.11).

Table 5.11: VB Group’s Independent Sample t-Test Result (Previous Metaverse Experience)

Metaverse N SD t Df p
Environment
Experienced
Presence Yes 11 3.77 0.51 1.689 57 0.097

No 48 3.42 0.64

Engagement Yes 11 4.06 0.73 0.650 57 0.259

No 48 3.88 0.84

Immersion Yes 11 3.11 0.96 2.053 57 0.022*

No 48 2.54 0.80

Flow Yes 11 3.33 0.81 1.243 57 0.110

No 48 3.08 0.56

Judgement Yes 11 3.60 0.49 0.818 57 0.208

No 48 3.42 0.70

Wayfinding Yes 11 3.59 0.56 0.537 57 0.593

No 48 3.49 .59

Independent sample t test, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

76
 Analysis of Spatial Experience Subscales in Relation to Previous Virtual

Exhibition Space Experience

Another aim is to determine whether there are any differences between those who have

previously experienced a virtual exhibition space and those who have not. When the

mean scores of the spatial experience subscales of the students in the RB group are

evaluated with the independent sample t-test according to the previous virtual

exhibition experience, no significant difference is observed (p > 0.05) (Table 5.12).

Table 5.12: RB Group’s Independent Sample t-Test Result (Previous Virtual Exhibition Experience)

Virtual Exhibition
N SD t Df p
Space
Presence Yes 17 3.77 0.70 -0.548 57 0.586

No 42 3.86 0.57

Engagement Yes 17 4.29 0.70 0.787 57 0.434

No 42 4.13 0.71

Immersion Yes 17 2.53 0.57 -0.198 57 0.844

No 42 2.57 0.66

Flow Yes 17 3.37 0.79 0.808 57 0.423

No 42 3.22 0.61

Judgement Yes 17 3.44 0.85 -0.983 57 0.330

No 42 3.63 0.61

Wayfinding Yes 17 3.47 0.76 -0.721 57 0.474

No 42 3.63 0.74

Independent sample t-test, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

77
On the other hand, the evaluation of the mean scores of the spatial experience subscales

of the students in the VB group with the independent sample t-test reveals that the

mean score of immersion of the students who experienced virtual art exhibition space

before (=2.83, SD=0.95) is significantly higher than the mean score of the students

who did not (t(57) = -2.632, p = 0.011, p<0.05). Nevertheless, the mean scores of

presence, engagement, flow, judgement, and wayfinding from the dimensions of

spatial experience do not change substantially according to the previous virtual

exhibition experience of the students in the VB group (p > 0.05) (Table 5.13).

Table 5.13: VB Group’s Independent Sample t-Test Result (Previous Virtual Exhibition Experience)

Virtual Exhibition
N SD t Df p
Space Experienced
Presence Yes 21 3.51 0.56 0.215 57 0.830

No 38 3.47 0.66

Engagement Yes 21 3.75 0.69 -1.186 57 0.259

No 38 4.01 0.88

Immersion Yes 21 2.32 0.53 -2.632 56.97 0.011*

No 38 2.83 0.95

Flow Yes 21 3.10 0.66 -0.221 57 0.826

No 38 3.14 0.60

Judgement Yes 21 3.30 0.60 -1.290 57 0.202

No 38 3.54 0.69

Wayfinding Yes 21 3.42 0.56 -0.934 57 0.354

No 38 3.56 0.56

Independent sample t test, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

78
 Analysis of the Effects of The Exhibition Space within Metaverse

Duration on Spatial Experience

The relationship between the average time spent by the students in the RB and VB

groups and the average scores of the spatial experience dimensions is evaluated with

a Pearson correlation test. It is highlighted that there is a negative, weak, and

significant correlation (relationship) between metaverse time and engagement (r = -

0.265, p<0.05) and judgement (r = -0.291, p<0.05) of the students in the RB group and

a positive, weak, and significant correlation (relationship) between metaverse time and

immersion (r = 0.310, p<0.05) of the students in the VB group.

This analysis indicates that the duration of time spent in the RB exhibition space is

increasing, while the average value of the engagement subscale, which measures

interest in the experience, and the average score of the judgement subscale, which

reflects participants' thoughts on the virtual architectural space, are decreasing.

However, in the VB group, as the period increases, so does the average score on the

immersion subscale (Table 5.14).

79
Table 5.14: The Pearson Correlation Results of Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition
Spaces within the Metaverse by RB and VB Group

Virtual Exhibition Space Pearson Metaverse time (Minutes)

Correlation
Reality-based Virtuality-based

Presence r -.138 .079

p .299 .550

Engagement r -.265* .149

p .042 .259

Immersion r -.082 .310*

p .539 .017

Flow r -.018 .215

p .892 .102

Judgement r -.291* .170

p .026 .198

Wayfinding r .007 -.071

p .958 .593

Pearson correlation, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Reliability Analysis

In the study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient value range for the RB group is 0.634–

0.846, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value range of the students in the VB

group is 0.637–0.802. The results render the phenomenon measured in the two groups

reliable (Table 5.15).

80
Table 5.15: Reliability Analysis Results of Virtual Exhibition Space by RB and VB Group

Virtual Exhibition Space Cronbach’s alpha N of Item

Subscale
Reality-based Virtuality-based

Presence 0.749 0.649 6

Engagement 0.728 0.745 3

Immersion 0.662 0.714 4

Flow 0.667 0.655 6

Judgement 0.846 0.802 8

Wayfinding 0.634 0.637 4

Correlation Analysis

In the study, a Pearson correlation test evaluated the correlation between the students

in the RB group's mean scores for the virtual exhibition space's spatial experience

level.

There is a positive, normal, and significant correlation (relationship) between the

presence dimension and engagement (r = 0.438, p<0.001), flow (r = 0.440, p<0.001),

judgement (r = 0.416, p<0.05), and wayfinding (r = 0.461, p<0.001). Also, there is a

positive, normal, and significant correlation (relationship) between engagement and

immersion (r = 0.483, p<0.001), flow (r = 0.463, p<0.001), judgement (r = 0.422,

p<0.05), and wayfinding (r = 0.491, p<0.001). Additionally, there is a positive,

statistically significant correlation between immersion and flow (r = 0.577, p<0.001)

and wayfinding (r = 0.497, p<0.001), as well as a positive, weak, and significant

correlation between judgement (r = 0.285, p<0.05). Furthermore, there is a positive,

strong, and significant correlation between flow and judgement (r = 0.458, p<0.001)

and wayfinding (r = 0.605, p<0.001), as well as a positive, normal, and significant

81
correlation between judgement and wayfinding (r = 0.363, p<0.001). Nevertheless, no

significant correlation was found between presence and immersion (p > 0.05) (Table

5.16).

Table 5.16: The Pearson Correlation Test Results of Virtual Exhibition Space Scale Score by Reality-
Based Group

Presence Engagement Immersion Flow Judgement Wayfinding

Presence r --

Engagement r .438*** --

p 0.001

Immersion r 0.245 .483*** --

p 0.061 0.001

Flow r .440*** .463*** .577*** --

p 0.001 0.001 0.001

Judgement r .416*** .422*** .285* .458*** --

p 0.001 0.001 0.029 0.001

Wayfinding r .461*** .491*** .497*** .605*** .363** --

p 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005

Pearson correlation, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

When the relationship between the mean scores of the virtual exhibition space scale

dimension scores of the students in the virtuality-based group was evaluated with a

Pearson correlation test;

There is a positive, strong, and significant correlation (relationship) between the

presence dimension and engagement (r = 0.541, p<0.001), flow (r = 0.434, p<0.001),

judgement (r = 0.359, p<0.05), and wayfinding (r = 0.403, p<0.001) of the students

in the virtuality-based group. Also, there is a positive, strong, and significant

82
correlation between engagement and immersion (r = 0.572, p<0.001), flow (r =

0.520, p<0.001), judgement (r = 0.468, p<0.05), and wayfinding (r = 0.368,

p<0.001). Additionally, there is a positive, strong, and significant correlation

between Immersion and flow (r = 0.562, p<0.001) and judgement (r = 0.545,

p<0.001). Furthermore, there is a positive, weak, and significant correlation between

flow and judgement (r = 0.291, p<0.001), as well as a positive, strong, and

significant correlation between flow and wayfinding (r = 0.390, p<0.001). However,

no significant correlation was found between immersion and wayfinding and

judgement and wayfinding (p > 0.05) (Table 5.17).

