Review

Combining Artificial Intelligence with Augmented Reality

and Virtual Reality in Education: Current Trends and
Future Perspectives
Georgios Lampropoulos 1,2,3

1 Department of Applied Informatics, School of Information Sciences, University of Macedonia,

54636 Thessaloniki, Greece; [email protected]
2 Department of Education, School of Education, University of Nicosia, Nicosia 2417, Cyprus
3 Department of Preschool Education, School of Education, University of Crete, 74100 Rethymno, Greece

Abstract: The combination of artificial intelligence with extended reality technologies can
significantly impact the educational domain. This study aims to present an overview re-
garding the combination of artificial intelligence with augmented reality and virtual reality
technologies and their integration in education through an analysis of the existing literature.
Hence, this study examines 201 documents from Scopus and the Web of Science (WoS). This
study focuses on examining the basic characteristics of the document collection, highlight-
ing the most prevalent themes, areas, and topics, exploring the thematic evolution of the
topic, revealing current challenges and limitations and on identifying emerging topics and
future research directions. Based on the outcomes, a significant annual growth rate (60.58%)
was observed indicating the increasing interest in the topic. Additionally, the potential of
combining artificial intelligence with virtual reality and augmented reality technologies
to provide personalized, affective, interactive, and immersive learning experiences across
educational levels in both formal and informal settings supporting both teachers and stu-
dents arose. Therefore, through this combination, intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs), which
offer behavioral, cognitive, and social personalization, have a virtual presence, and can
effectively be used as tutors or peer learners, can be created. Such ITSs can be characterized
as affective and social entities that can increase students’ learning performance, learning
motivation, and engagement and promote both self-directed learning and collaborative
Academic Editor: Julius Nganji learning. This study also highlights the need to examine how the physical presence that
Received: 9 December 2024 characterizes some new technologies compares to the virtual presence that extended reality
Revised: 7 January 2025 technologies offer in terms of overall learning outcomes and students’ development.
Accepted: 26 January 2025
Published: 28 January 2025
Keywords: artificial intelligence; AI; virtual reality; augmented reality; mixed reality;
Citation: Lampropoulos, G. extended reality; metaverse; intelligent tutoring systems; review; bibliometric analysis;
Combining Artificial Intelligence with
scientific mapping
Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality
in Education: Current Trends and
Future Perspectives. Multimodal
Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11.
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9020011 1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2025 by the author. Digital technologies play a vital role in the educational process, as their integration
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. into teaching and learning can yield several changes to the educational domain [1]. As
This article is an open access article students grow up with technological applications surrounding them, their educational
distributed under the terms and interests and needs have drastically changed [2]. Specifically, students pursue to be actively
conditions of the Creative Commons
involved in the educational process, they prefer learning based on hands-on experiences
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
and real-world examples, and are in search of interactive, engaging, and personalized
licenses/by/4.0/). learning environments [3].

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9020011

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 2 of 28

Personalized learning is an integral part of 21st-century education [4] as learning

constitutes both a personal and a collaborative experience through which one can improve
their knowledge and skills, expand their perspectives, and increase their understand-
ing on subject matter [5]. Engaging students in technology-enhanced learning is vital
to achieve personalized learning [6]. Since personalized learning can improve students’
learning outcomes [7], emphasis has been put on the use of new technologies and how
they affect personalized learning. For example, studies have focused on how intelligent
tutoring systems [8], recommender systems [9], intelligent web-based learning systems [10],
and artificial intelligence [11], among other technologies, can support and promote per-
sonalized learning. Additionally, studies have highlighted the role of motivation [12],
interactivity [13], engagement [14], embodiment [15], and immersion [16] in education and
in improving learning outcomes. Among the different technologies, the combination of
artificial intelligence with extended reality technologies has shown great potential in trans-
forming and enhancing the educational domain and in helping satisfy the new educational
requirements [17].
The integration of artificial intelligence into various domains is increasing rapidly [18].
Among the different domains, the use of artificial intelligence in education has shown
great potential to improve the educational process, by transforming and enriching tra-
ditional practices and approaches and by promoting the redesign of culture, cognition,
and knowledge [19–22]. Artificial intelligence systems are inspired by the human nervous
system and are characterized by their adaptability and their ability to learn from different
sources as well as to reason and make decisions in an autonomous, sophisticated, and
rational manner [23–25]. As a result, artificial intelligent systems mimic the way humans
act, think, and communicate and, consequently, simulate human intelligence [26,27]. Recent
studies have explored and highlighted the role, advantages, and disadvantages of adopting
and integrating artificial intelligence in education and have revealed current challenges
and issues [19,28–34]. As a result, and due to its potential, the field of artificial intelligence
in education is rapidly advancing [35,36].
Extended reality technologies are increasingly being examined in educational settings.
These technologies offer new reality formats and consist of virtual reality, augmented
reality, and mixed reality [37]. In this context, the reality–virtuality continuum describes
a continuum in which one end refers to the real environment and is closer to augmented
reality while the other end refers to the virtual environments and is closer to virtual reality,
and somewhere in between, a mixed reality exists in which both real and virtual objects and
environments co-exist [38]. Specifically, virtual reality involves, either real or simulated,
virtual environments that perceptually surround, immerse, and engage users by simulating
their physical presence within them [39–42]. These fully virtual environments immerse
users and separate them from the real environment while offering experiences that are char-
acterized by high levels of immediacy, interactivity, immersion, and involvement [40,43,44].
Within virtual reality environments, emphasis is put on integrating social and psychological
aspects so that the overall experiences and environments can be perceived as real [45]. As a
result, virtual reality technology created an “all-inclusive, sensory illusion of being present
in another environment” [46]. Furthermore, augmented reality enables users to interact
with both the virtual and digital worlds in real time by enriching users’ physical environ-
ment with virtual content, information, and objects that users can perceive through their
senses and interact with using multiple sensory modalities [47–51]. Due to their potential
to transform the educational domain, recent studies that have carried out literature reviews
on the use of virtual reality [3,52–54], augmented reality [55–59], and mixed reality [60–62]
technologies as well as the metaverse [63–65] have examined the use of extended reality
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 3 of 28

technologies in educational settings and have revealed the related benefits, drawbacks, and
implications that arise when using them in teaching and learning activities.
Based on the aforementioned, many recent studies have been carried out that explored
the use of artificial intelligence, augmented reality, virtual reality, and the metaverse in
education. Although these studies provide meaningful insights regarding their integration
in education, as their use in educational settings and the research into these technologies are
rapidly increasing, there is a clear need to map and analyze the existing literature to identify
key topics and thematic areas regarding the current state of the art and future research
directions. Consequently, this study aims to offer an overview of the existing literature
regarding the combination of artificial intelligence with augmented reality and virtual
reality in education and identify future research areas. This study adds to the existing body
of knowledge by analyzing the basic characteristics of the documents (e.g., publication
frequency, citation count, authors, sources, countries, affiliations, etc.), by identifying the
most advanced research areas and those that are still in their early stages, by revealing
the most prominent trends, themes, and topics, and by offering future research directions
based on the limitations and challenges identified in the literature.

