Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 158 references

Hakka Kitchen: Engagement with Culinary Cultural Heritage Through Immersive Game Play

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Hakka Kitchen claims that embodying a traditional dish's constraints in VR transmits a complementary layer of cultural heritage, at the cost of absorbing concurrent narration.

desk verdict A solid empirical VR-ICH study with a genuinely interesting action-masking finding, but the central causal claim about embodied enactment is confounded with gamification elements. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26183 v1 pith:YBHM7Q4Q submitted 2026-07-28 cs.HC

Jingle Huang , Yuyao Zhang , Ruyan Chen , Ray LC This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords virtualrealityintangibleculturalheritageculinaryembodiedcognitiongamificationactionmaskingkinestheticempathyVRvideocomparison
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that process-based culinary heritage, like making stuffed bitter melon, cannot be fully transmitted by passive video because its meaning lives in physical constraints: slice thickness, pith removal, blanching timing, and filling tightness. It builds a gamified VR experience in which players enact those constraints with hand-tracked gestures, then compares them against a matched VR video of the same procedure in a between-subjects study with 40 participants. Enactment raised sensory and imaginative immersion, positive affect, and the desire to transmit awareness of the heritage. But heritage recognition is mode-dependent: players absorbed the chef's cultural narration less while enacting, yet gained felt bodily knowledge of the constraints and a kinesthetic empathy for the artisan's labor. The two modes transmit complementary layers; neither transmits both at once.

What carries the argument

The procedural dictionary: a table translating chef interviews into process stages, somatic constraints, game mechanics, and cultural connotations. The load-bearing identity is enactment of constraints—culturally meaningful tolerances (thickness, pith removal, timing, stuffing limits) become the game mechanics themselves, using isomorphic hand-tracking so gestures structurally resemble real cooking actions. The mechanism includes a withheld-parameter timer, reversible failure states, and stage-gated narration. The paper's explanatory device is action masking: the motor demands of enactment occupy the attentional bandwidth needed to encode concurrent narration, an amodal bottleneck that narra

What would settle it

Run a three-arm between-subjects design: interactive enactment, passive VR video, and passive VR video with identical game elements overlaid (progress bar, badge, error audio, hints) but no hand interaction. If the third arm matches the engagement and transmission gains, the effect is game feedback, not enactment. Alternatively, log narration recall split by high- versus low-load steps; action masking predicts recall drops precisely during manual phases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that representing interactive procedures instead of static content can empower cultural awareness in virtual ICH practice. In Hakka Kitchen, expert-elicited tacit checkpoints become game mechanics: slices outside the 1–3 cm band wobble, unremoved pith blocks blanching, wrong timer settings trigger error feedback, and overfilled rings burst. Compared with a VR video containing the same five-stage content and narration, enactment raised interest/enjoyment, sensory and imaginative immersion, positive affect, and the heritage-awareness dimensions tied to transmission and vitality, with no difference on a six-item procedural quiz. The central finding is the trade-off:

Load-bearing premise

The central comparison assumes the gamified VR condition differs from the control only in embodied enactment, but it also includes game elements—progress bar, achievement badge, step-completion audio, error-and-retry states, hints, and an interactive environment—so the measured advantages may come from interactivity or game feedback rather than enactment per se.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For culinary ICH, embodied VR can transmit felt, threshold-bound knowledge—what 1–3 cm, fully scraped pith, and 'not too full' feel like—that matched video leaves as abstract instruction.
  • Enactment increases interest, sensory/imaginative immersion, positive affect, and the perceived transmission value of the heritage, with the strongest robust effect on transmission awareness.
  • Cultural narration is reliably absorbed during passive observation but partially masked during manual enactment; enacted constraints are retained better than narrated-only meaning.
  • Immediate procedural quiz performance and perceived competence do not differ between modes, so the enacted benefit is affective and valuing, not declarative recall.
  • Design should keep culturally meaningful constraints as the mechanic, make feedback externalize the tacit judgment, and schedule narration during low-load windows.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The study cannot yet separate enactment from gamification: a control video that also carries a progress bar, badge, and error-feedback audio would test whether the engagement gains come from doing or from game feedback.
  • Action masking should be sharpest in threshold-bound, outcome-bearing crafts and weakest in expressive heritage where movement itself carries meaning; this predicts a domain-specific design rule rather than a universal VR-heritage effect.
  • A longitudinal follow-up with delayed quizzes and real-kitchen transfer could show whether somatic anchors produce durable retention even though immediate quiz scores were equal.
  • Spatial or environmental cultural cues, rather than concurrent voiceover, might deliver heritage meaning during high-load steps without competing for attention.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Hakka Kitchen, a gamified VR experience for the Hakka dish stuffed bitter melon, grounded in chef interviews and a procedural dictionary. In a between-subjects study (N=40), participants either enacted the recipe via hand-tracked VR or watched a matched video in VR. The gamified condition reported higher Interest/Enjoyment, Sensory & Imaginative Immersion, Positive Affect, and heritage-awareness Transmission/Vitality, with no difference on a six-item procedural quiz. Qualitative analysis reports that enactment creates somatic memory anchors and that concurrent cultural narration is partially masked by action. The authors conclude that embodied VR transmits a different, complementary layer of cultural knowledge than passive observation.