Table 5.17: The Pearson Correlation Test Results of Virtual Exhibition Space Scale Score by
Virtuality-Based Group

Presence Engagement Immersion Flow Judgement Wayfinding

Presence r --

Engagement r .541** --

p 0.001

Immersion r 0.146 .572** --

p 0.269 0.001

Flow r .434** .520** .562** --

p 0.001 0.001 0.001

Judgement r .359** .468** .545** .291* --

p 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.026

Wayfinding r .403** .368** 0.132 .390** -0.023 --

p 0.002 0.004 0.319 0.002 0.860

Pearson correlation, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

83
 Analysis of Open-ended Questions

The open-ended questions about participants’ spatial experience (Table 5.18) ask for

both qualitative and quantitative analysis of their spatial experiences. For quantitative

analysis of these questions, the web-based Voyant tool is used.

Table 5.18: Open-ended Questions in the Questionnaire on Spatial Experience in Exhibition Spaces
within Metaverses

Question 1 In your opinion what were the positive effects of your experience?

Question 2 In your opinion, what were the negative points of your experience?

Question 3 Do you have any suggestions to improve the virtual exhibition space?

The Voyant tool offers a range of characteristics that enable the analysis of texts on

different subjects. These features include visual representations of the most commonly

used words, the rate of word occurrences, the identification of frequently used

keywords, and the identification of word associations (Figure 5.5). There are diverse

studies that use Voyant's various features to analyze textual data (Hetenyi, et al., 2019;

Masood, et al., 2020).

This thesis utilises four elements of the Voyant tool for analysing the responses to

open-ended questions. The initial feature is the Summary tool, which examines the

texts and presents the overall word count, vocabulary density, readability index,

average words per sentence, and the most often mentioned terms and their frequencies

in the text. This tool has a stop-word feature that automatically generates a list of

excluded words, such as to-be words, articles, and subjective pronouns. This feature

can be deactivated, but it is used in this research to have a noteworthy list of words.

84
The second feature utilised for textual analysis is the Cirrus tool, which visually

presents the most frequently used words in a way that reflects their frequency by

adjusting their sizes, respectively.

Thirdly, the correlation tool analyses the relationship of a word with other words with

a correlation value. It calculates the selected terms and their correlated terms by

comparing the relative frequencies of phrases in the document with the Pearson

correlation. If the correlation value approaches 1, it indicates that there is a positive

correlation between these words. Conversely, if it approaches -1, it displays the

negative relationship between those terms.

The last tool is the context tool, which displays how the words are used in the text by

allocating the selected keyword in the centre and adding the words that are mentioned

on the left and right sides of the term.

The analysis is done by converting the answers for each question into separate Excel

files and uploading them to the Voyant tool. The tool divides these files into sections

after uploading them, and uses each section for distinct analyses. The answers to each

question are analysed separately for the RB and VB groups, in order of: summary

analysis, cirrus analysis, correlation analysis, and context analysis.

Figure 5.5: A Screen View from [Link]

85
 Analysis of Open-ended Questions: Question 1

For the first open-ended question, “In your opinion, what were the positive effects of

your experience?” The RB group’s answers’ average words per sentence is 28.3,

whereas in the VB group, this value is 25.0. The words that received the most mentions

are "experience," "different," "able," "artworks," and "exhibition" in the RB group, and

"different," "experience," "space," "exhibition," and "artworks" in the VB group,

respectively (Table 5.19). The Cirrus graphic, a visualised version of the most frequent

words in both groups’ answers, is shown below (Figure 5.6, Figure 5.7).

Table 5.19: The Most Frequent Words in Question 1

Reality-based Virtuality-based

Frequency of the Frequency of the

The most frequent words The most frequent words
word word

Experience 21 Different 22

Different 15 Experience 20

Able 15 Space 19

Artworks 13 Exhibition 15

Exhibition 11 Artworks 14

86
 Figure 5.5: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 1, RB Group

Figure 5.6: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 1, VB Group

The correlation test is conducted with the list of the most frequent words in both

groups. In the RB group, “experience” is significantly correlated with "different” (p >

0.05), “able” with “artworks”, and “exhibition” with “avatar” (p< 0.05). In the VB

group, “different” is correlated with “angles”, “experience” with “different”, “space”

with “explore”, “exhibition” with “exciting”, and “artworks” with “able”. However,

there is no significant relationship between these words (p<0.05) (Table 5.20).

87
Considering the fact that all correlation values lie within the range of 0 to 1 for both

groups, it can be concluded that there is a positive association between the words.

Table 5.20: Correlation Analysis of Open-ended Question 1

The most frequent The correlated term Correlation (r) Significance (p)
words

Experience Different 0,797 0,005*

Different Experience 0,797 0,005*

Reality-based Able Artworks 0,326 0,357

Artworks Able 0,326 0,357

Exhibition Avatar 0,642 0,044

Different Angles 0,771 0,008

Experience Different 0,663 0,035

Virtuality-based Space Explore 0,649 0,042

Exhibition Exciting 0,539 0,107

Artworks Able 0,172 0,633

The contextual analysis in the Voyant tool is utilised to comprehend the usage of the

words within a given context. This analysis reveals the manner in which a keyword is

employed in a text. After a comprehensive analysis of all analyses, three full sentences

are selected. Table 5.21 displays three instances of how each word is used in a phrase

in the RB group and Table 5.22 in the VB group.

88
Table 5.21: Contextual Analysis of RB group Open-ended Question 1

Left Frequent words Right

since it is in the metaverse environment and

“It was a very different different from the virtual exhibitions since in
here I can arrange my perspective myself. “

“It was being a new kind of an exhibition experience without waiting in the line for tickets etc.”
space

“Walking around such a museum was

for me.”
interactive and different,

“Interesting and a approach mingled with creativity and fun.”

“This feeling got me excited to explore the artworks as if it were an open-world video
different
space and look at game.”

“It was a unique activity to visit works of art and see them on the computer.”

“Positive part is that I have not moved to

experience art making me more capable to to be experience the in virtual environment.”
use my time efficiently
able
“I can reach more artworks, and I was to jump from the sky”

“The art pieces were inspiring and cool,

to interact with people was also exciting.”
being

are generally great, especially presented

“Quality of the
ones.”

without the need to physically its

“I was able to experience various
accessibility.”
artwork(s)
“I loved feeling free in the environment. I
liked the interaction between the user and
that are grouped together.”
the movement possibilities, and also
perceiving the variety of

space gave me a sense of joy due to the

“Although I am not into art, being immersed
reminiscent feeling of playing video games all
in a virtual
through my childhood.”

“I liked how customizable and varied the

avatars you can choose from are, it helps in exhibition if their avatar looks like them.”
making a person feel more immersed in the

“It is very hard to spare some of my time to

visit art galleries or exhibitions these days, virtually is a very beneficial thing for me.”
so being able to visit an

89
Table 5.22: Contextual Analysis of VB group Open-ended Question 1

Left Frequent words Right

angles like real life. It was a social experience;
“I was able to see
the layout was easy to wander around.”

“Various perspective views and unique

design of the space made the experience
medium.”
better. It is very interesting for me to different
experience virtual images in

“It's nice to wander around to see

experience with the real experience but it is not
various exhibitions. It was challenging
an alternation for the real one.”
and

“Different perspective views unique

better.”
designs of the spaces made the

“It made me motivated as a designer. It the artwork as in a real-life gallery perspective

was good to experience and also closer.”

was the circulation helped me to follow the path

“The positive effects of the
of the exhibition.”

and the visual environment are like a sci-fiction

“The artworks, the
movie.”

“I was able to explore the space with my friends.”

“The opportunity to explore different is quite interesting and the way we choose what
types of artworks in the same we wanted to see is a great.”

“In my metaverse experience, I felt very

excited about the being part of the new
space.”
technological developments, exploring to
new things and the

“I think it was nice to have platforms exhibition in a more active way compared to the real-life
within different levels so that we can
exhibitions by jumping or running etc.”
experience

“I find the concept of space within the metaverse positively intriguing.”

“It was interesting being able to see so

within a little time and effort.”
many

“The ability to view all the artworks from ground level truly excited me.”

“It seems like a game being able to see

closely by clicking on them was great.”
the

90
 Analysis of Open-ended Questions: Question 2

For the second question, "In your opinion, what were the negative points of your

experience?” the average words per sentence in the RB group’s answers is 32,4; for

the VB group this value is 21.5. The most frequent words are “real”, “feel”, “like”,

“experience” and “space” sequentially in the RB group, and “feel”, “like”,

“exhibition”, “artworks” and “space” in the VB group (Table 5.23). The visualisation

of the most-mentioned words is displayed graphically below (Figure 5.8, Figure 5.9).