2. Materials and Methods

Due to the scope of this study, as it looks into the use of artificial intelligence within
augmented reality and virtual reality environments and focuses on examining the topic
from an interdisciplinary approach, a bibliometric analysis of the existing literature was
carried out. This approach is regarded as appropriate to examine the current state of the art
on specific topics, particularly, when they are looked at from a more general perspective [66].
As this study aims to present the current trends and future perspectives regarding the
integration of artificial intelligence in extended reality environments across domains, to
conduct a rigorous and valid analysis of the existing literature, the guidelines specified by
Donthu et al. [67] and Gusenbauer and Haddaway [68] were followed. Additionally, the
method presented by Aria and Cuccurullo [69] was followed to carry out the bibliometric
analysis. Particularly, the open-source R package Bibliometrix [69] was adopted and used.
Additionally, to further explore and analyze the document collection, VOSviewer [70] and
topic modeling through Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) [71] were also used. Both tools
are validated and widely accepted as effective and suitable means to carry out reproducible
and valid scientific mapping and bibliometric analysis studies.
A key component in any study that aims to examine and present the current state
of the literature is the use of highly regarded databases to identify relevant documents.
Following the outcomes of recent studies that revealed Scopus and Web of Science as the
top databases based on the quality of indexed documents, their covering various topics
and disciplines, and their being widely used to carry out similar studies [72,73], the specific
two databases were selected. Another crucial part in opting to use these databases, besides
their being widely used in similar studies, was the ability to use the related information
extracted from them with the tools used in this study [69]. Data from other sources could
also be used but it would require manual adjustments that could affect the reproducibility
of this study. Hence, this study examined documents only from Scopus and Web of Science.
As this study aimed to provide an overview of the existing literature across domains,
the only limitation set when searching for relevant documents was for them to be written
in English. No other limitations or filters were utilized in the query. Given the scope and
perspective of this study, keywords relevant to each topic were identified and focus was
put on intelligent systems and how they are being integrated in education. In the case
of artificial intelligence, the general term and its abbreviation was used, while chatbots,
tutoring systems, and assistants were identified as key areas within the literature. The
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 4 of 28

selection of keywords regarding extended reality technologies and the educational context
was based on those of other related studies [3,59]. Additionally, after testing various
combinations of keywords, the following set of keywords was selected and used: (“artificial
intelligence” OR “ai” OR “chatbot*” OR ”chat bot*” OR “automated tutor*” OR “personal
tutor*” OR “intelligent tutor*” OR “intelligent agent*” OR “adaptive educational system*”
OR “adaptive learning system*” OR “intelligent tutoring system*” OR “virtual assistant*”
OR “personal assistant*” OR “intelligent assistant*” OR “ai assistant*”) AND (“augmented
reality” OR “AR” OR “virtual reality” OR “VR” OR “mixed reality” OR “MR” OR “extended
reality” OR “XR” OR “metaverse”) AND (“education” OR “teach*” OR “student*” OR
“learner*” OR “universit*” OR “school*” OR “classroom*” OR “course*”). The reason for
using the specific query was twofold. First, to identify all potentially relevant documents,
acronyms related to the technologies that this study focused on were used despite their
returning additional documents that were not relevant and were therefore eliminated. This
decision resulted in an increased number of documents being identified as potentially
relevant at the initial stage and their being removed afterwards. However, the tradeoff
was that all related documents were identified. Second, as this study did not focus on a
specific educational level nor on a specific type of artificial intelligence or extended reality
technology to present the general state of this topic, no specialized keywords were used
as they could provide explicit directions to specific domains, functions, or use cases. This
decision resulted in a more general representation of the literature to be presented and for
a larger number of documents to be examined to provide a more thorough and complete
depiction of the state of the art.
The specific set of keywords was used to search for relevant documents on Scopus
and Web of Science on a topic level. Hence, the set of keywords would have to match either
the title, abstract, or keywords of a document for it to be identified as potentially relevant
to the topic. Studies that provide a thorough analysis of the existing literature should also
be reproducible, transparent, accurate, and valid. For this reason, the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [74] was followed to
ensure that all the required criteria in terms of quality and rigor were met. PRISMA is a
widely used and validated method that is commonly used in systematic literature review
studies and in bibliometric reviews [74].
Figure 1 showcases the complete PRISMA flowchart. Specifically, the aforementioned
query was last used in December 2024 to search for suitable documents in Scopus and Web
of Science. The query returned 4124 documents from Scopus and 1335 documents from Web
of Science. As a result, the initial document collection consisted of 5459 documents. As both
of these databases are used by most quality outlets, they do index some common documents.
Hence, duplicates were identified and removed both automatically and manually. A total of
1061 duplicates were found and removed and 1919 documents were automatically removed
using a keyword search as they were outside the scope of this study. Hence, 2479 documents
remained in the document collection and were further examined for consideration manually.
Specifically, 363 documents were removed because they were proceedings books, 118 were
removed as they were books, 11 were removed since they were short communications,
14 were removed as they were editorials, 13 were removed due to their being erratum, and
18 were removed as they were retracted documents. Given the scope of this study, for a
document to be regarded as relevant, it had to meet the inclusion criteria which were for it
to focus on the use of artificial intelligence within either augmented reality, virtual reality,
extended reality, mixed reality, the metaverse, or a combination of them in educational
settings. Hence, documents that only referred to one of these technologies or that only
mentioned the specific keywords but did not focus on them or their use in educational or
training contexts were regarded as out of scope. Additionally, all documents that explored
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 5 of 29

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 5 of 28

not focus on them or their use in educational or training contexts were regarded as out of
scope. Additionally, all documents that explored the combination of these technologies
from
the a theoretical
combination ofor experimental
these technologies perspective in education
from a theoretical were regarded
or experimental as relevant.
perspective in
After processing the full text of the documents, 1741 documents were
education were regarded as relevant. After processing the full text of the documents, removed as they
did not
1741 satisfy the
documents inclusion
were removed criteria.
as theyAs dida not
result, the the
satisfy document
inclusioncollection examined
criteria. As a result,and
the
analyzed in this study consisted of 201 documents that were relevant
document collection examined and analyzed in this study consisted of 201 documents to the topic. As pre-
that
viously
were mentioned,
relevant the use
to the topic. Asofpreviously
abbreviations in the query
mentioned, the useresulted in a highinnumber
of abbreviations the query of
documents being out of scope but simultaneously, ensured that all
resulted in a high number of documents being out of scope but simultaneously, ensured related documents
would
that all be identified.
related Moreover,
documents wouldit should be mentioned
be identified. that although
Moreover, it should the vast majority
be mentioned of
that
documents were duplicates between the two databases used, in total,
although the vast majority of documents were duplicates between the two databases used, most relevant doc-
uments
in were relevant
total, most found indocuments
Web of Science
were while
found most
in Web of of
theScience
irrelevant
while tomost
the topic
of thedocuments
irrelevant
were reported from Scopus. This fact justified the difference in the
to the topic documents were reported from Scopus. This fact justified the differencenumber of articles
in ini-
the
tially retrieved.
number of articles initially retrieved.

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.

Figure 1.

3.
3. Result
Result Analysis
Analysis
The document collection created was explored from various dimensions using different
The document collection created was explored from various dimensions using dif-
approaches to present the current state of the art regarding the combination of artificial
ferent approaches to present the current state of the art regarding the combination of ar-
intelligence with augmented reality and virtual reality technologies in education. Initially,
tificial intelligence with augmented reality and virtual reality technologies in education.
the details of the document collection are presented. The publication frequency and the
Initially, the details of the document collection are presented. The publication frequency
annual citation distribution are showcased. This study also looks into the authors’ affiliation
and the annual citation distribution are showcased. This study also looks into the authors’
and countries and focuses on identifying the collaboration among the different countries.
affiliation and countries and focuses on identifying the collaboration among the different
The relevant documents that have received the largest number of citations are also identified.
countries. The relevant documents that have received the largest number of citations are
Using keywords plus and author’s keywords, the trends of the topic, its thematic map,
also identified. Using keywords plus and author’s keywords, the trends of the topic, its
and its thematic evolution are also examined. To identify more topics, the documents
thematic map, and its thematic evolution are also examined. To identify more topics, the
were clustered using both Bibliometrix and VOSviewer to carry out a keywords-based co-
occurrence analysis. To further examine the topics, LDA [71] was used to carry out a topic
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 6 of 28

modeling analysis of the document collection regarding the use of artificial intelligence and
extended reality technologies in education.