Significance. The study has clear strengths: the statistical reporting is transparent and appropriate (Mann–Whitney U with Cliff's delta and bootstrapped CIs, Holm-corrected flags), the video-in-VR control is better than the no-control or desktop baselines common in prior VR-ICH work, and the procedural-dictionary design process is a transferable methodological contribution. If the central claims could be causally isolated, the paper would usefully complicate the assumption that embodied VR is uniformly additive for cultural transmission. However, the central independent variable is confounded with gamification/interactivity, and the action-masking evidence is largely qualitative and underpowered. The contribution is therefore currently suggestive rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §3.3.2–3.3.3, §3.4.1] The assertion that the two arms 'differ only in whether participants physically enacted or passively observed' is not supported. The enactment condition includes a progress bar, achievement badge, step-completion audio, error-and-retry states, hints, and a physics-based interactive environment; the video control has none of these. These elements are known engagement drivers. The observed increases in IMI Interest/Enjoyment (δ=0.81), GEQ Sensory & Imaginative (δ=0.62), and Transmission (δ=0.70) may therefore be due to game/interactivity features rather than embodied enactment per se. To support the central causal claim, the design needs a factorial manipulation (enactment × game feedback) or an additional control that includes equivalent progress/feedback elements without requiring physical enactment. At minimum, the conclusions should be reframed as effects of the interactive gamified ex
  2. [§5.2.3, §5.1.4] The action-masking conclusion is not adequately supported. The per-item quiz dissociation (gamified 17/20 vs video 20/20 on the narrated-symbolism item; 14/20 vs 10/20 on the blanching-rationale item) is non-significant (Fisher's exact p>.12), and both groups are near ceiling on the six-item quiz (5.15 vs 5.05 out of 6), so item-level tests have low sensitivity. The qualitative reports of 'not noticing the chef' could reflect attention capture by game elements (progress bar, badge, error cues) rather than cognitive load from sensorimotor coordination. No direct measure of cognitive load or attention is provided. The central claim that enactment masks narration while observation transmits it requires stronger evidence, e.g., an experimental manipulation of narration timing, a process-tracing measure, or an improved quiz without ceiling effects.
  3. [§6.2, §6.4.4] The interpretation that the bottleneck is 'amodal' (central working-memory competition) rather than modality-specific is an overreach. In both conditions, narration is presented auditorily during the procedure, so the design cannot distinguish between competition for central amodal resources and modality-specific interference. The paper honestly acknowledges in §6.4.1 that step-boundary triggering did not prevent masking, but that does not resolve the interpretive issue. This is secondary to the main mode-dependence claim, but the amodal conclusion should be flagged as speculative or tested with a design that varies narration modality/timing.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The gamified-VR group is older on average (26.4 vs 22.7) and no test or control for age is reported. Given the age range and possible effects on VR familiarity and engagement, a sensitivity analysis or covariate check would strengthen the between-group comparison.
  2. [Figure 7] The caption states Fisher's exact p>.05 while Section 5.1.4 reports all per-item p>.12; please make the reported thresholds consistent.
  3. [§4.1, §6.4.4] Section 6.4.4 is admirably honest about the control video's limitations (error-free demonstration, viewpoint mismatch), but this should be prominently disclosed in Section 4.1 where the 'differ only in' claim is made, rather than deferred to the limitations.
  4. [Appendix A.2] The qualitative themes are plausible, but the codebook table consists largely of example quotes. Reporting inter-rater reliability or code frequencies would help confirm that the 'nine of twenty' action-masking theme is not an artifact of selective quotation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Empirical between-subjects comparison with matched video control; no derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is an empirical study, not a derived or fitted model. The central comparison is a two-arm between-subjects experiment (gamified VR enactment vs. VR video observation) using standard, pre-existing instruments (IMI, GEQ, ICH Scale, six-item procedural quiz), none of which are fitted to the outcome. The design choices are grounded in formative chef interviews and cited external theory (e.g., cognitive load, error-based learning, intrinsic integration), not in the study's own results. The 'action masking' construct is defined from external literature and then tested via self-report and a non-significant quiz-item pattern; although the evidence is weak, the pattern is not used to define the construct, so there is no definitional circularity. The paper's assertion that the two conditions 'differ only in whether participants physically enacted or passively observed' (Section 4.1) is confounded by the game elements present only in the enactment condition, but a confound is a validity threat, not a circularity: the experimental outcome is not logically forced by the design. The paper itself acknowledges control-design limitations in Section 6.4.4. Self-citations (e.g., [75], [149]) are used for positioning and related-work contrast, not to justify the central empirical claim. The central claims are self-contained against an external control condition; no step reduces by construction to its inputs. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on design choices (expert-elicitation thresholds) and measurement assumptions, not on fitted mathematical parameters. No invented theoretical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Slice thickness tolerance band = 1–3 cm
    Hand-set design constant from chef interviews; defines the enacted constraint but not fitted to outcome data.
  • Pith removal required fraction = 95%
    Chosen threshold for texture-erasure mask; from expert phrasing 'scrape it clean'; not fitted.
  • Blanching target time = 1 minute
    From expert interviews; implemented as withheld-parameter timer; not fitted.
  • Stuffing fill limits = physics-based (unspecified)
    Filling limits that collapse/burst; derived from expert descriptions of under/overfilling.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Three chefs with 10+ years of experience provide a faithful and sufficient account of the culinary ICH for the design.
    Section 3.2.1; only 3 experts, no external validation with the broader Hakka community.
  • domain assumption The matched VR video presents the same information and narration as the gamified experience.
    Section 3.4.1; video clips are stitched and narrated, but pacing, perspective, and absence of game elements make exact content equivalence impossible.
  • domain assumption The short-form ICH Scale, IMI, and GEQ subscales validly measure the intended constructs in this population.
    Section 4.3.2; instruments are adapted from published scales; short-form validity in this specific VR context is not established.
  • domain assumption Cognitive-load theory and the multiple-resources model explain the observed suppression of narration during enactment.
    Section 2.2/6.2; the mechanism is invoked to interpret results, not independently measured (no workload measure).
  • domain assumption Self-report engagement, affect, and awareness correspond to actual learning outcomes.
    Measures are questionnaire-based; no behavioral or physiological verification, and the quiz showed no difference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hakka Kitchen: Engagement with Culinary Cultural Heritage Through Immersive Game Play." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YBHM7Q4Q

@misc{pith2026260726183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hakka Kitchen: Engagement with Culinary Cultural Heritage Through Immersive Game Play},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YBHM7Q4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26183}
}
read the original abstract

Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) experiences are difficult to share with the public because they are essentially processes that rely on physical interactions with embodied, tacit, and situated phenomena in specific cultural contexts. We consume non-interactive media such as videos and books to learn about culinary ICH experiences, but they do not allow us to grasp actual interactive procedures that embody the cultural knowledge. To engage people in a traditional cooking experience, we created a gamified VR experience Hakka Kitchen, where players are guided by a chef of Hakka cuisine through a modeled physical process of making the traditional dish of stuffed bitter melon. Compared against watching a video in VR providing the same information in a between-subjects study (N=40), Hakka Kitchen led to increased sensory, imaginative engagement, positive affect, and willingness to transmit awareness for the culinary ICH. Heritage recognition is mode-dependent: the cognitive load of enactment suppressed players' uptake of concurrent cultural narration; however, it generated somatic and memory anchors that fostered a deeper, implicit kinesthetic form of empathy for the artisan's labor and cultural background. Our work shows how representing interactive procedures instead of static content may empower cultural awareness in a virtual form of ICH practice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26183 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hakka Kitchen is a gamified VR experience that translates expert-interview insights into game me￾chanics, guiding players through preparing stuffed bitter melon under the mentorship of a Hakka chef. Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) experiences are difficult to share with the public because they are essentially processes that rely on physical interactions with embodied, tacit, and situated phenomena in specific cul… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Player interaction sequence: (1) onboard and read the recipe; (2) choose and grab the correct seasonings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experience Flow. Players progress through the stages of (A) introduction, (B) mixing, (C) slicing, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: System architecture. The VR gamified experience is developed in Unity and deployed to the Meta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Study procedure: (1) welcome and consent; (2) random group assignment and pre-study survey; (3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ), and Cultural-Heritage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Per-item MCQ accuracy by condition; no comparison reached significance (Fisher’s exact, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Knowing-how via embodied doing vs. knowing-about via visual recall. The gamified VR experience [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The Cultural Trade-off. A divergence between somatic attention and semantic uptake. The high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