Table 5.23: The most frequent words in Question 2

Reality-based Virtuality-based

Frequency of the Frequency of the

The most frequent words The most frequent words
word word

Real 15 Exhibition 27

Feel 15 Artworks 15

Like 14 Feel 13

Experience 13 Like 12

Space 11 Space 11

Figure 5.7: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 2, RB Group

91
 Figure 5.8: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 2, VB Group

According to the correlation analysis of the most frequent words in the RB group,

“like” is correlated with “artworks” and “space” with “negative” significantly. In the

VB group, “like” is correlated with “exhibition” significantly (p > 0.05). Additionally,

in the RB group, “real” is correlated with “game”, “feel” with “environment”, and

“experience” with "able,” and in the VB group, “exhibition” is correlated with

“different”, “artworks” with “able”, “feel” with “exhibition”, and “space” with

“different”. There is no significant relationship between these words (p<0.05). Since

all correlation values are in the range of 0 to 1 for each word, it states that there is a

positive relationship between the terms (Table 5.24).

92
Table 5.24: Correlation Analysis of Second Open-ended Question 2

The
The most frequent Correlation (r) Significance (p)
correlated
words
term

Real Game 0,714 0,02

Feel Environment 0,631 0,05

Reality-based Like Artworks 0,869 0,001*

Experience Able 0,772 0,008

Space Negative 0,842 0,002*

Exhibition Different 0,428 0,216

Artworks Able 0,371 0,29

Virtuality-based Feel Exhibition 0,633 0,049

Like Exhibition 0,73 0,005*

Space Different 0,791 0,006

The contextual analysis is conducted with the most frequent words in the responses

to the second question and completed with the selection of three examples of full

sentences that are stated by the Voyant tool (Table 5.25., Table 5.26.).

93
Table 5.25: Contextual Analysis of RB Group Open-ended Question 2

Left Frequent words Right

“It does not give the effect of experiencing an exhibition.”

“The experience felt more like playing a

game more than visiting the gallery life.”
which I cannot came across in the
real
and instead of focusing on the artwork
It felt like I was playing a game and the
“I felt like I am in a game environment
art was just a mere background
that I did not feel real
decoration rather than the focus of the
space.”

“The resolution was low so it makes

really engaged with the environment.”
harder to

“I like I am in a game environment.”

feel
“The way the works were plastered on
nice either (maybe due to my personal
the walls also felt unnatural, so looking
dislike for NFTs).”
at them didn't

“The empty areas made it seem more a game.”

was my main purpose rather than

“Controlling my character felt
looking at the artworks.”
like
“The path is kind of hard to follow and
this is a game not as experience that I
when compared with the real experience
had.”
actually it is kind of made me feel

mimicking the same architecture not

“It is not the real impressing enough and dull a little
bit.”

“Cannot getting out of the "box" like experience , open or semi open spaces might be
structure is bad for good.”

“The was not directing our focus to the art.”

which make me aware of that I am in a

“I couldn't access to the exterior
closed fake building.”

“The guide of the inner space is not sufficient.”

is a bit lacking although I have no

“The quality of the
other example to compare it with.”

94
Table 5.26: Contextual Analysis of VB Group Open-ended Question 2

Left Frequent words Right

space environment makes me feel different. I felt
like I am part of the exhibition by experiencing
“Being in the
the space and artworks with the people around
me.”

exhibition did not portray the authentic feeling of a real

“The
exhibition.”

“Doing emotes, jumping around kind of

and loses its seriousness.”
loses the sense of being in a quiet

“Not being able to touch or seeing the

is a lacking experience.”
details or textures of the

“It does feel like the artworks ‘s are the main points.”

, the screen and all the movements make me feel

“The distracted, preventing me from focusing on the
essence of the artwork.”

“I found myself in a very unrealistic like I was in a suitable exhibition environment for
world, and I didn't art pieces.”

“I want to feel the artworks if I would have a chance.”

like I am in a meaningful exhibition when I do

“I do not
dancing emotes.”

“I was lost at some point since it was felt the exhibition is endless.”

playing a game rather than walking in an

“It is more like exhibition.”

“I didn't feel I was in an appropriate exhibition environment.”

“I felt lost in my way in the and confused where to go.”

confused me; I didn't know where to begin, and at

“The open
space some point.”

was a different experience, and also It was hard

“Only being in a circular
to move.”

95
 Analysis of Open-ended Questions: Question 3

The average word count in the answers to the third question, “Do you have any

suggestions to improve the virtual exhibition space?” in the RB group is 30.4, whereas

it is 25.6 in the VB group. The words most mentioned in the RB groups are “maybe”,

“space”, “realistic”, “experience”, “better” and in the VB group, these words are

“space”, “environment”, “real”, “exhibition” and “virtual” sequentially (Table 5.27).

The cirrus graphs are added to have a more comprehensive understanding of the words

and their frequency below (Figure 5.10, Figure 5.11).

Table 5.27: Frequent words of responses to Open-ended Question 3

Reality-based Virtuality-based

The most frequent words Frequency of the Frequency of the

The most frequent words
word word

Maybe 21 Space 19

Space 7 Environment 13

Realistic 7 Real 12

Experience 7 Exhibition 10

Better 7 Virtual 9

Figure 5.9: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 3, RB Group

96
 Figure 5.10: Cirrus Graphic of Open-ended Question 3, VB Group

The correlation analysis shows that the most frequent words in the RB group,

“maybe”, are correlated with “like”, “space” with “feeling”, “realistic” with “feel”,

“experience” with “art”, and “better” with “artworks”. However, these correlations

between the words are not significant (p<0.05). In the VB group’s answers, the most

frequent words, such as “environment” and "real,” are significantly correlated with

“attention” and "life,” respectively (p > 0.05). In the same group, “space” is

correlated with “able”, “exhibition” is correlated with “better”, and “virtual” is

correlated with “design” without a significant value (p<0.05). The correlation values

for each word fall within the range of 0 to 1, indicating a positive correlation

between the words (Table 5.28).

97
Table 5.28: Correlational Analysis of Open-ended Question 3

The most frequent The correlated Correlation (r) Significance (p)

words term

Maybe Like 0,496 0,144

Space Feeling 0,780 0,07

Reality-based Realistic Feel 0,647 0,042

Experience Art 0,47 0,226

Better Artworks 0,512 0,13

Space Able 0,692 0,26

Environment Attention 0,813 0,004*

Virtuality-based Real Life 0,836 0,002*

Exhibition Better 0,609 0,611

Virtual Design 0,643 0,044

The contextual analysis is conducted with the most frequent words in the responses to

the third question and completed with the selection of three examples of full sentences

that are stated by the Voyant tool (Table 5.29, Table 5.30).

98
Table 5.29: Contextual Analysis of RB Group Open-ended Question 3

Left Frequent words Right

designed in more intriguing way rather than a

“The gallery
realistic gallery.”

more abstract but not like located in an

“Background could be something else, maybe
isolated area.”

pressing on the art a window can appear

“The information receiving aspect
showing information.”

“The sense of seeing a gallery how light

reflects on the artworks or surfaces, the more engaging.”
textures, shadows might make the

“Maybe rendering could be improved , so that the person who got there totally forget
especially in the interior space the real world.”

should be changed to something lively and

maybe by adding more furniture, such as
“The environment’s outdoor
exhibition spaces in the center and also some
vegetation for colour would be nice.”

sort of graphic style would help making it feel

“Maybe adopting a more
more serious than a simple game.”
realistic
“NPCs will help the environment feel more rather than empty and lonely space.”

“The graphics may be more .”

“Computer screen and mouse made the less interactive and authentic for me.”

“It would be great to see other people to feel the texture of the artworks and to read
during the their narratives.”
experience

“Enlarging spaces and including several

more spaces in different height levels might .”
enhance the

“It would be to experience the world through VR glasses.”

“Implementing more realistic effects and

artworks could be nice.”
selection of
better
“The experience of viewing a gallery and
how light reflects on the artworks or
experience.”
surfaces, textures, and shadows may make
the environment more interesting and a

99
Table 5.30: Contextual Analysis of VB Group Open-ended Question 3

Left Frequent words Right

“I think the galaxy-space background

.”
takes the attention from the exhibition

could be improved by adding some arrows for

wayfinding, giving more clear instructions about
“The quality of the architectural space the controllers, and making it also operable and
also having more eye-catching explanations
about each room.”

“Widening the paths of the may able us to see the art pieces better.”

“Visual quality can be better and more

so that we can pay attention to the artworks.”
like the real-life

were unpleasant to look at because the screen

“Circular shapes in the virtual environment experience differed from real-life spatial
perception.”