3.1. Document Collection

The details of the complete document collection, which consists of 201 documents
that were published during 2015–2024, are presented in Table 1. Most of the documents
were published as conference/proceedings papers (42.8%), closely followed by journal
articles (42.3%). To a lesser extent, the documents were published as book chapters (10.9%)
or as review articles (4.0%) as indicated by the two databases. The documents were created
and published by 642 authors. Each document had an average of 3.65 co-authors and the
average citations per document was 13.82. In total, 32 authors contributed to the creation
of 32 single-authored documents. It is worth highlighting that the average age of the
documents is 1.63 and the annual growth rate demonstrates a significant positive rate of
60.58%. This fact highlights the importance and recency of the topic.

Table 1. Information regarding the document collection.

Description Results Description Results

Main information about data Document types
Timespan 2015:2024 Article 85
Sources (journals, books, etc.) 142 Book chapter 22
Documents 201 Conference/Proceedings paper 86
Annual growth rate % 60.58 review 8
Document average age 1.63 Authors
Average citations per document 13.82 Authors 642
Authors of single-authored documents 32
Document contents Authors collaboration
Keywords plus (ID) 1293 Single-authored documents 32
Author’s keywords (DE) 532 Co-authors per documents 3.65
International co-authorships % 10.45

3.2. Publication Frequency and Citations

The significance of the topic and its high and positive annual growth rate (60.58%)
become more evident when considering the distribution of the published documents
from 2015 to 2024 (Figure 2). The majority of the documents were published in the last
3 years with the year 2024 having the most published documents (n = 71), followed by
2023 (n = 45) and 2022 (n = 34). Based on the specific period explored, three main time
periods can be defined: (i) 2015–2020 (12.44% of the total documents published) was
the period in which the initial interest in the combination of artificial intelligence with
augmented reality and virtual reality in education sparked; (ii) 2021–2023 (52.24% of the
total documents published) was the period in which the topic started to materialize; and
(iii) 2024 (35.32% of the total documents published) was the breakthrough year. The
outcomes are in line with the advancements in the respective fields in the recent years.
When considering the applicability of these technologies and their potential to enrich
and transform the educational process, the interest in the topic is expected to continue
increasing. Moreover, the annual citations received were also explored as can be seen in
Table 2. Specifically, Table 2 presents the year in which the documents were published
(Year), the mean total citations that they have received (MeanTCperDoc), the number of
published documents in that specific year (N), the mean annual total citations they have
received (MeanTCperYear), as well as the total number of years that the documents of that
year were citable (CitableYears). Certainly, besides the quality and impact of the studies,
the citable years are a significant factor to the number of citations they have received. As a
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 7 of 29

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 7 of 28

(CitableYears). Certainly, besides the quality and impact of the studies, the citable years
are a significant factor to the number of citations they have received. As a result, more
recent studies have received fewer total citations on average when compared to older
result, more recent studies have received fewer total citations on average when compared
studies that helped establish this field of study. Hence, it becomes evident that documents
to older studies that helped establish this field of study. Hence, it becomes evident that
published in 2019 (MeanTCperDoc=46.5) and 2018 (MeanTCperDoc=40.4), which were cit-
documents published in 2019 (MeanTCperDoc = 46.5) and 2018 (MeanTCperDoc = 40.4),
able for 6 and 7 years respectively, had the highest mean total citations per document with
which were citable for 6 and 7 years respectively, had the highest mean total citations
the exception of the year 2015 in which a single document [75] was published that received
per document with the exception of the year 2015 in which a single document [75] was
200 citations based on the data of the two databases. However, as this field of study is
published that received 200 citations based on the data of the two databases. However,
rapidly advancing and considering the average document age (1.63 years), it is expected
as this field of study is rapidly advancing and considering the average document age
that these outcomes will change in the future.
(1.63 years), it is expected that these outcomes will change in the future.

Figure 2.
Figure Number of
2. Number of documents
documents published
published per
per year.
year.

Table 2.
Table Annual scientific
2. Annual scientific production
production and
and citations.
citations.
Year
Year MeanTCperDoc
MeanTCperDoc NN MeanTCperYear
MeanTCperYear CitableYears
CitableYears
2015
2015 200 200 11 20 20 1010
2017
2017 8.2 8.2 55 1.02 1.02 88
2018
2018 40.4 40.4 55 5.77 5.77 77
2019
2019 46.5 46.5 66 7.75 7.75 66
2020 28.38 8 5.68 5
2020 28.38 8 5.68 5
2021 22.12 26 5.53 4
2021
2022 22.12 23.24 2634 5.53 7.75 43
2022
2023 23.24 8.27 3445 7.75 4.14 32
2023
2024 8.27 1.3 4571 4.14 1.3 21
2024 1.3 71 1.3 1
3.3. Sources
3.3. Sources
In total, the 201 documents that comprise the document collection examined in this
study Inwere
total,published
the 201 documents that comprise
in 142 different the document
sources, including collection
journals, examined
conference in this
and proceed-
study
ings, aswere
wellpublished in 142collections.
as edited book different sources,
Among including
the sources,journals,
the book conference and Notes
series Lecture pro-
ceedings, as well as edited book collections. Among the sources, the book series
in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Lecture
Notes
Notesin inComputer Sciencehad
Bioinformatics) (including
the mostsubseries Lecture
published Notes in(n
documents Artificial Intelligence
= 13) relevant andtopic.
to the Lec-
ture Notes in Bioinformatics) had the most published documents (n=13) relevant
Moreover, three sources, namely, Education and Information Technologies, Lecture Notes in to the topic.
Moreover, three sources,
Electrical Engineering, andnamely,
SpringerEducation
Series onand Information
Cultural Technologies,
Computing, publishedLecture
fourNotes in
articles
relevant to the topic. From the remaining sources, 13 sources published three relevant
documents and 12 sources published two documents. A representation of the top four
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 8 of 28

sources based on the number of relevant documents published that have published at least
four documents is depicted in Table 3.

Table 3. Top sources based on the total number of relevant documents published.

Sources Documents
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes
13
in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
Education and Information Technologies 4
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 4
Springer Series on Cultural Computing 4

Furthermore, the sources were also sorted based on their h-index and total citations
received on the topic. The related outcomes are presented in Table 4 which depicts the h-
index, g-index, m-index, total citations (TC), number of published documents (NP), and the
publication start date (PY_start) of the sources. Based on the outcomes, Computers and Edu-
cation: Artificial Intelligence (h-index = 3 and TC = 425), Frontiers in Psychology (h-index = 3
and TC = 62), and Springer Series on Cultural Computing (h-index = 3 and TC = 19) were
the sources with the highest h-index (3). However, sources such as International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Education (h-index = 2 and TC = 258) and Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinfor-
matics) (h-index = 2 and TC = 140) have also published impactful documents. The specific
values that can be described as low, when compared to other bibliometric analysis studies
that explore different topics, can be justified when we consider the average document age.
Hence, given the fact that the topic is still in its infancy, the related outcomes are expected
to change. However, the findings contribute by presenting the existing distribution of the
documents among the various sources.

Table 4. Most impactful sources based on h-index.