158 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bengi Agcal, Ray Lc, and Ziyou Yin. 2023. Land Enough. InProceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 Art Gallery (Daegu, Republic of Korea)(SA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 25, 1 pages. doi:10.1145/3550470.3558453

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Bengi Agcal, Ines Ziyou Yin, Marty Miller, and RAY LC. 2025. Bricolage: aligning with climate action through playful participatory design in speculative scenarios.International Journal of Play14, 1 (2025), 33–49. doi:10.1080/21594937. 2025.2464324

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Joe Askren and Waynne James. 2021. Experiential Learning Methods in Culinary Course Can Bridge the Gap: Student Perceptions on How Hands-On Curriculum Prepares Them for Industry.Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education 33, 2 (2021), 111–125. doi:10.1080/10963758.2020.1791134

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Melike Balkaya and Gökçe Elif Baykal. 2025. Exploring the Nexus of Technology and Food Practices in Young Adults: A Value-Sensitive Design Perspective towards Human-Food Interaction. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713900

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Francesco Bellotti, Riccardo Berta, Alessandro De Gloria, Annamaria D’ursi, and Valentina Fiore. 2012. A serious game model for cultural heritage.Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage5, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1–27. doi:10.1145/ 2399180.2399185

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Alessandro Giovanni Bertinetto. 2020. Dishes as Performances, Authenticity, Normativity and Improvisation in the Kitchen.Journal of Philosophical Studies(2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Robert A. Bjork. 1994. Memory and Metamemory Considerations in the Training of Human Beings. InMetacognition, Janet Metcalfe and Arthur P. Shimamura (Eds.). The MIT Press, 185–206. doi:10.7551/mitpress/4561.003.0011

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/4561.003.0011 1994

  8. [8]

    Ingela Bohm. 2026. Sensory reflections: towards the development of cooking literacy in Swedish Home Economics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research70, 2 (Feb. 2026), 389–401. doi:10.1080/00313831.2025.2492050

    arXiv 2026

Show all 158 references
  1. [9]

    Maria Bonn, Lori Kendall, and Jerome McDonough. 2016. Preserving intangible heritage: Defining a research agenda. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology53, 1 (2016), 1–5

    2016

  2. [10]

    Emily Bouck, Laura Norwine, Larissa Jakubow, and James Nuse. 2025. Playing with Food: Non-Immersive Virtual Reality to Teach Food Preparation.Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities(July 2025). doi:10.1007/s10882- 025-10028-6

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?Qualitative Research in Psychology18, 3 (July 2021), 328–352. doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

    2021

  5. [13]

    Dimitrios Buhalis, Daniel Leung, and Michael Lin. 2023. Metaverse as a disruptive technology revolutionising tourism management and marketing.Tourism management97 (2023), 104724

    2023

  6. [14]

    Paul Chandler and John Sweller. 1991. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction.Cognition and Instruction 8, 4 (Dec 1991), 293–332. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2

    1991 doi

  7. [15]

    Gary Charness, Uri Gneezy, and Michael A. Kuhn. 2012. Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization81, 1 (Jan. 2012), 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Michelene T. H. Chi and Ruth Wylie. 2014. The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes.Educational Psychologist49, 4 (Oct. 2014), 219–243. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

    2014

  9. [17]

    Renee Conroy and Aili Bresnahan. 2025. The Philosophy of Dance. InThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Fall 2025 ed.), Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (Eds.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University

    2025

  10. [18]

    Office Create. 2020. Cooking Mama

    2020

  11. [19]

    Gregory Currie. 1999. Visible traces: documentary and the contents of photographs.The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism57, 3 (1999), 285–297

    1999

  12. [20]

    Robertas Damaševičius, Rytis Maskeli¯unas, and Tomas Blažauskas. 2023. Serious games and gamification in healthcare: a meta-review.Information14, 2 (2023), 105

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hanne De Jaegher and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2007. Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences6, 4 (Dec. 2007), 485–507. doi:10.1007/s11097-007-9076-9

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments(Sep 2011), 9–15. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040 Proc. ACM Hum...

    2011

  15. [23]

    2018.Serious games foundations, concepts and Practice

    Ralf Dorner, Stefan Gobel, Wolfgang Effelsberg, and Josef Wiemeyer. 2018.Serious games foundations, concepts and Practice. Springer International Publishing

    2018

  16. [24]

    J. A. Easterbrook. 1959. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior.Psychological Review66, 3 (1959), 183–201. doi:10.1037/h0047707

    1959 doi

  17. [25]

    John Falk and Martin Storksdieck. 2005. Using the contextual model of learning to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition.Science Education89, 5 (Sept. 2005), 744–778. doi:10.1002/sce.20078

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    Nicole Farmer and Rachel Hingst. 2025. Tacit Knowledge in Cooking: A Key to Teaching and Integrating Cooking as a Practice.Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior57, 8 (Aug. 2025), 787–797. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2025.03.010

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Charles H Feldman and Shahla Wunderlich. 2023. Cultural food distancing: a conceptual discourse on the evolution of seminal to present and future models of traditional food practices.British Food Journal125, 5 (2023), 1936–1952

    2023

  20. [28]

    Alexander Wieck Fjaeldstad and Barry Smith. 2022. The effects of olfactory loss and parosmia on food and cooking habits, sensory awareness, and quality of life—a possible avenue for regaining enjoyment of food.Foods11, 12 (2022), 1686

    2022

  21. [29]

    Lucia Foglia and Robert A Wilson. 2013. Embodied cognition.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science4, 3 (2013), 319–325

    2013

  22. [30]

    Maite Frutos-Pascual, Chris Creed, and Ian Williams. 2019. Head Mounted Display Interaction Evaluation: Manip- ulating Virtual Objects in Augmented Reality. InHuman-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019, David Lamas, Fernando Loizides, Lennart Nacke, Helen Petrie, Marco Winckle...