“It would be a better experience if the had similar rules of engagement as the physical
virtual environment.”

“It would be good if it is fitted inside of a life building”

“Maybe a more realistic background

rather than a galaxy or different life.”
selection of the artworks from real

“It would make more sense for user

world rather than appearing in one space at the
experience to enter spaces sequentially
same time.”
like in the

space from the perspective of avatar is really

“Seeing the
helpful.”

“Paths for the exhibition could be defined better.”

“The signs can be bigger to get more attention.”

“Seeing my character distracted me sometimes.”

virtual
environment had similar rules of engagement as
“It would be a better experience if the
the real one.”

100
 Takeaways

- The mean scores of RB in the questionnaire for the subscales of presence,

engagement, flow, judgement, and wayfinding are higher than the VB. Nevertheless,

the mean score of the immersion subscale in the VB is higher than that in the RB

group.

- According to the independent sample t-test, the presence score of the RB group is

significantly higher than that of the VB group, as indicated by the independent sample

t-test. However, there is no significant difference between the two groups in the other

subscales.

- Individuals who had previously encountered the metaverse environment report a

greater sense of immersion in the VB environment, whereas the former experience has

no significant impact on the RB group's subscales.

- The VB group members who had previously experienced virtual exhibition spaces

indicate higher levels of immersion, whereas their prior experiences do not

substantially influence the other subscales in either group.

- The duration of the experiment influences the subscales of spatial experience. The

immersion score increases as the time spent in the RB environment increases, while

the participation and judgement scores decrease substantially as the time spent in the

VB group increases.

- The correlation test indicates that there is no significant relationship between

presence and immersion, stating that being present in the RB exhibition environment

does not have a relationship with feeling immersed. The other subscales have a positive

101
and significant correlation with each other. Furthermore, in the VB group, there is no

robust and statistically significant association between presence and immersion,

engagement and wayfinding, or judgement and wayfinding. This implies that the

degree of users' subjective presence in a virtual world does not always correlate with

their level of immersion. Additionally, the level of engagement with the virtual

environment does not influence users' capacity to navigate it effectively. Furthermore,

users' cognitive ability to make judgements does not affect their skills in navigating

the virtual space. The other subscales exhibit a positive and statistically significant

association with one another.

- In the initial open-ended question, participants from both groups frequently use

similar phrases when discussing the positive consequences of their experiences. The

RB group predominantly utilise the words "experience", "different", "able", "artworks"

and "exhibition", whereas the VB group specifically highlight the words "different",

"experience", "space", "exhibition," and "artworks." In the RB group, there is a

significant correlation between the term "different" and the word "experience." In

contrast, the VB group associate the word "different" with "angles". This indicates that

both groups focus on distinct parts of their experiences. Simultaneously, both groups

express in their responses that their experiences are unique and different.

- In the second question, when the participants discuss the negative aspects of their

experiences, both groups employ similar vocabulary. The terms "real", "feel", "like",

“experience”, and “space” are the most commonly mentioned words in the RB group,

whereas the VB group mostly employ the words "exhibition", "artworks", "feel", "like"

and "space". The RB group significantly associate the term "like" with "artworks",

whereas the VB group link it with "exhibition." Both groups state that the spatial

102
encounters are unrealistic and reminiscent of a game, which impact their experiences

within virtual exhibition spaces.

- In the third open-ended question, participants discuss their suggestions to improve

the experience. Both groups specifically highlight the importance of enhancing the

realism of the environment and improving the graphics. Within the RB group,

participants emphasize the necessity of enhancing the environment's realism and

elevating the graphics' quality. Notable terms like “maybe”, “space”, “realistic”,

“experience”, and “better” are frequent. Since one of the most used words is “maybe”,

the participants express their hesitations while giving suggestions to improve the

experience. Within the VB group, the terms “space”,

“environment”, “real”, “exhibition”, and “virtual” are the most commonly mentioned.

Within the VB group, there is a strong correlation between the terms “environment”

and “attention”; and “real” and “life”.

103
 CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

This study's main concern is the impact of different design approaches in metaverse

exhibition spaces on the spatial experiences of the users. However, it is crucial to

highlight that this exploration goes beyond the spatial experience and discusses aspects

related to architecture and art in virtual realms. Therefore, this section explores the

interrelationship of these topics by examining qualitative and quantitative data

collected throughout the survey. The outcomes are mentioned under three subtitles:

spatial experience, art, and architecture.

Discussions About Spatial Experience

This section of the study focuses on the overall spatial experience in the metaverse

exhibition spaces. It provides a framework to understand the impacts of diverse design

approaches on users’ spatial experiences. Participants in the RB group have higher

mean scores in the subscales of presence, engagement, flow, judgement, and

wayfinding than the VB. However, the mean score of immersion subscale, that

describes the substantial illusion of real experience with virtual experience in the VB

is higher than RB. Even the difference between mean scores is insignificant, it provides

insight into how the spatial experience is changing between the groups.

104
Specifically, the survey's presence subscale indicates that users who experience RB

exhibition spaces have a considerably higher sense of presence compared to those who

visit VB spaces. This finding supports Laarni's (2003) assertion that a realistic design

approach in the environment enhances the feeling of being present. However, the

finding contradicts the theory by Chung et al. (2024), who claim there are no

significant differences in the effects of different design approaches to exhibition spaces

on visitors’ spatial experiences. In this research, the RB environment's implementation

of design elements that mirror the physical world had an impact on the visitors' spatial

experience. As Schorch (2014) states, the context of an exhibition environment affects

the visitors’ spatial experience and certain design features may promote the sensation

of physically "being there" (Takatalo, et al., 2020).

Moreover, the effect of prior experiences in virtual environments that create a frame

for future experiences on the spatial experience cannot be denied. According to the

findings, participants who had not experienced the metaverse before felt more

immersed in the VB environment. An identical result is observed for the individuals

who had not been in any virtual exhibition spaces. Being in a VB setting that does not

incorporate realistic architectural components allowed participants who were

unfamiliar with metaverse environments or virtual exhibition spaces felt more

immersed.

In addition, although the sensation of presence is acknowledged as a crucial element

for experiencing immersion (Azarby & Rice, 2022), no significant association was

observed between the presence and immersion subscales in either of the groups.

Simultaneously, it was discovered that the wayfinding subscale in the VB environment

does not exhibit any link with the engagement and judgement subscales. However,

105
within the RB group, wayfinding is positively and significantly connected with the

presence of subcele, which aligns with Laarni's (2003) assertion that the ease of

navigation in the virtual environment positively influences the sense of

presence. These findings emphasise the complex and diverse connections between

different components of spatial experience in metaverse environments, suggesting that

the parameters that affect spatial experience might vary depending on the design

characteristics of the virtual world.

Additionally, the duration of time that individuals spend in the locations has varying

impacts on their spatial experience. Based on the findings, participants who spent more

time in the RB environment experienced a decrease in their levels of engagement and

judgement. However, the longer participants spend time in the VB environment, the

higher their level of immersion becomes.

Furthermore, experiences in the RB and VB environments are unique to each

participant. In RB, one of the most mentioned words is "different”, which is

significantly related to the word “experience”. In contrast, the word “different” is

insignificantly associated with the word “angles” in the VB environment. This result

supports the fact that each participant focused on a different aspect of their experience.

Therefore, open-ended questions in both environments are distinguished by their

distinct and unique spatial experiences (Table 6.1).

106
Table 6.1: Quotations from Open-ended Questions about Spatial Experience

Example 1. (RB-1st "It was a different experience for me to walk around the museum, and also it was
question) really fun to be in there. "

Example 2. (RB-3rd “The spatial experience could be made more interesting. I think more complex and
question) articulated spaces would make the experience more interesting and unique.”

"It was an interesting experience to travel around an exhibition without walls or

Example 3. (VB-2nd
boundaries. The visual freedom of the environment excited me to see different
question)
places.”

"Being unable to touch or perceive artwork details or textures is bad. Because we

can only see and hear, other emotions remain unsatisfied. I also want to smell the
Example 4. (VB-2nd exhibition. If possible, I want to touch the art. I would touch art in a real exhibition
question) place even if it's forbidden. Because I can connect with art when I feel its texture. I
feel different and like I'm part of the show by experiencing the space and artworks
alongside others. "

“The spatial experience could be made more interesting by designing more unique
Example 5. (RB-3rd
spaces. I think more complex and more articulated irregular spaces would make
question)
the experience more interesting and unique.”