Sources h_Index g_Index m_Index TC NP PY_Start

Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 3 3 0.75 425 3 2021
Frontiers in Psychology 3 3 0.75 62 3 2021
Springer Series on Cultural Computing 3 4 1.5 19 4 2023
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence
2 3 0.2 258 3 2015
in Education
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including
subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and 2 11 0.25 140 13 2017
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
Computer Assisted Language Learning 2 2 0.667 91 2 2022
Nurse Education Today 2 2 0.5 68 2 2021
Education Sciences 2 3 0.5 58 3 2021
Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 2 3 0.5 48 3 2021
Mobile Information Systems 2 3 0.5 37 3 2021

Furthermore, Bradford’s law was used to better comprehend the sources’ impact and
quality [76]. Specifically, three clusters were defined, namely, Cluster 1, Cluster 2, and
Cluster 3, with Cluster 1 having the most impactful sources. Cluster 1 consists of 19 sources
(13.4%) in which 68 documents (33.83%) were published, Cluster 2 comprises 57 sources
(40.1%) in which 67 documents (33.33%) were published, and Cluster 3 has 66 sources
(46.5%) in which 66 documents (32.84%) were published. Table 5 presents the top sources
of Cluster 1 based on Bradford’s law. Particularly, it presents the source name (Source),
its rank (Rank), the number of documents published (Freq.), the cumulative frequency of
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 9 of 28

published documents (CumFreq.), and the cluster (Cluster). Based on the outcomes, the
top sources were Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in
Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (rank = 1 and freq. = 13), Education
and Information Technologies (rank = 2 and freq. = 4), Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering
(rank = 3 and freq. = 4), Springer Series on Cultural Computing (rank = 4 and freq. = 4), ACM
International Conference Proceeding Series (ICPS) (rank = 5 and freq. = 3), Applied Sciences
(Switzerland) (rank = 6 and freq. = 3), Cognitive Technologies (rank = 7 and freq. = 3),
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence (rank = 8 and freq. = 3), Education Sciences
(rank = 9 and freq. = 3), and Electronics (Switzerland) (rank = 10 and freq. = 3).

Table 5. Most impactful sources based on Bradford’s law.

Source Rank Freq. CumFreq. Cluster

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes
1 13 13 Cluster 1
in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
Education and Information Technologies 2 4 17 Cluster 1
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 3 4 21 Cluster 1
Springer Series on Cultural Computing 4 4 25 Cluster 1
ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (ICPS) 5 3 28 Cluster 1
Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 6 3 31 Cluster 1
Cognitive Technologies 7 3 34 Cluster 1
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 8 3 37 Cluster 1
Education Sciences 9 3 40 Cluster 1
Electronics (Switzerland) 10 3 43 Cluster 1

3.4. Authors
Lotka’s law was used to examine the number of authors that have contributed a set
number of documents to the document collection included in this study. Based on the
results presented in Table 6, it is evident that the vast majority of authors have contributed
to a single study (89.7%). A total of 7.3% of authors have contributed to two documents
and 13 authors (2.1%) have contributed to three studies. Finally, a total of six authors (0.9%)
have contributed to four documents.

Table 6. Lotka’s law analysis.

Documents Written N. of Authors Proportion of Authors

1 576 0.897
2 47 0.073
3 13 0.02
4 6 0.009

3.5. Affiliations
For a better understanding of the affiliations that have contributed the most in the
creation and publication of documents relevant to the topic, the author affiliations were
examined. Specifically, the affiliations of all authors involved in a document were taken
into account. Hence, the total number of documents published by the authors of a specific
country might be lower than the summation of the contribution from different affiliations
of the same country. Hence, to examine the countries that have contributed the most, a
separate analysis was carried out.
Among the different affiliations contained within the document collection, the top
10 affiliations, based on the number of contributions to documents, had contributed to at
least four documents. Specifically, authors from McGill University, Canada (n = 11) and
University of Essex, United Kingdom (n = 7) have contributed to the most documents.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 10 of 28

Three affiliations, namely Texas A&M University, United States, University of Córdoba,
Spain, and the University of Sydney, Australia, had authors who contributed to six doc-
uments. Two affiliations, namely AGH University of Science and Technology, Poland
and Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea, had authors who contributed to five docu-
ments. Three affiliations, namely Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, National
Chung Cheng University, Taiwan, and University of West Attica, Greece, had authors who
contributed to four documents.

3.6. Countries
To examine the countries that have contributed the most to the creation of the docu-
ment collection, the corresponding author’s or the first author’s country was taken into
account. Specifically, the corresponding author’s country was used and only if there was
no corresponding author clearly defined, the first author’s country was used. As a result, a
total of 40 countries were identified.
In Table 7, the top 10 countries that have contributed the most documents on the topic
are presented. Each of the remaining countries contributed three or fewer documents.
Specifically, Table 7 presents the name of the country (Country), the number of documents
(Documents), the intra-country collaboration (SCP), the inter-country collaboration (MCP),
the frequency (Freq.), and the inter-country collaboration ratio (MCP_Ration). China
(n = 61), the United States (n = 28), India (n = 13), and the United Kingdom (n = 8) were
the countries that contributed the most documents. Additionally, China had the most
intra-country (n = 57) and inter-country (n = 4) collaborations among all 40 countries.

Table 7. Country publication details.

Country Documents SCP MCP Freq. MCP_Ratio

China 61 57 4 0.303 0.066
United States 28 26 2 0.139 0.071
India 13 12 1 0.065 0.077
United Kingdom 8 8 0 0.04 0
Canada 7 5 2 0.035 0.286
Italy 7 5 2 0.035 0.286
Australia 6 6 0 0.03 0
South Korea 6 6 0 0.03 0
Greece 5 5 0 0.025 0
Germany 4 4 0 0.02 0
Indonesia 4 4 0 0.02 0
Spain 4 2 2 0.02 0

Furthermore, Table 8 presents the countries that received the most citations based on
the availability of the cited references information provided by the two databases used.
China received the most citations (n = 954), followed by the United States (n = 527) and
Canada (n = 453). Additionally, Canada has the highest number of average citations
per document (64.7). Finally, the document contributed by authors in New Zealand [75]
received a total of 200 references based on the information of the two databases which
highlight its impact and significance.
Given that only 15.9% of the documents were single-authored, that the documents
had on average 3.65 co-authors, and that the international co-authorship rate was 10.45%, it
was deemed important to explore the collaboration among the different countries. As can
be seen in Figure 3, in total, five clusters emerged. These clusters highlight the countries
whose authors are actively involved in joint efforts to further advance this field of study and
also present the countries that have been involved in more international collaborations. Of
 Country TC Average Document Citations
China 954 15.6
United States 527 18.8
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 11 of 28
Canada 453 64.7
New Zealand 200 200
Australia 144 24
the countries presented, China, followed by the United States, had the most collaborations
India 103 7.9
with other countries, having both direct and indirect connections.
Italy 67 9.6
South8.Korea
Table 62 the most
Countries that received 10.3 citations.
Serbia 40 20
Country
Spain 39 TC9.8 Average Document Citations
China 954 15.6
Given
United that only 15.9% of the
States 527 documents were18.8single-authored, that the documents
Canada 453 64.7
had on average 3.65 co-authors, and that the international co-authorship rate was 10.45%,
itNew
was Zealand 200 the collaboration
deemed important to explore 200 among the different countries. As
Australia 144 24
can be seen in Figure 3, in total, five clusters emerged. These clusters highlight the coun-
India 103 7.9
tries
Italywhose authors are actively67involved in joint efforts
9.6 to further advance this field of
study
Southand also present the countries
Korea 62 that have been10.3involved in more international collab-
orations.
Serbia Of the countries presented,
40 China, followed
20 by the United States, had the most
Spain
collaborations 39 having both direct
with other countries, 9.8 and indirect connections.

Figure
Figure 3. Country collaboration
3. Country collaboration network.
network.

3.7. Document Analysis

3.7. Document Analysis
To further explore the related documents, the total number of citations they have
To further explore the related documents, the total number of citations they have
received was considered. Additionally, using the keywords specified within the documents,
received was considered. Additionally, using the keywords specified within the docu-
the thematic evolution of the topic, the thematic map of the topic, and the main trends of
ments, the thematic evolution of the topic, the thematic map of the topic, and the main
the topic were explored. Specifically, Table 9 presents the documents that have received the
trends of the topic were explored. Specifically, Table 9 presents the documents that have
most citations within the document collection.
received the most citations within the document collection.
Table 9. Documents with the highest number of citations.