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Being Eroded, Piece by Piece

    Kexue Fu, Ruishan Wu, Yuying Tang, Yixin Chen, Bowen Liu, and Ray Lc. 2024. "Being Eroded, Piece by Piece": Enhancing Engagement and Storytelling in Cultural Heritage Dissemination by Exhibiting GenAI Co-Creation Artifacts. InDesigning Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Cope...

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Nicola K Gale, Gemma Heath, Elaine Cameron, Sabina Rashid, and Sabi Redwood. 2013. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research.BMC Medical Research Methodology13, 1 (Sept. 2013), 117. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-117

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    Jorge Garcia-Fernandez and Leonor Medeiros. 2019. Cultural heritage and communication through simulation videogames—A validation of Minecraft.Heritage2, 3 (2019), 2262–2274

    2019

  26. [34]

    Maja Gorsic, Minh Ha Tran, and Domen Novak. 2018. Cooperative Cooking: A Novel Virtual Environment for Upper Limb Rehabilitation. In2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). IEEE, Honolulu, HI, 3602–3605. doi:10.1...

    2018

  27. [35]

    Anthony Greenwald. 1976. Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use?Psychological Bulletin83 (03 1976), 314–320. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.2.314

    1976 doi

  28. [36]

    Dimitar Gyaurov, Carlo Fabricatore, and Andrea Bottino. 2022. Features of entertainment digital games for learning and developing complex problem-solving skills: A protocol for a systemic review.International Journal of Qualitative Methods21 (2022), 16094069221128491

    2022

  29. [37]

    M. P. Jacob Habgood and Shaaron E. Ainsworth. 2011. Motivating Children to Learn Effectively: Exploring the Value of Intrinsic Integration in Educational Games.Journal of the Learning Sciences20, 2 (April 2011), 169–206. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.508029

    2011

  30. [38]

    Kuijpers, Ed S

    Frank Hakemulder, Moniek M. Kuijpers, Ed S. Tan, Katalin Bálint, and Miruna M. Doicaru (Eds.). 2017.Narrative Absorption. Linguistic Approaches to Literature, Vol. 27. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam. doi:10. 1075/lal.27

    2017

  31. [39]

    Lars Hallnäs and Johan Redström. 2001. Slow Technology – Designing for Reflection.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing5, 3 (Aug. 2001), 201–212. doi:10.1007/PL00000019

    2001 doi

  32. [40]

    McGuinness, and Mohammed J

    Steven Haussmann, Oshani Seneviratne, Yu Chen, Yarden Ne’eman, James Codella, Ching-Hua Chen, Deborah L. McGuinness, and Mohammed J. Zaki. 2019. FoodKG: A Semantics-Driven Knowledge Graph for Food Recommendation. InThe Semantic Web – ISWC 2019, Chiara Ghidini, Olaf Hartig, Mar...

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Yihao He. 2023. ShadowPlayVR: Understanding traditional shadow puppetry performance techniques through non-intuitive embodied interactions.29th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology(Oct 2023), 1–2. doi:10.1145/3611659.3617226

    2023

  34. [42]

    Zhiting He, Jiayi Su, Li Chen, Tianqi Wang, and Ray Lc. 2025. ’I Recall the Past’: Exploring How People Collaborate with Generative AI to Create Cultural Heritage Narratives.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 2 (May 2025), 1–30. doi:10.1145/3711006 Proc. AC...

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    Riie Heikkilä. 2022. What do we know about cultural participation and non-participation?Palgrave Studies in Cultural Participation(2022), 37–48. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-18865-7_3

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention

    2003

  37. [45]

    Goble, and Neal F

    Ken Hinckley, Randy Pausch, John C. Goble, and Neal F. Kassell. 1994. Passive real-world interface props for neurosurgical visualization. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Boston, Massachusetts, USA)(CHI ’94). Association for Computin...

    1994

  38. [46]

    Arata Horie, Satoru Mega, and Kuniaki Uehara. 2006. The Interactive Cooking Support System in Mixed Reality Environment. In2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. IEEE, Toronto, ON, Canada, 657–660. doi:10.1109/ICME.2006.262531

    2006

  39. [47]

    Yumeng Hou, Sarah Kenderdine, Davide Picca, Mattia Egloff, and Alessandro Adamou. 2022. Digitizing Intangible Cultural Heritage Embodied: State of the Art.Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage15, 3 (Sept. 2022), 1–20. doi:10.1145/3494837

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    W. A. IJsselsteijn, Y. A. W. de Kort, and K Poels. 2013. The Game Experience Questionnaire. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

    2013

  41. [49]

    Chiara Innocente, Luca Ulrich, Sandro Moos, and Enrico Vezzetti. 2023. A framework study on the use of immersive XR technologies in the cultural heritage domain.Journal of Cultural Heritage62 (July 2023), 268–283. doi:10.1016/j. culher.2023.06.001

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer. 1997. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. InProceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, Atlanta Georgia USA, 234–241. doi:10.1145/258549.258715

    1997

  43. [51]

    Jacob, Audrey Girouard, Leanne M

    Robert J.K. Jacob, Audrey Girouard, Leanne M. Hirshfield, Michael S. Horn, Orit Shaer, Erin Treacy Solovey, and Jamie Zigelbaum. 2008. Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems....

    2008

  44. [52]

    Kristiina Janhonen, Kaisa Torkkeli, and Johanna Mäkelä. 2018. Informal learning and food sense in home cooking. Appetite130 (2018), 190–198

    2018

  45. [53]

    Hendrik Janter, Nicolas Pirson, Liesl Spruyt, Wouter Coenen, Jasper De Kepper, Jeroen Wauters, Maria Aufheimer, Nianmei Zhou, and Luc Geurts. 2023. CookT: A Fast-Paced Collaborative Cooking Game with Interactive Objects. In Companion Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Comp...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Yi Ji, Shengyang Zhong, Bin Zhang, and Clark Sean. 2021. Constructing Embodied Interaction of Intangible Cultural Heritage Course through Immersive Virtual Reality. InThe Ninth International Symposium of Chinese CHI. ACM, Online Hong Kong, 133–138. doi:10.1145/3490355.3490373

    2021

  47. [55]

    Johnson-Glenberg

    Mina C. Johnson-Glenberg. 2018. Immersive VR and education: embodied design principles that include gesture and hand controls.Frontiers in Robotics and AI5 (July 2018), 81. doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00081

    2018

  48. [56]

    Manu Kapur. 2008. Productive Failure.Cognition and Instruction26, 3 (July 2008), 379–424. doi:10.1080/ 07370000802212669

    2008

  49. [57]

    Klemmer, Björn Hartmann, and Leila Takayama

    Scott R. Klemmer, Björn Hartmann, and Leila Takayama. 2006. How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design. InProceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems. ACM, University Park PA USA, 140–149. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142429

    2006 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Guilherme Henrique Koerich, Fernanda A Ferreira, José António Costa Alves da Silva, and Araci Hack Catapan. 2024. Learning experiences in the culinary classroom: Identifying barriers and enablers in the practical teaching-learning process in gastronomy.Journal of Hospitality, ...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Vasileios Komianos. 2022. Immersive Applications in Museums: An Analysis of the Use of XR Technologies and the Provided Functionality Based on Systematic Literature Review.JOIV : International Journal on Informatics Visualization6, 1 (March 2022), 60. doi:10.30630/joiv.6.1.708

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    Cuiting Kong. 2024. Digital Diabolo: A virtual reality game for the presentation of Intangible Cultural Heritage through Participatory design.Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2024: Situated Actions, Doctoral Colloquium, PDC places, Communities - Volume 3(Aug ...