107
 Discussions About Architecture

The architectural design of the metaverse exhibition spaces is one of the fundamental

components that affects the spatial experience. Both realistic and unrealistic design

approaches in the environments influences participants' perceptions of the

environment and navigation.

The open-ended questions expose the participants' perspectives on these two distinct

design methodologies. As Moneta (2020) states, current virtual worlds do not go

beyond mimetic realism; even virtual architecture has the potential to be creative

without constraints. In the open-ended question, participants experience support

Moneta's (2020) perspective, since the word "real" was frequently referenced when

discussing the negative aspects of the RB environment. Their statements refer to the

fact to the fact that the virtual world needs to offer a new interpretation of architecture

and implement utopian visions.

Within the VB environment, users are enabled to jump into the skybox, navigate

between platforms via freefall, teleport to other spaces with portals, and observe the

freestanding artworks in open space. In contrast, the RB environment offers a

conventional exhibition, with all the architectural elements like windows and doors

displaying the artworks on the walls in an enclosed space. These differences in

architecture affect the feelings of participants. Participants in the RB group mentioned

a sense of restriction, whereas statements in the VB group are about a sense of

freedom.

108
This is further supported by observation log data, indicating that individuals in the VB

setting are more likely to explore the capabilities of avatars and activities like

freefalling and jumping facilitated by the spatial design design. Furthermore, following

the experiment, a total of 6 students from the VB setting inquired about the process of

creating such a design and the tools used to model it. This suggests that the VB design

approach captures the students' attention more effectively. Additionally, the RB group

frequently mentioned the word "may be" in the question about their suggestions.

Compared to the RB group, the participants exposed to the VB setting showed reduced

hesitancy while providing suggestions.

Moreover, the data reveals that one of the most mentioned words is “space” in both

groups in the second open-ended question. However, in the RB group, “space” is

significantly correlated with “negative” while it is related to “different” in the VB

group. The RB group’s participants mentioned how the space is insufficient in terms

of rendering quality and is like a replica of a physical building. The VB group reported

feeling confused during the experiment. This confusion was attributed to the absence

of vertical limits, navigational aids, and directions in the open-space architecture of

the virtual environment. Therefore, all these data state that individuals anticipate a high

degree of similarity when they find themselves in an environment resembling the

physical world, and encountering a different architectural environment might lead to

ambiguity (Table 6.2).

109
Table 6.2: Quotations from Open-ended Questions about Architecture

“Experiencing a new way of architecture profession was great for me while I,

Example 1.
as a " generation Z" also have the intention to these kind of new digital
(RB-1st question)
transformation in architecture.”

“It did not feel real even it is mimicking the physical world and instead of
focusing on the artwork it felt like i was playing a game and the art was just a
Example 2.
mere background decoration rather than the focus of the space. Controlling
(RB-2nd question)
my character felt like was my main purpose rather than looking at the artwork
presented.”

“The experience that is offered to the user, is an imitation of real. However, I

Example 3. believe that the virtual world finds its meaning when it offers something new
(RB-3rd question) and different than real. I think we should talk about new cognitive effects of
this environment, rather than everyday life.”

“When I jump into this metaverse environment, I felt different and the first
Example 4. question that coming to my mind is that which application that the creator
(VB-1st question) use. And the artworks, the space area and the visual environment create like a
sci-fiction movie or game in my mind. “

“The environment is different from the reality, utilizing ramps and platforms
that make this exhibition unique. The ability to view all the artwork from
Example 5.
ground level truly excited me. Walking around all the artworks was a great
(VB-3rd question)
experience for me. Additionally, the background image captured all my
attention during the exhibition.”

110
 Discussions About Art

Based on the symbiotic relationship between spatial experience, art, and architecture,

this section highlights points that may be impactful for the art industry. Firstly, the

existence of exhibition spaces on online platforms is a crucial milestone for the art

industry, as it allows users to experience the whole curation with one click. The

quantitative data of open-ended questions about the positive sides of the spatial

experience supports this since one of the most used words is “artworks” and correlates

with the word “able” in both groups. Even though these correlations are insignificant,

numerous students from both groups mentioned the ease of visiting an exhibition space

online. As Shiode and Knoshima (1999) state, the Internet enhances accessibility to

the collections of museums, whereas real museums limit this interaction with physical

distance, and it also enables the exhibition of a larger number of collections online at

any time. In the open-ended questions, participants mentioned that being in an online

exhibition allows them to experience the artworks from their comfort zone.

In response to the initial open-ended question regarding the positive aspects of the

experience, the term "exhibition" was frequently cited, with some noting that the

approach to designing exhibition spaces needs to differ from that of real-life

surroundings in both settings. Both groups also draw parallels between their

experiences and gaming experiences. Even though the present condition of exhibition

spaces is improving with the integration of technology, creating places to experience

art more interactively and in a gamified fashion, there are still those who have a

prejudice against the notion of art exhibition spaces as answers to the question about

the negative sides of the experiences in the VB group mentioned.

111
The data based on the observation log indicates that 28 students got more information

about NFTs by following the links in the exhibition, checking out the other works of

the artist, and downloading the PNG versions of NFTs. This validates Shiode and

Knoshima's (1999) claim that virtual exhibitions encourage visitors to focus on the

artworks they are interested in and learn more about the artist and their works through

the Internet. Furthermore, NFTs, which encourage engagement, have significantly

improved this interaction with their advanced technology and unique concept. In

addition, 3 students from the VB group inquired about the selection process of curation

and expressed their interest in participating in future curations of the NFT Biennial,

which demonstrates the interest of younger generations towards NFTs. Unusual

curating approaches affect the ambiance of the artworks (Aydoğan, 2021), which may

lead to curiosity about both the NFTs and the artworks (Table 6.3).

112
Table 6.3: Quotations from Open-ended Questions about Art

“It's very exciting to look around; so it was more attractive in some ways than
Example 1.
an actual exhibition. I was also able to navigate among others quickly and
(RB-1st question)
without wasting time on foot.”

“Although I am not into art, being immersed in a virtual exhibition space

gave me a sense of joy due to the reminiscent feeling of playing video games

all through my childhood. This feeling got me excited to explore the space and
Example 2.
(VB-1st question) look at different artworks as if it were an open-world video game. In doing

such, this also allowed me to actually closely inspect and observe different

artworks in a way that gave me joy.”

“It is very hard to spare some of my time to visit art galleries or exhibitions

these days, so being able to visit an exhibition virtually is a very beneficial

Example 3.
thing for me. It will provide more opportunities to people to visit various
(RB-1st question)
places and see many different things. It is also very easy to follow the path of

the gallery and very easy to adapt to the environment.”

" Doing emotes, jumping around kind a loses the sense of being in a quiet
Example 4.
exhibition and makes it lose its seriousness. I do not feel like I am in a
(RB-3rd question)
meaningful exhibition when I do dancing emotes."

"I tend to think more traditionally, believing that virtual reality experiences
Example 5. detract from the essence of why we create artwork. I don't think viewing a
(VB-2nd question) piece from a screen can ever replicate the experience of seeing it in an actual
exhibition. For me, VR is distracting and diminishes the value of artwork."

113
 Conclusion

Metaverses are platforms that allow the creation of 3D virtual worlds by going beyond

the limits of the physical realm (Yang et. al., 2023). The ability to construct a parallel

universe in metaverses and the NFT concept have led to the emergence of exhibitions

spaces within metaverses. By evaluating NFTs as values of engagement drivers, this

thesis reviews the impact of different design approaches in exhibition spaces within

metaverses on people’s spatial. This study highlights the significance of metaverse

development in the fields of art and architecture, aiming to comprehend people’s

perspectives both towards the architecture of these environments and towards the

NFTs.

The study comprises two phases: a pilot study and the main study. The main study

involves 118 students from Bilkent University's Architecture Department, comprising

students in the second, third, fourth grades, and graduate studies. The results of the

participants’ spatial experience were obtained with a 5-point Likert scale survey that

was analysed through frequency and percent analysis, relationship analysis

(independent sample t-test and Pearson correlation analysis), and reliability analysis

(Cronbach's alpha). In addition to the survey, three open-ended questions, which were

analysed via the Voyant tool, required more general knowledge about participants’

spatial experience. The demographic data provides insights into the participants'

knowledge of metaverses and virtual exhibition spaces, while their responses to open-

ended questions indicate a more profound comprehension of their spatial experience.

In response to the first research question, the findings indicate that participants feel

significantly more present when the design of the metaverse exhibition space reflects

the real-life architectural elements.