Total Total Citations Normalized Total

Document DOI
Citations Per Year Citations
[77] 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100082 372 124 16.01
[75] 10.1007/s40593-014-0032-x 200 20 1
[78] 10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.05.015 154 25.67 3.31
[79] 10.1371/journal.pone.0229596 150 30 5.29
[80] 10.1007/978-3-319-93843-1_12 135 19.29 3.34
[81] 10.1016/j.imr.2022.100917 89 44.5 10.77
[82] 10.2106/JBJS.18.01197 82 13.67 1.76
[83] 10.1080/09588221.2021.1879162 67 22.33 2.88
[84] 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.49008 65 21.67 2.8
[85] 10.1155/2021/2637439 61 15.25 2.76
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 12 of 28

The keywords reported by the two databases are categorized into keywords plus and
author’s keywords. Specifically, keywords plus refer to the keywords used to classify the
documents within the databases while author’s keywords refer to the keywords specified
by the authors within the documents. Both types of keywords can adequately represent the
document knowledge structure [86]. Hence, both types of keywords are used in this study.
The top 10 most frequently used keywords plus were “artificial intelligence”, “vir-
tual reality”, “augmented reality”, “education”, “metaverse”, “extended reality”, “deep
learning”, “human-computer interaction”, “chatbots”, “immersive learning”, and “intel-
ligent tutoring systems”. The top 10 most common author’s keywords were “artificial
intelligence”, “virtual reality”, “students”, “e-learning”, “augmented reality”, “engineering
education”, “learning systems”, “teaching”, “computer-aided instruction”, and “educa-
tion”. The frequency of the related keywords is presented in Figures 4 and 5 for the
keywords plus and author’s keywords respectively. According to the keywords, the ability
of these technologies to provide immersive learning environments that tend to students’
needs is highlighted. Moreover, their ability to personalize the educational process through
the provision of intelligent tutoring systems, chatbots, and agents as well as interactive
learning systems is evident. The importance of focusing on human-computer interaction
and on providing effective computer-aided instruction emerged. Finally, their13poten-
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 of 29
tials to support both teachers and students is also presented through the identification of
relevant keywords.

Figure 4. Most frequent keywords plus.

Figure 4. Most frequent keywords plus.

Besides the use of the Bibliometrix tool, VOSviewer was also used to explore the
keyword co-occurrence network. The two networks are presented in Figures 6 and 7 re-
spectively. For the networks generated via Bibliometrix (Figure 6), keywords plus were
used, while for the network created via VOSviewer (Figure 7), author’s keywords and
keywords plus were used jointly. In the network created through Bibliometrix, a total
of three clusters arose. The keywords of each cluster are as follows: (i) Green cluster:
“virtual reality”, “artificial intelligence”, “students”, “e-learning”, “augmented reality”,
“engineering education”, “learning systems”, “teaching”, “computer-aided instruction”,
“natural language processing”, “education computing”, “metaverse”, “intelligent tutoring
systems”, “mixed reality”, “learning”, “deep learning”, “extended reality”, “curricula”,
 ers”, “artificial intelligence in education”, “data handling”, “language learning”, “virtual
assistants”, “college students”, “current”, “learning environments”; (ii) Red cluster: “ed-
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9,ucation”,
11 “machine learning”, “medical education”, “clinical competence”, “medical”,
13 of 28
“simulation training”, “nursing education”, “procedures”, “surgical training”; and (iii)
Blue cluster: “virtual environments”, “adversarial machine learning”, “contrastive learn-
ing”, “federated learning”,
“human-computer “high
interaction”, education”.
“learning experiences”, “chatbots”, “immersive learning”,
“immersive”, “technology”, “behavioral research”,
Moreover, the network generated through VOSviewer “speech recognition”,
resulted in“teachers”,
the creation “artifi-
of four
cial intelligence
clusters. in education”,
The relevant “data handling”,
to each cluster keywords are“language learning”,
as follows: “virtual
Cluster assistants”,
(1): “artificial intel-
“college students”, “current”, “learning environments”; (ii) Red cluster: “education”,
ligence”, “artificial intelligence in education”, “behavioral research”, “curricula”, “data
“machine learning”,
handling”, “medical
“deep learning”, education”, “engineering
“e-learning”, “clinical competence”,
education”,“medical”,
“language “simulation
learning”,
training”, “nursing education”, “procedures”, “surgical training”;
“metaverse”, “natural language processing”, “speech recognition”, “teachers”, and (iii) Blue cluster:
“teach-
“virtual
ing”, environments”, “adversarial machine learning”, “contrastive learning”, “federated
Figure“virtual reality”;keywords
4. Most frequent Cluster plus.
(2): “augmented reality”, “computer-aided instruction”,
learning”, “high education”.
“education computing”, “immersive”, “intelligent tutoring systems”, “interactive learn-
ing environment”, “learning experiences”, “learning systems”, “mixed reality”, “stu-
dents”; Cluster (3): “adversarial machine learning”, “contrastive learning”, “federated
learning”, “higher education”, “human-computer interaction”, “immersive learning”,
“learning environments”, “virtual assistants”, “virtual environments”; and Cluster (4):
“chatbots”, “education”, “extended reality”, “learning”, “machine learning”, “medical ed-
ucation”, “simulation”, “technology”, “visualization”. The applicability and multidimen-
sional role of combining artificial intelligence with augmented reality and virtual reality
technologies in educational settings is evident from the keywords and clusters.
Furthermore, through the use of VOSviewer, the total link strength among the key-
words and their connections were explored. The related keywords were further processed
and both keywords plus and author’s keywords were used. Nonetheless, to avoid any
bias, if a keyword existed in both keyword sets, it counted only once. Table 10 presents
the top 10 keywords based on their total link strength. Artificial intelligence (occur-
rence=111 and total link strength=458), virtual reality (occurrence=100 and total link
strength=444), and students (occurrence=64 and total link strength=361) were the key-
words with the highest total link strength. Augmented reality also had a relatively high
total link strength; however, it was less than that of the virtual reality keyword. This fact
highlights the closer relation between artificial intelligence and virtual reality and that the
research into the field of virtual reality has been more extensively examined.
Figure 5. Most frequent author’s keywords.
Figure 5. Most frequent author’s keywords.

Besides the use of the Bibliometrix tool, VOSviewer was also used to explore the key-
word co-occurrence network. The two networks are presented in Figure 6 and Figure 7
respectively. For the networks generated via Bibliometrix (Figure 6), keywords plus were
used, while for the network created via VOSviewer (Figure 7), author’s keywords and
keywords plus were used jointly. In the network created through Bibliometrix, a total of
three clusters arose. The keywords of each cluster are as follows: (i) Green cluster: “virtual
reality”, “artificial intelligence”, “students”, “e-learning”, “augmented reality”, “engi-
neering education”, “learning systems”, “teaching”, “computer-aided instruction”, “nat-
ural language processing”, “education computing”, “metaverse”, “intelligent tutoring
systems”, “mixed reality”, “learning”, “deep learning”, “extended reality”, “curricula”,

Figure
Figure6.6.Keyword
Keywordco-occurrence
co-occurrence network—Bibliometrix.
network—Bibliometrix.
Multimodal Technol.
Multimodal Technol. Interact.
Interact. 2025,
2025, 9,
9, 11
11 15 of 29
14 of 28

Figure
Figure 7. Keyword co-occurrence
7. Keyword co-occurrence network—VOSviewer.
network—VOSviewer.