    2024

  53. [61]

    Thomas Kosch, Kevin Wennrich, Daniel Topp, Marcel Muntzinger, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2019. The digital cooking coach: using visual and auditory in-situ instructions to assist cognitively impaired during cooking. InProceedings of the 12th ACM international conference on pervasiv...

    2019

  54. [62]

    Zoe Kosmadoudi, Theodore Lim, James Ritchie, Sandy Louchart, Ying Liu, and Raymond Sung. 2013. Engineering design using game-enhanced CAD: The potential to augment the user experience with game elements.Computer-Aided Design45, 3 (2013), 777–795

    2013

  55. [63]

    Fedwa Laamarti, Mohamad Eid, and Abdulmotaleb El Saddik. 2014. An overview of serious games.International Journal of Computer Games Technology2014 (2014), 1–15. doi:10.1155/2014/358152 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 7, Article GAMES036. Publication date: Novemb...

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    Ka Hei Carrie Lau, Sema Sen, Philipp Stark, Efe Bozkir, and Enkelejda Kasneci. 2025. Adaptive Gen-AI Guidance in Virtual Reality: A Multimodal Exploration of Engagement in Neapolitan Pizza-Making. InProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. AC...

    2025

  57. [65]

    1991.Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation(1 ed.)

    Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991.Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation(1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355

    1991 doi

  58. [66]

    2017.Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction

    Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2017.Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. Elsevier

    2017

  59. [67]

    RAY LC and Vincent Ruijters. 2022. Chikyuchi: In-person/remote game exhibition for climate change influence. InSixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. doi:10.1145...

    2022

  60. [68]

    Tae-Su Lee. 2021. Development and applied effects of VR-based cooking serious game for students with intellectual disabilities.Journal of Korea Game Society21, 1 (2021), 67–80

    2021

  61. [69]

    Shangzhong Lei and Liang Tan. 2026. A Study on Multi-modal Interactive Experience Design of Cantonese Dragon Boat Culture from the Perspective of Embodied Cognition. InProceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality and Interaction ...

    2026

  62. [70]

    Yaning Li, Sirui Wang, Ximu Sun, Lei Yang, Tingting Zhu, Yuexi Chen, Ke Zhao, Yiqing Zhao, Meng Li, and Ray Lc

  63. [71]

    Dan Liao, Zhiquan Zeng, and Wanchun Ding. 2026. VR-Cook: Designing a Virtual Reality Serious Game for Cognitive Training Through Cooking Activities in Older Adults. InHCI International 2025 – Late Breaking Papers, Martin Schrepp (Ed.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 85–102

    2026

  64. [72]

    Chenming Lin, Guobin Xia, Farnaz Nickpour, and Yinshan Chen. 2025. A review of emotional design in extended reality for the preservation of culture heritage.npj Heritage Science13, 1 (March 2025), 86. doi:10.1038/s40494-025-01625-x

    2025 doi

  65. [73]

    Long Ling, Xinyi Chen, Ruoyu Wen, Toby Jia-Jun Li, and Ray Lc. 2024. Sketchar: Supporting Character Design and Illustration Prototyping Using Generative AI.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2024), 1–28. doi:10.1145/3677102

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    Qingqin Liu, Ziqi Fang, Jiayi Wu, Shaoyu Cai, Jianhui Yan, Tiande Mo, Shuk Ching Chan, and Kening Zhu. 2025. VirCHEW Reality: On-Face Kinesthetic Feedback for Enhancing Food-Intake Experience in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics...

    2025

  67. [75]

    Salt is the Soul of Hakka Baked Chicken

    Sijia Liu, XiaoKe Zeng, Fengyihan Wu, Shu Ye, Bowen Liu, Sidney Cheung, Richard William Allen, and Ray Lc. 2025. "Salt is the Soul of Hakka Baked Chicken": Reimagining Traditional Chinese Culinary ICH for Modern Contexts Without Losing Tradition. InProceedings of the 2025 Conf...

    2025

  68. [76]

    Wenjun Liu, Charlie Hargood, Wen Tang, and Vedad Hulusic. 2025. Evaluating the Impact of User and Learning Experience in Three Cultural Heritage VR Applications. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, Vienna & Graz Austria,...

    2025

  69. [77]

    Yuqing Liu, Ye Li, Wenjie Tao, and Qingsheng Wang. 2024. Measuring intangible cultural heritage image: A scale development.PLOS ONE19, 6 (June 2024), e0299088. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299088

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    Ghost Town Games Ltd. 2016. Overcooked

    2016

  71. [79]

    Zhicong Lu, Peng Tan, Yi Ji, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2022. The Crafts+Fabrication Workshop: Engaging Students with Intangible Cultural Heritage-Oriented Creative Design. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Virtual Event, Australia)(DIS ’22). Associa...

    2022

  72. [80]

    Tiffany Luong, Yi Fei Cheng, Max Möbus, Andreas Fender, and Christian Holz. 2023. Controllers or bare hands? A controlled evaluation of input techniques on interaction performance and exertion in virtual reality.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics29, 11 (O...

    2023

  73. [81]

    Macaranas, A

    A. Macaranas, A. N. Antle, and B. E. Riecke. 2015. What is Intuitive Interaction? Balancing Users’ Performance and Satisfaction with Natural User Interfaces.Interacting with Computers27, 3 (May 2015), 357–370. doi:10.1093/iwc/ iwv003

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    Guido Makransky and Richard E. Mayer. 2022. Benefits of Taking a Virtual Field Trip in Immersive Virtual Reality: Evidence for the Immersion Principle in Multimedia Learning.Educational Psychology Review34, 3 (Sept. 2022), 1771–1798. doi:10.1007/s10648-022-09675-4

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    Guido Makransky and Gustav B Petersen. 2021. The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality.Educational Psychology Review33, 3 (2021), Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 10, No. 7, Ar...