114
This study investigated a range of metaverse galleries that employed unique design

methodologies. This analysis presents a framework for analysing the execution of RB

and VB methods in metaverse environments, specifically addressing the second

research question. It also identifies the most appropriate RB and VB environments for

conducting the experiment. This thesis reveals important implications for the optimal

design of exhibition spaces in metaverses. While certain participants preferred to

experience a more realistic space reflecting traditional galleries, others stated that these

spaces should deviate from physical reality and push the boundaries of cyberspace.

The incorporation of exhibition spaces into metaverses that allow people to experience

curation online is a significant achievement in the arts sector, providing a more

accessible experience and inclusivity to a wider audience. At the same time, it is

observed that some people have a prejudiced perspective regarding the ideal design of

virtual exhibition spaces. The virtuality-based environment arouses curiosity about the

artworks and the making process of the exhibition space. This work has revealed the

impact of architectural features within metaverse exhibitions on the user's experience.

In response to the third research question, this study establishes a framework for a

forthcoming metaverse exhibition that clarifies the relationship between different

architectural approaches employed in these environments and the subsequent reactions

of participants.

This thesis is one of the first and few efforts to understand the impact of the design of

exhibition spaces within metaverses on the spatial experience. The implemented

research methodology provided insights into various aspects of spatial experiences,

such as presence, engagement, immersion, flow, judgement, and wayfinding. The

study is done with the participation of many students on the platforms simultaneously,

causing overload due to the requirement of a certain internet connection for Spatial io.

115
In addition to this, since the students experimented on their personal computers, a few

of them encountered difficulties in establishing a connection to Spatial io using their

web browsers. For further studies, conducting this research in a controlled laboratory

environment, equipped with instruments and a powerful internet connection, might

potentially address any technical issues that may arise throughout the experiment. This

study was conducted with students in architecture on the Spatial io platform with two

design approaches: VB and RB. Further studies may engage students from various

disciplines on a different metaverse platform with diverse design methodologies.

116
 REFERENCES

Armstrong, J., Howes, D., & Woon, W. (2015). Reinventing MoMA's education programs for
the 21st century visitor. In L. D. Tan & K. H. Lim (Eds.), Digital Heritage and Culture:
Strategy and Implementation (pp. 55-76). World Scientific.

Aydoğan, D. (2021). Art exhibitions during the pandemic. In Proceedings of the

Communication and Technology Congress (CTC 2021) (pp. 49-55). Ankara, Turkey.

Azarby, S., & Rice, A. (2022). Understanding the effects of virtual reality system usage on
spatial perception: The potential impacts of immersive virtual reality on spatial design
decisions. Sustainability, 14(16), 10326. [Link]

Ball, M. (2022). The metaverse: And how it will revolutionize everything. Liveright
Publishing.

Bandelli, A. (1999). Virtual spaces and museums. Journal of Museum Education, 24 (1-2),
20-22.

Bayer, H. (1961). Aspects of design of exhibitions and museums. Curator: The Museum
Journal, 4 (3), 257-288.

Benedikt, M. (Ed.). (1991). Cyberspace: First steps. MIT Press.

Black, G. (2005). The engaging museum: Developing museums for visitor involvement.
Routledge.

Boulos, M. N. K., Hetherington, L., & Wheeler, S. (2007). Second Life: An overview of the
potential of 3‐D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information &
Libraries Journal, 24(4), 233-245.

Brouchoud, J. (2010, July 14). Architects in Cyberspace, or Not. Retrieved September 10,
2020, from [Link]
or-not/.

Burke, V., Jørgensen, D., & Jørgensen, F. A. (2020). Museums at home: Digital initiatives in
response to COVID-19. Norsk museumstidsskrift, 6(2), 117-123.

Cai, W., Wang, Z., Ernst, J. B., Hong, Z., Feng, C., & Leung, V. C. (2018). Decentralized
applications: The blockchain-empowered software system. IEEE Access, 6, 53019-
53033.

Carbonell-Carrera, C., Saorin, J. L., & Melián Díaz, D. (2021). User VR experience and
motivation study in an immersive 3D geovisualization environment using a game
engine for landscape design teaching. Land, 10(5), 492.

117
Cheng, X., Mou, J., Shen, X., de Vreede, T., & Raianer, A. (2022). Call for paper:
Opportunities and challenges in the Metaverse. Internet Research. Retrieved from
https:/[Link]/calls-for-papers/opportunities-and-
challenges-

Chiu, M. L., Lin, Y. T., Tseng, K. W., & Chen, C. H. (2000). Museum of Interface. In
Proceedings of The Fifth Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design
Research in Asia (pp. 471-480).

Christidou, D., & Hansen, A. (2015). Volunteers in museums in Denmark, Sweden and
Norway: A comparative report. Pride, Joy and Surplus Value, NCHLC, Östersund.

Chung, S. J., Jo, H. J., & Lee, H. (2022). A comparison of behaviours and responses towards
different social VR environments in initial social interaction. Archives of Design
Research, 35(3), 53-67.

Chung, S. J., Kim, S. Y., & Kim, K. H. (2024). Comparison of visitor experiences of virtual
reality exhibitions by spatial environment. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 181, 103145.

Çetin, Ö., & Erbay, F. (2021). Gamification practices in museums. Journal of Tourismology,
7(2), 265-276.

Damar, M. (2021). Metaverse shape of your life for future: A bibliometric snapshot. Journal
of Metaverse, 1(1), 1-8.

DappRadar. (2023, February 14). Cryptovoxels Became Voxels, What's Now on the
Roadmap. Retrieved from [Link]
whats-now-on-the-roadmap

Davis, B. (2011). Hype and Hyperreality: Zooming in on Google Art Project. Retrieved
January 21, 2016, from [Link]

Decentraland. (n.d.). Ethereum essentials. Decentraland Documentation. Retrieved May 23,

2024, from [Link]
integration/ethereumessentials/#:~:text=Decentraland%20uses%20the%20Ethereum
%20blockchain,to%20by%20a%203D%20scene.

Devine, C., & Tarr, M. (2019). The digital layer in the museum experience. In Museums and
Digital Culture: New Perspectives and Research (pp. 295-307).

Ding, M. (2017). Augmented reality in museums. In Museums & augmented reality–A

collection of essays from the arts management and technology laboratory (pp. 1-15).

Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Baabdullah, A. M., Ribeiro-Navarrete, S., Giannakis, M., Al-
Debei, M. M., & Wamba, S. F. (2022). Metaverse beyond the hype: Multidisciplinary
perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice
and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 66, 102542.

118
Dziekan, V., & Proctor, N. (2018). From elsewhere to everywhere: Evolving the distributed
museum into the pervasive museum. In The Routledge handbook of museums, media
and communication (pp. 177-192). Routledge.

Fernström, M., & Bannon, L. (1997). Enabling technology for museum visitors: Issues and
experiences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Museums and the Web
1997.

Flame, D. (2013). Creating space. In S. Macleod (Ed.), Reshaping museum space: Materiality,
affect and memory (pp. 87-104). Routledge.

Gadekallu, T. R., Huynh-The, T., Wang, W., Yenduri, G., Ranaweera, P., Pham, Q. V., ... &
Liyanage, M. (2022). Blockchain for the metaverse: A review. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2203.09738.

Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books.

Gilbert, S. (2022). Crypto, web3, and the Metaverse. Bennett Institute for Public Policy,
Cambridge, Policy Brief.

Greenhill, E. H. (1992). Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. Routledge.

Guidi, B., & Michienzi, A. (2022, July). Social games and Blockchain: exploring the
Metaverse of Decentraland. In 2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on
Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW) (pp. 199-204). IEEE.

Guljajeva, V., & Sola, M. C. (2023). NFT Shop and Making Sense of the NFT Art Market. Is
NFT a blessing or a curse to digital art?

Harwick, C. (2016). Cryptocurrency and the Problem of Intermediation. The Independent

Review, 20(4), 569–588. Retrieved from [Link]

Havranek, M., Langer, N., Cheetham, M., & Jäncke, L. (2012). Perspective and agency during
video gaming influences spatial presence experience and brain activation patterns.
Behavioral and Brain Functions, 8, 1-13. [Link]

Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F. (2003). AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung
wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. Mensch & Computer
2003: Interaktion in Bewegung, 187-196.

Heller, J. (2023, December 1). NFT Exhibitions, Galleries, and the Metaverse: The Art Word
Adapts to the Digital Realm. Art in America. Retrieved from
[Link]
metaverse-1234602008/

Heutte, J. (2011) La Part Du Collectif Dans La Motivation Et Son Impact Sur Le Bien-Être
Comme Médiateur De La Réussite Des Étudiants: Complémentarités Et. Contributions
Entre L’autodétermination, L’auto-Efficacité Et L’autotélisme. Ph.D. Thesis, Univer-
sité de Nanterre-Paris X, Nanterre, France, 2011.