Moreover, the network generated through VOSviewer resulted in the creation of four
Table 10. Total link strength of the keyword co-occurrence network—VOSviewer.
clusters. The relevant to each cluster keywords are as follows: Cluster (1): “artificial intel-
Keywords“artificial intelligence in education”,
ligence”, Occurrences“behavioral Total Link Strength
research”, “curricula”, “data
artificial intelligence 111 458
handling”, “deep learning”, “e-learning”, “engineering education”, “language learning”,
virtual reality“natural language processing”,
“metaverse”, 100 444
“speech recognition”, “teachers”, “teaching”,
students 64 361
“virtual reality”; Cluster (2): “augmented reality”, “computer-aided instruction”, “ed-
e-learning
ucation 60
computing”, “immersive”, “intelligent 318
tutoring systems”, “interactive learning
augmented reality 54 236
environment”, “learning experiences”, “learning systems”, “mixed reality”, “students”;
engineering
Cluster education machine learning”,
(3): “adversarial 33 178
“contrastive learning”, “federated learning”,
learning systems 28 172
“higher education”, “human-computer interaction”, “immersive learning”, “learning en-
education 32 163
vironments”, “virtual assistants”, “virtual environments”; and Cluster (4): “chatbots”,
computer-aided instruction 24 150
“education”, “extended reality”, “learning”, “machine learning”, “medical education”,
“simulation”, “technology”, “visualization”. The applicability and multidimensional role
Using Bibliometrix, the evolution of the topic throughout the years was also exam-
of combining artificial intelligence with augmented reality and virtual reality technologies
ined. Given the 10-year time period examined in this study (2015–2024), a total of three
in educational settings is evident from the keywords and clusters.
distinct time periods were set, as can be seen in (Figure 8). To examine the thematic evo-
Furthermore, through the use of VOSviewer, the total link strength among the key-
lution, the document keywords were used. Hence, each time period was associated with
words and their connections were explored. The related keywords were further processed
a set of keywords. Specifically, the following themes emerged over the years: (i) 2015–2018
and both keywords plus and author’s keywords were used. Nonetheless, to avoid any bias,
period: virtual reality, computer-aided instruction; (ii) 2019–2021 period: artificial intelli-
if a keyword existed in both keyword sets, it counted only once. Table 10 presents the top
gence, extended reality, deep learning, education, learning efficiency, learning systems;
10 keywords based on their total link strength. Artificial intelligence (occurrence = 111 and
and (iii) 2022–2024 period: artificial intelligence, metaverse, education, virtual environ-
total link strength = 458), virtual reality (occurrence = 100 and total link strength = 444),
ments, and tutoring systems. Based on the outcomes, the close relationship between
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 15 of 28

and students (occurrence = 64 and total link strength = 361) were the keywords with the
highest total link strength. Augmented reality also had a relatively high total link strength;
however, it was less than that of the virtual reality keyword. This fact highlights the closer
relation between artificial intelligence and virtual reality and that the research into the field
of virtual reality has been more extensively examined.

Table 10. Total link strength of the keyword co-occurrence network—VOSviewer.

Keywords Occurrences Total Link Strength

artificial intelligence 111 458
virtual reality 100 444
students 64 361
e-learning 60 318
augmented reality 54 236
engineering education 33 178
learning systems 28 172
education 32 163
computer-aided instruction 24 150

Using Bibliometrix, the evolution of the topic throughout the years was also examined.
Given the 10-year time period examined in this study (2015–2024), a total of three distinct
time periods were set, as can be seen in (Figure 8). To examine the thematic evolution,
the document keywords were used. Hence, each time period was associated with a set of
keywords. Specifically, the following themes emerged over the years: (i) 2015–2018 period:
virtual reality, computer-aided instruction; (ii) 2019–2021 period: artificial intelligence,
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11
extended reality, deep learning, education, learning efficiency, learning systems; 16 of 29
and
(iii) 2022–2024 period: artificial intelligence, metaverse, education, virtual environments,
and tutoring systems. Based on the outcomes, the close relationship between extended
extended reality technologies
reality technologies and intelligence
and artificial artificial intelligence
becomes becomes
evident. evident.
However, However,
the fieldtheof
field of virtual reality is more widely being examined in combination with
virtual reality is more widely being examined in combination with artificial intelligence artificial intel-
ligence
than with than with
that of that of augmented
augmented reality.reality. Additionally,
Additionally, the initial
the initial focus focus on general
on general com-
computer-
puter-aided
aided instructioninstruction has shifted
has shifted to exploring
to exploring how thehow the combination
combination of intelligence
of artificial artificial intelli-
and
gence
extendedandreality
extended reality technologies
technologies can constitute
can constitute effectivesystems
effective learning learningthatsystems that can
can improve
improve
learning learning
efficiencyefficiency and support
and support the educational
the educational processprocess
throughthrough
the usetheof use of ad-
advanced
vanced technologies
technologies and approaches,
and approaches, such assuch
deepaslearning
deep learning techniques.
techniques. In recent
In recent years, years,
more
more
emphasisemphasis hasplaced
has been been placed on the metaverse
on the metaverse and on and on creating
creating effectiveeffective virtual envi-
virtual environments
ronments
as well as as well as personalized
personalized tutoringthat
tutoring systems systems that can
can enrich theenrich the educational
educational process. process.

Figure 8. Thematic evolution of the topic.

The trend topics that emerged over the period of 2015–2024 were also explored. The
related outcomes are presented in Figure 9 for the keywords plus and in Figure 10 for the
author’s keywords. Based on the author’s keywords, the emphasis on intelligent tutoring
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 16 of 28

The trend topics that emerged over the period of 2015–2024 were also explored. The
related outcomes are presented in Figure 9 for the keywords plus and in Figure 10 for the
author’s keywords. Based on the author’s keywords, the emphasis on intelligent tutoring
systems is evident. Additionally, the focus on augmented reality and virtual reality started
to appear more intensely in 2021 while on the metaverse in 2023. Creating immersive
learning and personalized learning environments using extended reality and artificial
intelligence technologies to support teaching and learning has been the main focus in the
last years. According to the outcomes of the keywords plus analysis, the initial emphasis
was placed in the field of medical and healthcare education. Gradually, the focus shifted to
other fields and subjects as well. The interest in using new technologies and approaches to
support teaching and learning by offering, intelligent tutoring systems, computer-aided
instructions, and interactive learning systems was evident. Recently, emphasis has been
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, put
11 on different machine learning and deep learning techniques to provide personalized17 of 29
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 17 of 29
and immersive learning experiences in virtual environments while also capitalizing on
virtual assistants and virtual avatars.

Figure9.9.
Figure
Figure 9.Trend
Trendtopics
Trend topicsbased
topics basedon
based onkeywords
on keywordsplus.
keywords plus.
plus.

Figure
Figure 10.Trend
Figure10.
10. Trendtopics
Trend topicsbased
topics basedon
based onauthor’s
on author’skeywords.
author’s keywords.
keywords.

Keywords were
Keywords were also
also used
used to
to cluster
cluster the
the documents
documents through
through the
the use
use of
of the
the clustering
clustering
by coupling method using keywords plus as the coupling measurement and
by coupling method using keywords plus as the coupling measurement and documents documents
as the
as the analysis
analysis unit.
unit. The
The related
related outcomes
outcomes areare presented
presented in
in Figure
Figure 11,
11, based
based on
on which
which six
six
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 17 of 28

Keywords were also used to cluster the documents through the use of the clustering
by coupling method using keywords plus as the coupling measurement and documents
as the analysis unit. The related outcomes are presented in Figure 11, based on which six
clusters arose. The first cluster (brown) was related to the keywords “artificial intelligence”,
“virtual reality”, “education”, “e-learning”, and “clinical competence” while the second
cluster (green) was related to the keywords “virtual reality”, “artificial intelligence”, “e-
learning”, “students”, and “natural language processing”. Both clusters highlight the
close relation between artificial intelligence and virtual reality in educational settings. The
third cluster (red) was associated with the keywords “artificial intelligence”, “augmented
reality”, “mixed reality”, “engineering education”, and “learning systems”, revealing the
focus on combining augmented reality with artificial intelligence to create learning systems
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 18 of 29
that promote learning in mixed reality environments, particularly in STEM-related fields.
The fourth cluster (orange) was associated with the keywords “students”, “augmented
reality”, “e-learning”,
instruction” “virtual
while the fifth reality”,
cluster andwas
(purple) “computer-aided instruction”
related to the keywords while the fifth
“adversarial ma-
clusterlearning”,
chine (purple) was related tolearning”,
“contrastive the keywords “adversarial
“federated machine
learning”, learning”,
“students”, and“contrastive
“virtual en-
learning”, “federated
vironments”. learning”,
These clusters “students”,
present the use ofand
new“virtual environments”.
techniques Thesetoclusters
and approaches enrich
present the
learning inuse of new
virtual techniques and
environments andapproaches
to providetostudents
enrich learning in virtual environments
with personalized computer-
and toinstruction.
aided provide students withcluster
The sixth personalized computer-aided
(blue) was related to the instruction. The sixth cluster
keywords “augmented real-
(blue)“intelligent
ity”, was related to the keywords
tutoring “augmented“computer-aided
systems”, “students”, reality”, “intelligent tutoringand
instruction”, systems”,
“edu-
“students”, “computer-aided
cation computing” instruction”,
which highlights and “education
the emphasis on usingcomputing”
intelligent which highlights
tutoring systems
the emphasis
within on using
augmented intelligent
reality tutoringtosystems
environments providewithin augmented
students reality environments
with personalized computer-
to provide
aided students with personalized computer-aided instruction.
instruction.