    2021

  76. [84]

    Javier Marin, Aritro Biswas, Ferda Ofli, Nicholas Hynes, Amaia Salvador, Yusuf Aytar, Ingmar Weber, and Antonio Torralba. 2021. Recipe1M+: A Dataset for Learning Cross-Modal Embeddings for Cooking Recipes and Food Images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intel...

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    Richard E. Mayer. 2022.Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press

    2022

  78. [86]

    Alex Mazursky, Jas Brooks, Beza Desta, and Pedro Lopes. 2024. ThermalGrasp: Enabling Thermal Feedback even while Grasping and Walking. In2024 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, Orlando, FL, USA, 342–353. doi:10.1109/VR58804.2024.00056

    2024

  79. [87]

    McAuley, T

    E. McAuley, T. Duncan, and V. V. Tammen. 1989. Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport60, 1 (March 1989), 48–58. doi:10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413

    1989

  80. [88]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 1–23. doi:10.1145/3359174

    2019 doi

  81. [89]

    Satoru Mega, Younes Fadil, Arata Horie, and Kuniaki Uehara. 2008. Assist In Cooking: Action Support System For Interactive Self-Training.International Journal of Semantic Computing02, 02 (June 2008), 207–233. doi:10.1142/ S1793351X08000415

    2008

  82. [90]

    Janet Metcalfe. 2017. Learning from errors.Annual Review of Psychology68, 1 (Jan 2017), 465–489. doi:10.1146/annurev- psych-010416-044022

    2017 doi

  83. [91]

    Maliha Naushad Mian, Hannah Beder, Nadine Marcus, and Paul Ayres. 2024. Comparing Real and Imitative Practice with No Practice during Observational Learning of Hand Motor Skills from Animations.Education Sciences14, 9 (Aug. 2024), 949. doi:10.3390/educsci14090949

    2024 doi

  84. [92]

    Marty Miller, Zhiyuan Zhang, Jing Liao, and Ray Lc. 2025. ELICITING (IMMERSIVE) INTANGIBLES: GENAI- SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE VISUAL NARRATION IN A PHYSICALLY IMMERSIVE SPACE. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Madeira Portugal, 3313–332...

    2025

  85. [93]

    Helena Miton and Simon DeDeo. 2022. The cultural transmission of tacit knowledge.Journal of The Royal Society Interface19, 195 (Oct. 2022), 20220238. doi:10.1098/rsif.2022.0238

    2022

  86. [94]

    Shahrul Amri Mohamad, Rozniza Zaharudin, Anderson Ngelambong, and Yusri Kamin. 2024. Cooking Up Success: Integrating Augmented Reality in Teacher Training for Food Preparation and Production Subjects.International Journal of Modern Education6, 23 (Dec. 2024), 532–543. doi:10.3...

    2024 doi

  87. [95]

    Takamichi Nakamoto, Shigeki Otaguro, Masashi Kinoshita, Masahiko Nagahama, Keita Ohinishi, and Taro Ishida

  88. [97]

    Nithikul Nimkulrat. 2012. Hands-on intellect: Integrating craft practice into design research.International Journal of Design6, 3 (2012), 1–14

    2012

  89. [98]

    Kevin O’Regan and Alva Noë

    J. Kevin O’Regan and Alva Noë. 2001. A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness.Behavioral and Brain Sciences24, 5 (Oct. 2001), 939–973. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000115

    2001 doi

  90. [99]

    Raphael Palombo, Sebastian Weber, Marc Wyszynski, and Björn Niehaves. 2024. Glove versus controller: the effect of VR gloves and controllers on presence, embodiment, and cognitive absorption.Frontiers in Virtual Reality5 (March 2024). doi:10.3389/frvir.2024.1337959

    2024

  91. [100]

    Ardhika Wida Pangestu, Clara Hetty Primasari, Thomas Adi Purnomo Sidhi, Yohanes Priadi Wibisono, and Djoko Budiyanto Setyohadi. 2022. Comparison analysis of usability using controllers and hand tracking in vir- tual reality Gamelan (Sharon) based on user experience.Journal of ...

    2022 doi

  92. [101]

    Françoise Paquienseguy and Qian Guo. 2025. Douyin and the Digital Spread of Intangible Cultural Heritage: Transforming Cultural Dissemination in the Short Videos Age.Emerging Media3, 2 (June 2025), 343–366. doi:10. 1177/27523543251344976

    2025

  93. [102]

    Nikolaos Partarakis, Danae Kaplanidi, Paraskevi Doulgeraki, Effie Karuzaki, Argyro Petraki, Daniele Metilli, Valentina Bartalesi, Ilia Adami, Carlo Meghini, and Xenophon Zabulis. 2021. Representation and Presentation of Culinary Tradition as Cultural Heritage.Heritage4, 2 (Apr...

    2021 doi

  94. [103]

    Massimiliano Pau, Eleonora Cocco, Federico Arippa, Giulia Casu, Micaela Porta, Shay Menascu, Anat Achiron, and Alon Kalron. 2023. An Immersive Virtual Kitchen Training System for People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Development and Validation Study.Journal of Clinical Medicine12,...

    2023 doi

  95. [104]

    Susan Persky and Alexander P. Dolwick. 2020. Olfactory Perception and Presence in a Virtual Reality Food Environ- ment.Frontiers in Virtual Reality1 (Sept. 2020), 571812. doi:10.3389/frvir.2020.571812

    2020

  96. [105]

    Michal Pieniak, Markus Rönsch, Anna Oleszkiewicz, Stephan Abele, and Thomas Hummel. 2023. What Makes a Qualified Chef? Olfactory and Sociodemographic Predictors of Vocational Exam Results in Culinary School Students. Vocations and Learning16, 3 (Dec. 2023), 487–508. doi:10.100...

    2023 doi

  97. [106]

    Carl Plantinga. 2005. What a documentary is, after all.The Journal of aesthetics and art criticism63, 2 (2005), 105–117

    2005

  98. [107]

    Anna Podara, Dimitrios Giomelakis, Constantinos Nicolaou, Maria Matsiola, and Rigas Kotsakis. 2021. Digital Storytelling in Cultural Heritage: Audience Engagement in the Interactive Documentary New Life.Sustainability13, 3 (Jan. 2021), 1193. doi:10.3390/su13031193

    2021 doi

  99. [108]

    2009.The tacit dimension(reproduction en fac-similé ed.)