119
Hetenyi, G., Lengyel, A., & Szilasi, M. (2019). Quantitative analysis of qualitative data: Using
voyant tools to investigate the sales-marketing interface. Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management (JIEM), 12(3), 393-404.

Horne, M., & Thompson, E. M. (2008). The role of virtual reality in built environment
education. *Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3*(1), 5-24.

Hsu, L. (2004). Circulation in museums.

International Council of Museums. (n.d.). Museum definition. In International Council of

Museums. Retrieved May 26, 2024, from
[[Link]
([Link]

Johnson, C. (2019). Museums in a Shifting Paradigm: Defining a New “Traditional”.

Kastrenakes, J. (2021). Your million-dollar NFT can break tomorrow if you’re not careful.
The Verge, 25.

Kljajevic, V. (2021). Consensual Illusion: The Mind in Virtual Reality. Springer.

Kim, M. J., Wang, X., Han, S., & Wang, Y. (2015). Implementing an augmented reality-
enabled wayfinding system through studying user experience and requirements in
complex environments. Visualization in Engineering, 3, 1-12.

Kim, S. (2018). Virtual exhibitions and communication factors. Museum Management and
Curatorship, 33(3), 243-260.

Lee, B.K. (2021). The Metaverse World and Our Future. Rev. Korea Contents Assoc., 19, 13–
17. [Google Scholar]

Lee, L. H., Zhou, P., Braud, T., & Hui, P. (2022). What is the metaverse? an immersive
cyberspace and open challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03018.

Li, W., & Huang, X. (2023, July). A New Way to Experience Art: Experience Design and
Strategies for Immersive Exhibitions. In International Conference on Human-
Computer Interaction (pp. 136-149). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Louvre Museum. (2021). The Mona Lisa in virtual reality in your own home. Retrieved March
26, 2024, from [[Link]
in-virtual-reality-in-your-ownhome]([Link]
museum/the-mona-lisa-in-virtual-reality-in-your-own-home)

George, B. H., Sleipness, O. R., & Quebbeman, A. (2017). Using virtual reality as a design
input: Impacts on collaboration in a university design studio setting. Journal of Digital
Landscape Architecture, 2, 252-260. [Link]

Gerosa, M. (2007). Second Life. Rome: Meltemi Editore.

120
MacGregor, A. (2007). William Huddesford (1732–1772): his role in reanimating the
Ashmolean Museum, his collections, researches and support network. Archives of
natural history, 34(1), 47-68.

Manssour, Y. M., El-Daly, H. M., & Morsi, N. K. (2018). The Historical Evolution of
Museums Architecture.

Marty, P.F. (2011). My lost museum: user expectations and motivations for creating personal
digital collections on museum websites. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res., 33(3), 211–219.

Masood, M. H., Shafi, S., Rahim, M. Y., & Darwesh, M. A. (2020). Interference of L1 (Urdu)
in L2 (English) in Pakistan: Teaching English as a second language. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 9(5), 110-118.

Mason, M. (2020). The elements of visitor experience in post-digital museum design. Design
Principles and Practices, 14(1), [Link]〉

Meijer, F., Geudeke, B. L., & Van den Broek, E. L. (2009). Navigating through virtual
environments: Visual realism improves spatial cognition. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 12(5), 517-521. [Link]

Moneta, A. (2020). Architecture, heritage, and the metaverse. Traditional Dwellings and
Settlements Review, 32(1), 37-49.

Murray, M. D. (2021). NFTs and the Art World-What's Real, and What's Not. UCLA Ent. L.
Rev., 29, 25.

Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle. (2023). Revivre - itinérance. Retrieved May 26, 2024,
from ([Link]

Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Decentralized Business

Review.

Naredi-Rainer, P. v, & Hilger, O. (2004). Museum buildings: A design manual. Birkhäuser,

Publishers for Architecture.

NFT Plazas. (2024). Metaverse Explorer: Examining the Sotheby's NFT Gallery. Retrieved
from [Link]

Novak, M. (1991). Liquid architectures in cyberspace. In Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 225-
254).

Ortaç, O. (2021). Impact of new media technologies on museum awareness: Covidien-19

virtual museums in Turkey pandemic process (Unpublished master's thesis). Istanbul
Gelisim University.

Paes, D., Arantes, E., & Irizarry, J. (2017). Immersive environment for improving the
understanding of architectural 3D models: Comparing user spatial perception between
immersive and traditional virtual reality systems. Automation in Construction, 84, 292-
303. [Link]

121
Park, S. M., & Kim, Y. G. (2022). A Metaverse: Taxonomy, components, applications, and
open challenges. IEEE Access, 10, 4209-4251.

Passini, R. (1984). Spatial representations, a wayfinding perspective. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 4(2), 153-164.

Paul, C. (2008). New media in the white cube and beyond: Curatorial models for digital art.
Leonardo Reviews Quarterly, 1(2010), 33.

Pallavicini, F., Pepe, A., & Minissi, M. E. (2019). Gaming in virtual reality: What changes in
terms of usability, emotional response, and sense of presence compared to non-
immersive video games? Simulation & Gaming, 50(2), 136-159.
[Link]

Pivec, M., & Kronberger, A. (2016, September). Virtual museum: Playful visitor experience
in the real and virtual world. In 2016 8th International Conference on Games and
Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-GAMES) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

Psarra, S. (2005). Spatial culture, way-finding and the educational message: The impact of
layout on the spatial, social and educational experiences of visitors to museums and
galleries. In Reshaping Museum Space (pp. 78-94). Routledge.

Repina, E., & Sopin, N. (2023). Trends in organization of interactive exhibition spaces. A
modern example of revising the interaction of the exhibition space and the visitor. In
E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 457, p. 03009). EDP Sciences.

Rice, A. (2003). Exploring the impact of emerging landscape visualization tools on spatial
perception and design education. In Proceedings of Anhalt University of Applied
Sciences (pp. 173-182). Köthen, Germany.

San Mateo. (2019, August 2). Roblox reaches 100 million monthly active user milestone.
Roblox Corporate. Retrieved from [Link]
reaches-100-million-monthly-active-user-milestone/

Scarpa, C. (2006). Carlo Scarpa. Milano: Electa.

Schorch, P. (2014). Cultural feelings and the making of meaning. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 20(1), 22-35.

Schweibenz, W. (2004). Virtual museums. The Development of Virtual Museums,

International Council of Museums (ICOM) News Magazine, 3(3).

Self, R. (2014). The architecture of art museums: a decade of design: 2000-2010. Routledge.

Shehade, M., & Stylianou-Lambert, T. (2020). Virtual reality in museums: Exploring the
experiences of museum professionals. Applied Sciences, 10(11), 4031.

Shiode, N., & Kanoshima, T. (1999, February). Utilising the spatial features of cyberspace for
generating a dynamic museum environment. In Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium
on Virtual Reality Modeling Language (pp. 79-84).

122
Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behavior in immersive
virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 364(1535), 3549-3557. [Link]

Souza, V., Maciel, A., Nedel, L., & Kopper, R. (2021). Measuring presence in virtual
environments: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(8), 1-37.

Sparkes, M. (2021). What is a metaverse?

Stanney, K. M., Mourant, R. R., & Kennedy, R. S. (1998). Human factors issues in virtual
environments: A review of the literature. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 7(4), 327-351. [Link]

Stephenson, N. (1992). Snow Crash. Bantam Books.

Takatalo, J., Nyman, G., & Laaksonen, L. (2008). Components of human experience in virtual
environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 1-15.
[Link]

Tcha-Tokey, K., Loup-Escande, E., Christmann, O., & Richir, S. (2016). A questionnaire to
measure the user experience in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the
2016 Virtual Reality International Conference, Laval, France, 1–5 March 2016.

TechTarget. (2023, July 20). Top 9 Blockchain Platforms to Consider. SearchCIO. Retrieved
December 12, 2023, from [Link]
blockchain-platforms-to-consider

The Economist Group Limited. (2021, September 18). What are blockchains? The Economist.
Retrieved from [Link]

Tröndle, M., & Tschacher, W. (2012). The physiology of phenomenology: The effects of
artworks. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 30(1), 75-113.

Tröndle, M., Greenwood, S., Kirchberg, V., & Tschacher, W. (2014). An integrative and
comprehensive methodology for studying aesthetic experience in the field: Merging
movement tracking, physiology, and psychological data. Environment and Behavior,
46(1), 102-135.