Figure 11. Document clusters.

Furthermore, using
Furthermore, usingBibliometrix,
Bibliometrix,the
thethematic
thematicmapmapofofthe
thetopic, focusing
topic, focusingonon identifying
identify-
the motor,
ing basic,basic,
the motor, niche,niche,
and emerging or declining
and emerging themes,
or declining was created.
themes, In total,In11total,
was created. themes11
emerged. Motor themes (three clusters) were related to (i), “medical”,
themes emerged. Motor themes (three clusters) were related to (i), “medical”, “proce- “procedures”,
“surgical training”,
dures”, “surgical and “simulation”;
training”, (ii) “intelligent
and “simulation”; tutoring tutoring
(ii) “intelligent systems”,systems”,
“interactive learn-
“interac-
ing environment”, “user interfaces”, and “virtual reality training”; and (iii)
tive learning environment”, “user interfaces”, and “virtual reality training”; and (iii) “nursing”,
“nursing
“nursing”,education”, and “nursing
“nursing education”, students”.
and “nursingBasic themesBasic
students”. (fourthemes
clusters) were
(four associ-
clusters)
ated with (i) “teaching”, “metaverse”, “curricula”, and “behavioral research”;
were associated with (i) “teaching”, “metaverse”, “curricula”, and “behavioral research”; (ii) “stu-
(ii) “students”, “e-learning”, “augmented reality”, and “engineering education”; (iii) “ed-
ucation”, “machine learning”, and “medical education”; and (iv) “virtual reality”, “artifi-
cial intelligence”, “learning”, and “extended reality”. Niche themes (two clusters) were
related to (i) “instructional design”, “intelligent robots”, and “intelligent systems” and (ii)
“artificial intelligence algorithms”, “development prospects”, and “efficiency”. Emerging
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 18 of 28

dents”, “e-learning”, “augmented reality”, and “engineering education”; (iii) “education”,

“machine learning”, and “medical education”; and (iv) “virtual reality”, “artificial intelli-
gence”, “learning”, and “extended reality”. Niche themes (two clusters) were related to
(i) “instructional design”, “intelligent robots”, and “intelligent systems” and (ii) “artificial
intelligence algorithms”, “development prospects”, and “efficiency”. Emerging or declining
themes (two clusters) were associated with (i) “adaptive learning”, “design considerations”,
“innovation”, and “learning technologies” and (ii) “college students”, “motivation”,
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 19 ofand
29
“sustainable development”. Figure 12 depicts the related information.

Figure 12.
Figure Thematic map
12. Thematic map of
of the
the topic.
topic.

In addition
In addition to tothe
theresults
resultsofofBibliometrix
Bibliometrix andandVOSviewer,
VOSviewer, which focused
which on keywords,
focused on key-
topic modeling was also used through LDA. Specifically, LDA is
words, topic modeling was also used through LDA. Specifically, LDA is used on discreteused on discrete datasets to
representtoeach
datasets item aseach
represent a combination of topics fromofatopics
item as a combination finite set anda constitutes
from finite set anda probabilistic
constitutes
Bayesian model with a three-level hierarchical structure [71].
a probabilistic Bayesian model with a three-level hierarchical structure [71]. The resultsThe results of the topicof
modeling
the analysis are
topic modeling basedare
analysis on the bi-grams
based on the contained within thewithin
bi-grams contained title andtheabstract
title and of ab-
the
documents
stract and are presented
of the documents and are in Table 11.inThe
presented Table main keywords
11. The associatedassociated
main keywords with the topic
with
(e.g.,
the artificial
topic (e.g., intelligence, augmented
artificial intelligence, reality, virtual
augmented reality,
reality, extended
virtual reality,reality,
extendedandreality,
mixed
reality)
and mixedare reality)
not reported
are not to reported
present more representative
to present outcomes. Inoutcomes.
more representative total, three In topics
total,
arose from the topic modeling analysis. These topics were related
three topics arose from the topic modeling analysis. These topics were related to the wideto the wide applicability
of artificial intelligence,
applicability augmented reality,
of artificial intelligence, augmentedand virtual
reality, reality in education.
and virtual reality inSpecifically,
education.
Specifically, the first topic is related to their role in higher education, tostudents’
the first topic is related to their role in higher education, to the focus on the focuslearning
on stu-
and improving their learning outcomes, as well as the design and
dents’ learning and improving their learning outcomes, as well as the design and adoption adoption of appropriate
teaching
of practices
appropriate and methods.
teaching practicesThe andsecond topicThe
methods. is related
second to topic
the use is of intelligent
related to thetutoring
use of
systems and virtual assistants and avatars within learning environments
intelligent tutoring systems and virtual assistants and avatars within learning environ- to promote and
increase learning outcomes. The third topic is related to the wide
ments to promote and increase learning outcomes. The third topic is related to the wide range of educational
subjects
range of into which these
educational technologies
subjects into whichcan be effectively
these technologies integrated and to theintegrated
can be effectively emphasis
on interactive and immersive learning experiences and environments.
and to the emphasis on interactive and immersive learning experiences and environ- These outcomes
ments. These outcomes are in line with those identified by the two tools used and provide
additional details for each topic.

Table 11. LDA topic modeling.

No. Topic Bi‐Grams

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 19 of 28

are in line with those identified by the two tools used and provide additional details for
each topic.

Table 11. LDA topic modeling.

No. Topic Bi-Grams

higher education (8.856), application technology (6.281),
Higher education–Teaching practices and learning outcomes (4.579), deep learning (4.143), machine
1
methods—Learning outcomes learning (3.324), teaching method (3.054), teaching mode (3.042),
student learning (2.999), learning technology (2.731).
intelligent tutoring (9.008), college students (4.921), educational
environment (4.189), education research (3.814), virtual
Intelligent tutoring systems—Virtual
2 assistants (3.759), tutoring systems (3.743), students
assistants and avatars—Learning outcomes
learning (3.512), improve learning (3.235), learning
environments (3.005).
learning experiences (6.909), language learning (6.818), nursing
education (5.743), learning environment (5.729), real time (5.407),
Interactive and immersive learning learning experience (5.299), interactive learning (4.817),
3
experiences—Educational subjects engineering education (4.674), immersive learning (4.361),
science education (4.329), computer science (3.339), medical
education (3.240), emerging technologies (3.084).