    Michael Polanyi. 2009.The tacit dimension(reproduction en fac-similé ed.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    2009

  100. [109]

    E. Poulton. 1973. Unwanted range effects from using within-subject experimental designs.Psychological Bulletin80 (08 1973), 113–121. doi:10.1037/h0034731

    1973 doi

  101. [110]

    Ting Qiu, Hong Li, Yongkang Chen, Hui Zeng, and Shufang Qian. 2024. Continuance intention toward VR games of intangible cultural heritage: A stimulus-organism-response perspective.Virtual Reality28, 3 (Aug. 2024), 149. doi:10.1007/s10055-024-01043-7

    2024 doi

  102. [111]

    Fitri Rahmawati, Kokom Komariah, and Rizqie Auliana. 2015. The Acquisition of Tacit Knowledge in Culinary Industry Work-Based Learning Process and Its Development Alternative:. Bandung, Indonesia. doi:10.2991/ictvet-14.2015.16

    2015 doi

  103. [112]

    Abhishek Rajan. 2023. Gastronomic evolution: A review of traditional and contemporary Food Culture.International Journal for Multidimensional Research Perspectives1, 2 (2023), 62–76

    2023

  104. [113]

    Nimesha Ranasinghe, Thi Ngoc Tram Nguyen, Yan Liangkun, Lien-Ya Lin, David Tolley, and Ellen Yi-Luen Do. 2017. Vocktail: A Virtual Cocktail for Pairing Digital Taste, Smell, and Color Sensations. InProceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia. ACM, Mounta...

    2017

  105. [114]

    2012.Kinesthetic Empathy in Creative and Cultural Practices

    Dee Reynolds and Matthew Reason. 2012.Kinesthetic Empathy in Creative and Cultural Practices. Intellect Ltd

    2012

  106. [115]

    K. A. Ritter and Terrence L. Chambers. 2022. Three-dimensional modeled environments versus 360 degree panoramas for mobile virtual reality training.Virtual Reality26, 2 (June 2022), 571–581. doi:10.1007/s10055-021-00502-9

    2022 doi

  107. [116]

    Bruno Rodriguez-Garcia, Henar Guillen-Sanz, David Checa, and Andres Bustillo. 2024. A systematic review of virtual 3D reconstructions of Cultural Heritage in immersive Virtual Reality.Multimedia Tools and Applications83, 42 (April 2024), 89743–89793. doi:10.1007/s11042-024-18700-3

    2024 doi

  108. [117]

    1990.Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context

    Barbara Rogoff. 1990.Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context

    1990

  109. [118]

    Murat Saran. 2025. Comparing hand-based and controller-based interactions in virtual reality learning: effects on presence and interaction performance.PeerJ Computer Science11 (Aug. 2025), e3168. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.3168

    2025 doi

  110. [119]

    Owen Schaffer and Xiaowen Fang. 2019. Digital game enjoyment: A literature review. InHCI in Games: First International Conference, HCI-Games 2019, Held as Part of the 21st HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando, FL, USA, July 26–31, 2019, Proceedings 21. Springer, 191–214

    2019

  111. [120]

    Schell Games. 2022. Lost Recipes. https://schellgames.com/portfolio/lost-recipes. Accessed: 2025-09-08

    2022

  112. [121]

    Martin Schwichow, Corinne Zimmerman, Steve Croker, and Hendrik Härtig. 2016. What students learn from hands-on activities.Journal of research in science teaching53, 7 (2016), 980–1002

    2016

  113. [122]

    Phoebe Sengers, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph ’Jofish’ Kaye. 2005. Reflective design. InProceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility. ACM, Aarhus Denmark, 49–58. doi:10.1145/1094562.1094569

    2005

  114. [123]

    2008.The craftsman

    Richard Sennett. 2008.The craftsman. Yale university press, New Haven (Conn.)

    2008

  115. [124]

    2019.Embodied cognition

    Lawrence Shapiro. 2019.Embodied cognition. Routledge

    2019

  116. [125]

    2006.Kitchen secrets: The meaning of cooking in everyday life

    Frances Short. 2006.Kitchen secrets: The meaning of cooking in everyday life. Berg

    2006

  117. [126]

    Daniel J Simons and Christopher F Chabris. 1999. Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events.Perception28, 9 (1999), 1059–1074. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1068/p281059 doi:10.1068/p281059 PMID: 10694957

    1999 doi

  118. [127]

    Mel Slater. 2009. Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences364, 1535 (Dec. 2009), 3549–3557. doi:10.1098/rstb. 2009.0138

    2009

  119. [128]

    Mingyang Su, Yun Xie, Binlin Feng, Wen Ku, Chao Liu, Xiaomei Nie, and Xiu Li. 2025. Embodied Dance in Folk Cultural Space: Immersive Folk Dance Teaching Application to Enhance Cultural Experience. InProceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium of Chinese CHI (CHCHI ’24)....

    2025

  120. [129]

    Dongyan Sun and Chengping Wang. 2023. Application of AR Technology in Intangible Cultural Heritage and Cultural Tourism. InThe 3rd International Conference on Electronic Information Technology and Smart Agriculture. ACM, Sanya China, 247–252. doi:10.1145/3641343.3641387 Proc. ...

    2023

  121. [130]

    The New Biography of Intangible Cultural Heritage

    Yuzhu Sun. 2024. Communication and inheritance: the narrative logic of integration in the documentary “The New Biography of Intangible Cultural Heritage” from the perspective of communication.International Communication of Chinese Culture11, 2 (2024), 281–294

    2024

  122. [131]

    David Sutton. 2018. Cooking skills, the senses, and memory: The fate of practical knowledge. Infood and culture. Routledge, 88–109

    2018

  123. [132]

    Penelope Sweetser and Peta Wyeth. 2005. GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games.Computers in Entertainment3, 3 (July 2005), 3–3. doi:10.1145/1077246.1077253

    2005

  124. [133]

    Peng Tan, Damian Hills, Yi Ji, and Kaiping Feng. 2020. Case Study: Creating Embodied Interaction with Learning Intangible Cultural Heritage through WebAR. InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–6. doi:10.1...

    2020

  125. [134]

    Huiyun Tang, Songqi Sun, Kexin Nie, Ang Li, Anastasia Sergeeva, and Ray Lc. 2025. Breaking the News: Taking the Roles of Influencer vs. Journalist in a LLM-Based Game for Raising Misinformation Awareness.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 6 (Oct. 2025), 131...