Tzortzi, K. (2016). Museum space: where architecture meets museology. Routledge.

Vom Lehn, D., & Heath, C. (2005). Accounting for new technology in museum exhibitions.
International Journal of Arts Management, 11-21.

Vosinakis, S., & Tsakonas, Y. (2016). Visitor experience in Google Art Project and in Second
Life-based virtual museums: A comparative study. Mediterranean Archaeology and
Archaeometry, 16(5), 19-19.

Waltemate, T., Gall, D., Roth, D., Botsch, M., & Latoschik, M. E. (2018). The impact of avatar
personalization and immersion on virtual body ownership, presence, and emotional
response. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(4), 1643-
1652. [Link]

123
Wang, Q., Li, R., Wang, Q., & Chen, S. (2021). Non-fungible token (NFT): Overview,
evaluation, opportunities and challenges. arXiv preprint.

We Are Museums. (2023). Blockchain for arts & culture 101: Issue 2. WAC Lab. Retrieved
May 26, 2024, from [Link]

Weinberger, M., & Gross, D. (2023). A Comparison of Virtual Worlds Based on the
Metaverse Maturity Model

Wikipedia contributors. (2023, November 5). Active Worlds. Wikipedia. Retrieved from
[Link]

Witmer, B.G., & Singer, M.J. (1998). Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A
Presence Questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environments, 7, 225–240.

Wollentz, G., & Kuhlefelt, H. (2021). Heritage as a process of connecting–Pluralism and

diversity in Nordic and Baltic museums. International Journal of Heritage Studies,
27(6), 554-569.

Yang, Q., Huang, H., Lin, K., & Wu, J. (2023). An Introduction to Web3 and Metaverse. In
Huang, H., Wu, J., & Zheng, Z. (Eds.), From Blockchain to Web3 & Metaverse.
Springer, Singapore. [Link]

Zang, J., & Zhou, C. (1998). Exhibition Architecture. Jiangxi Science and Technology Press,
Nanchang.

Zhao, J., Sensibaugh, T., Bodenheimer, B., McNamara, T. P., Nazareth, A., Newcombe, N.,
& Klippel, A. (2020). Desktop versus immersive virtual environments: Effects on
spatial learning. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 20(4), 328-363.
[Link]

124
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Questionnaire on User Experience in Exhibition Spaces within the

Metaverse
Demographic Questions
1) Age: ______

2) Gender:

o Male
o Female

Metaverse environment familiarity questionnaire

3) How many hours do you spend on the computer per week?

o 2-5 hours a week

o More than 5 but less than 10 hours a week
o More than 10 hours a week

4) Have you ever been in a Metaverse Environment?

o Yes
o No

5) If It is yes;
Which Metaverse Environment have you experienced?
o Cryptovoxels
o Decentraland
o Fortnite
o Minecraft
o oncyber io
o Roblox
o Second Life
o Spatial io
o Somnium Space
o The Sandbox
o Other:_______

125
6) For which purpose have you been in a Metaverse?
o Museum / Art exhibition experience
o Game
o Research
o Other:________

Virtual exhibition space familiarity questionnaire

7) Have you ever been in a Virtual Exhibition Space?
o Yes
o No

8) If It is yes;
Which Virtual Exhibition Space have you experienced?
o Google Arts & Culture
o Virtual Exhibition on Metaverse platfrom
o 3D Online exhibition platform
o Other:________

Visit the Virtual Exhibition Space

Group A: Please go to the link: Verses Gallery to take a tour inside the
environment and examine the artworks. After you finish your tour, return to this
link and proceed with the questionnaire by clicking ‘next’ button below.

Group B: Please go to the link: NFT Biennial Gallery to take a tour inside the
environment and examine the artworks. After you finish your tour, return to this link
and proceed with the questionnaire by clicking ‘next’ button below.

Questionnaire on User experience in Virtual Exhibition Environments

within the Metaverse
Referring to the experience at virtual exhibition space, please answer the
following questions using the rating scale below.
Presence Subscale
1) I was able to actively observe the virtual environment.

126
2) I was able to examine artworks closely.

3) I could examine artworks from multiple viewpoints.

4) I felt proficient in moving and interacting with the virtual environment at the
end of the experience.

5) I found my experiences in the virtual environment to be consistent with my real-

world experience.

6) The visual display quality distracted me from visiting the virtual exhibition
space.

7) The devices (keyboard and mouse), which controlled my movement, distract

me from experiencing the space.

127
Engagement Subscale

8) The visual aspects of the virtual environment engaged me.

9) The sense of moving within the virtual environment was interesting.

10) I was involved in the virtual environment experience.

Immersion Subscale

11) I felt excited by the virtual environment.

12) I become so engaged the virtual environment that I was not aware of
things happening around me.

13) I got scared by something happening in the virtual environment.

128
14) I become so involved in the virtual environment that I lose all track of time.

Flow Subscale

15) I felt I could perfectly control my actions.

16) At each step, I knew what to do.

17) I felt I controlled the situation.

18) Time seemed to flow differently than usual.

19) I was losing the sense of time.

20) I felt I was experiencing an exciting moment.

129
Judgement Subscale

21) I found that this virtual architectural space was original.

22) I found that this virtual architectural space was lame (1) / exciting (5).

23) I found that this virtual architectural space was easy (1) / challenging (5) in
terms of wayfinding.

24) I found this virtual architectural space amateurish (1) / professional (5).

25) I found this virtual architectural space unpresentable (1) / presentable (5).

26) I found that this virtual architectural space is ugly (1) /beautiful (5).

130
27) I found that this virtual architectural space is disagreeable (1) / likeable (5).

28) I found that this virtual architectural space is discouraging (1) / motivating
(5).

Wayfinding Subscale

29) Entering the virtual exhibition space, I felt good about the environmental
image.

30) With the help of virtual exhibition space’s environmental image, I felt
confident in wayfinding.

31) I relied on the virtual space’s environmental image to decide how to

reach my destination.

131
32) I had to make an effort to identify the locations of the pathways.

Open-ended Questions

Referring to the experience at virtual exhibition space, please answer the

following questions.

1) In your opinion what were the positive effects of your experience?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

2) In your opinion, what were the negative points of your experience?

____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

3) Do you have any suggestions to improve the virtual reality environment?

____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________

132
 APPENDIX B

Research Participation Consent Form

Purpose
The aim of this research is to how virtual exhibition spaces in metaverses should be developed,
following conventional architectural styles similar to the real world or any styles that fit cyberspace.
As a participant, I am asked to tour one of the two experiment spaces of this research.

Participation
I am one of the approximately 100 participants of this research study. I understand that the assignment
of the virtual space I will tour will be done by the investigator. My participation is entirely voluntary. I
feel comfortable taking part in this research. As a participant, I can decide to withdraw from
participation while informing the researcher at any stage of the experiment or I can be excluded from
the research if deemed necessary by the researcher. I am aware that my relation with Bilkent
University and my academic evaluation will not be affected if I don’t participate or if I withdraw from
participation. Also, if I have any questions regarding this research, I can contact the investigator,
advisor of the investigator or Bilkent University Local Ethics Committee.

Procedure
As a participant in this research, I will fill an initial questionnaire about my gender, age, familiarity
with metaverses,virtual exhibition spaces, spatial ability and flow state of mind. Then I will tour a
virtual exhibition space and examine the artworks. Finally, I will fill in a questionnaire about my
experience in the virtual exhibition space.

Benefits and Risks

There will be no direct benefit to me from this study. However, the findings have the potential to
make a contribution to the field of design. Participating in this research will help the research collect
the necessary data to test the theories and therefore, add to the existing limited knowledge and
research on virtual exhibition spaces. I understand that this research will not cause me any harm, there
are no known or expected risks caused by the participation in this study.

Compensation

I will not be compensated for my participation in this research. No money will be paid for
participating in this research study nor will extra credits be given within the courses.

Confidentiality

Any information obtained in relation to this research study will be reported and published for
scientific purposes. As a participant, any information about my identity will remain confidential and
placed in investigator’s locked secure storage for two years after the completion of the research.

By signing below, I am accepting that I have read and understood this form. I have asked all the
questions I have and I understand what I am being asked to do. By signing below, I accept that I am
willing and would like to participate in this study.

Name of the Participant: ______________________________________

(First) (Last)
I am above 18 years old.

___________________________________ __________________________________
Signature of the Participant Date

___________________________________ __________________________________
Signature of the Investigator Date

___________________________________ __________________________________
Signature of the Advisor Date

133