    2025 doi

  126. [135]

    2003.The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas

    Diana Taylor. 2003.The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Duke University Press. doi:10.1215/9780822385318

    2003 doi

  127. [136]

    Feng Tian, Keying Li, Xin Huang, Xiaoyue Zhang, Ning Wang, Ying Song, Qiaolian Zhu, and Yuzhi Li. 2024. An empirical study of virtual museum based on dual-mode mixed visualization: the Sanxingdui bronzes.Heritage Science 12, 1 (May 2024), 146. doi:10.1186/s40494-024-01241-1

    2024 doi

  128. [137]

    Tomporowski and Ahmed S

    Phillip D. Tomporowski and Ahmed S. Qazi. 2020. Cognitive-Motor Dual Task Interference Effects on Declarative Memory: A Theory-Based Review.Frontiers in Psychology11 (May 2020), 1015. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01015

    2020

  129. [138]

    UNESCO. 2025. Food and intangible heritage, a flavourful relationship.The UNESCO Courier(2025). https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:278877602

    2025

  130. [139]

    Huanchen Wang, Minzhu Zhao, Wanyang Hu, Yuxin Ma, and Zhicong Lu. 2024. Critical Heritage Studies as a Lens to Understand Short Video Sharing of Intangible Cultural Heritage on Douyin. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI ...

    2024

  131. [140]

    Yingna Wang, Qingqin Liu, Xiaoying Wei, and Mingming Fan. 2025. Facilitating Daily Practice in Intangible Cultural Heritage through Virtual Reality: A Case Study of Traditional Chinese Flower Arrangement. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing S...

    2025

  132. [141]

    Yuqi Wang, Sirui Wang, Shiman Zhang, Kexue Fu, Michelle Lui, and Ray Lc. 2025. From Temporal to Spatial: Designing Spatialized Interactions with Segmented-audios in Immersive Environments for Active Engagement with Performing Arts Intangible Cultural Heritage. InProceedings of...

    2025

  133. [142]

    Keiichi Watanuki and Kazuyuki Kojima. 2007. Knowledge Acquisition and Job Training for Advanced Technical Skills Using Immersive Virtual Environment.Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design, Systems, and Manufacturing1, 1 (2007), 48–57. doi:10.1299/jamdsm.1.48

    2007 doi

  134. [143]

    Christopher D. Wickens. 2008. Multiple Resources and Mental Workload.Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society50, 3 (June 2008), 449–455. doi:10.1518/001872008X288394

    2008 doi

  135. [144]

    Andrew D Wilson and Sabrina Golonka. 2013. Embodied cognition is not what you think it is.Frontiers in psychology 4 (2013), 58

    2013

  136. [145]

    Winanti Winanti, Erick Fernando, Nurasiah, Sucipto Basuki, Beby Tiara, and Riyanto. 2024. Culinary Learning Using Virtual Reality Based on Gamification Method.TEPIAN5, 3 (Sept. 2024), 86–93. doi:10.51967/tepian.v5i3.3119

    2024 doi

  137. [146]

    Yiping Wu, Yue Li, Eugene Ch’ng, Jiaxin Gao, and Tao Hong. 2025. KaiBiLi: gesture-based immersive virtual reality ceremony for traditional Chinese cultural activities.Visual Computing for Industry, Biomedicine, and Art8, 1 (Oct. 2025), 24. doi:10.1186/s42492-025-00205-x

    2025 doi

  138. [147]

    Liuchuan Yu, Bo Han, Songqing Chen, and Lap-Fai Yu. 2025. HoloCook: A Real-Time Remote Mixed Reality Cooking Tutoring System. InHCI International 2024 – Late Breaking Papers, Jessie Y. C. Chen, Gino Fragomeni, Norbert A. Streitz, Shin’ichi Konomi, and Xiaowen Fang (Eds.). Vol....

    2025 doi

  139. [148]

    Eleonora Zedda, Marco Manca, Fabio Paternò, et al. 2021. A Cooking Game for Cognitive Training of Older Adults Interacting with a Humanoid Robot.. InCHIRA. 271–282

    2021

  140. [149]

    Xiaoke Zeng, Sijia Liu, and Ray Lc. 2025. Replacing Bak Choy with Cabbage: Alternative Processes and Scenarios and Inspired Creativity in Documenting Intangible Forms of Culinary Culture Heritage. InProceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Human-Engaged Computing. A...

    2025 doi

  141. [150]

    Qinshi Zhang, Ruoyu Wen, Latisha Besariani Hendra, Zijian Ding, and RAY LC. 2025. Can AI Prompt Humans? Multimodal Agents Prompt Players’ Game Actions and Show Consequences to Raise Sustainability Awareness. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sy...

    2025

  142. [151]

    Zhongwu Zhang, Zheng Cui, Tongsheng Fan, Shiyun Ruan, and Juemei Wu. 2024. Spatial distribution of intangible cultural heritage resources in China and its influencing factors.Scientific Reports14, 1 (2024), 4960

    2024

  143. [152]

    Ramadanova Zhanna. 2020. Digitization of Intangible Cultural Heritage as a method to save and actualize it on the example of Kazakh folk dance. InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Engineering & MIS 2020. ACM, Almaty Kazakhstan, 1–7. doi:10.1145/3410352.3410748

    2020

  144. [153]

    Jing Zhao, Zhong Wang, Chenyu Wang, Liming Han, Yaohui Ruan, Zhounan Huangfu, Shuai Zhou, and Lei Zhou

  145. [154]

    Shanshan Zheng. 2023. Safeguarding food heritage through social media? Between heritagization and commercializa- tion.International journal of gastronomy and food science31 (2023), 100678

    2023

  146. [155]

    Danel Zholzhanova, Kurt Debattista, Sarah Wei, Neel Ocean, and Alan Chalmers. 2025. Virtual chocolate: the role of olfactory cues in multisensory VR on perceived realism, food enjoyment, and snack choices.Virtual Reality29, 3 (June 2025), 104. doi:10.1007/s10055-025-01175-4

    2025 doi

  147. [156]

    The order from the VR tutorial is clear. [You] just follow step by step

    Suifang Zhou, Latisha Besariani Hendra, Qinshi Zhang, Jussi Holopainen, and RAY LC. 2024. Eternagram: Probing Player Attitudes Towards Climate Change Using a ChatGPT-driven Text-based Adventure. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24...

    2024

  148. [2008]

    Cooking up an interactive olfactory game display.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications28, 1 (2008), 75–78

    2008

  149. [2022]

    Research on the status of intangible cultural heritage bearers in the human capital perspective.Frontiers in psychology13 (2022), 850780

    2022

  150. [2026]

    doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2554296

    Reality as Imagined: Design and Evaluation of a TeleAbsence-Driven Extended Reality Experience for (Re) Interpreting Urban Cultural Heritage Narratives Across Time.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 42, 8 (April 2026), 6476–6505. doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2554296

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.