4. Discussion
Both artificial intelligence and extended reality technologies can significantly impact
teaching and learning activities; thus, transforming and enriching the educational domain.
These outcomes can potentially be further amplified when these technologies are combined
to yield intelligent, interactive, and immersive learning environments. However, despite
the potential benefits that their use and the use of digital technologies in general can bring in
education, it is important to consider the challenges associated with technology-enhanced
learning in terms of the digital inclusion, digital exclusion, and the digital divide [87,88].
Specifically, the integration of more advanced technological applications into teaching and
learning could create further inequalities between students who have access to them than
those who do not [89,90].
To explore the advances of using extended reality technologies and artificial intelli-
gence in education, the document collection focused on documents published in the last
decade and their analysis looked into different dimensions and aspects of this collection. In
total, 201 documents relevant to the integration of these technologies in educational settings
comprised the document collection examined in this study. The PRISMA guidelines were
adopted to ensure a valid, transparent, and reproducible study. The documents were
retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science, which are highly regarded and widely used in
systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis studies, and were utilized to search
for documents relevant to the topic using a comprehensive query. The related documents
were then processed and categorized. Using different tools and approaches, such as Bib-
liometrix, VOSviewer, and topic modeling through LDA, the documents contained within
the specific document collection were analyzed.
The 201 documents contained in the document collection were published between
2015 and 2024. The documents had an average age of 1.63 years and a significantly high
annual growth rate (60.58%). These outcomes highlight the importance and recency of
the topic and indicate the use of artificial intelligence and extended reality in education
as key technologies to shape up the future of the educational domain. The documents
were published in 142 different sources with most documents having been published as
conference/proceedings papers (42.8%), closely followed by journal articles (42.3%). The
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 20 of 28

documents were written by 642 authors from 40 different countries and had an average
of 3.65% co-authors. As the topic is still in its infancy, the international co-authorship rate
(10.45%) reveals the multidisciplinary nature of the topic and it being widely examined by
researchers of different expertise across countries and continents. Nonetheless, a relatively
high number of single-authored studies (15.92%), in comparison to other topics, was
also observed. Given the document publication period of 2015–2024, the time period
was divided into three periods. Specifically, 2015–2020 was the period when interest in
this topic sparked, 2021–2023 was the period when the topic began to materialize, and
2024 was the breakthrough year. Additionally, most documents were published in 2024
(35.32%), followed by those published in 2023 (22.39%) and 2022 (16.92%). Among the
201 documents, those that were published in 2019 and 2018 had the highest mean total
citations per document. However, given the annual growth rate and the average age of
the documents, it is expected that the outcomes regarding the publication year of the
most impactful documents is subject to change. Moreover, using the number of published
documents, the total citations, and the h-index on the topic, the sources in which the
documents were published were also explored. Bradford’s law was also used to cluster the
sources based on their relevancy to the topic. Through the use of Lotka’s law, it became
evident that a significant majority of authors have contributed to a single study (89.7%);
however, as the field advances, it is expected that these outcomes will change. Additionally,
the countries and affiliations whose authors have contributed the most documents on
the topic and received the most citations were also examined. Specifically, China, the
United States, India, and the United Kingdom contributed the most documents while
China, the United States, and Canada received the most citations. China also had the most
intra-country and inter-country collaborations among all countries. Finally, five clusters of
close collaborations among authors from different countries emerged when examining the
international collaborations. These results highlight the interdisciplinary nature of the topic
as well as the global interest in the integration and use of artificial intelligence, augmented
reality, and virtual reality in education.
To identify topics and areas of interest, both author’s keywords and keywords plus
were used. When examining the frequency at which the keywords were used, the ability to
offer immersive and interactive learning experiences through the convergence of artificial
intelligence and extended reality technologies emerged. Additionally, the importance of
human-computer interaction, machine learning and deep learning, computer vision, and
natural language processing arose. The ability to support both teachers and students and
offer computer-aided instruction was also evident. The potential to create intelligent tutor-
ing systems and virtual assistants was highlighted as well. Although these technologies can
be integrated into a plethora of learning subjects, most emphasis is being put on their use in
engineering and STEM education. The multidimensional nature and wide applicability of
these technologies were also revealed through the keyword co-occurrence network analysis
in both Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. Specifically, using Bibliometrix, the documents were
categorized into three clusters while using VOSviewer four clusters emerged. In both cases,
the outcomes were similar and revealed their ability to be used as effective learning systems
that can be integrated into the curricula, offer computer-aided instruction, provide inter-
active and immersive experiences, and support both teachers and students. Additionally,
through intelligent agents, chatbots, intelligent tutoring systems, and virtual assistants, in-
telligent tutors that are characterized by high levels of realism, personalization, interactivity,
as well as cognitive, emotional, and social skills can be created when combining artificial
intelligence with augmented reality and virtual reality technologies. Among the clus-
ters, the emphasis on higher education, engineering and medical education, as well as on
hands-on learning experiences through immersive simulations is evident. The vital role of
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 21 of 28

machine learning and deep learning methods for speech and motion recognition, computer
vision, eye tracking, natural language processing, as well as content personalization and
recommendation was highlighted. These outcomes were further highlighted and validated
within the document clustering. When examining the link strength among the keywords,
artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and students had the highest total link strength. This
fact highlights the emphasis that is being put on students and student-centered learning
environments as well as the focus on using artificial intelligence within virtual reality
environments. Although augmented reality also had a relatively high total link strength,
virtual reality being the prominent area of focus was evident throughout the analysis. This
fact is in line with the keyword frequency analysis and further validates the outcomes of
other related studies [91] which have indicated that the field of virtual reality has been more
extensively examined than that of augmented reality on which more focus is being given
in recent years. It should also be noted that of the different types of artificial intelligence,
emphasis is being placed on the use of machine learning and deep learning approaches.
Additionally, the topic modeling outcomes revealed the following three main topics: (i) the
role of extended reality technologies and artificial intelligence in higher education and the
focus on improving students’ learning and outcomes as well as the design and adoption
of appropriate teaching practices and methods; (ii) the use of intelligent tutoring systems
and virtual assistants and avatars within learning environments to promote and increase
learning outcomes; and (iii) their use in different educational subjects while emphasizing
interactive and immersive learning.
Furthermore, the transition from virtual reality and augmented reality educational
interventions to artificial intelligence-enabled extended reality systems and virtual en-
vironments was also highlighted in the thematic evolution of the topic in which three
periods were defined. Based on the related keywords, emphasis is put on students’ aca-
demic achievements, intelligent tutoring systems, personalized learning, immersive virtual
environments, and learning efficiency. Besides augmented reality and virtual reality tech-
nologies, there has been increasing interest in the use of the metaverse in education. When
examining the trend topics, the transition from the initial focus on medical and healthcare
education to other fields and subjects was observed. Additionally, the gradual enrichment
of extended reality experiences and environments with artificial intelligence and the em-
phasis on offering intelligent tutoring systems in the form of virtual avatars that provide
personalized and immersive learning was highlighted. However, it should be noted that
the advancements in this field are dependent on industrial productions and these changes
are tightly coupled to other factors. For example, the wider use of generative artificial
intelligence through tools such as Bard, ChatGPT, Gemini, etc., the hardware improvement
in terms of processing capabilities, and the advancement of head-mounted devices (e.g.,
HoloLens, Meta Quest, etc.) may also influence the increased interest in the field and the
increase in the number of published documents.
Moreover, the studies presented in Table 9, which identified the documents that have
received the most citations within the document collection based on the data reported
by the two databases, are discussed. In their study, Hwang and Chien [77] examined the
research issues associated with the adoption of the metaverse in education from an artifi-
cial intelligence-based perspective. Their study also focused on presenting the potential
applications of the metaverse in educational settings. Emphasis was also placed on the role
of artificial intelligence in the metaverse. Ethical issues, the need for specialized hardware
and software, and the lack of relevant technological support arose as the main challenges.
Finally, the study highlights the need for future studies to focus on curriculum and learning
design within the metaverse. Westerfield et al. [75] focused on combining augmented
reality with intelligent tutoring system to aid in the learning and training of manual assem-
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 22 of 28

bly tasks. Their study aimed at offering a more effective learning experience to assemble
a motherboard. Based on their outcomes, students who learned through the intelligent
augmented reality system completed the tasks faster and achieved better performance than
those who learned through the basic augmented reality system. Hence, they highlighted
the potential of intelligent augmented reality tutors as a means to improve learning.
Winkler-Schwartz et al. [78] put emphasis on improving and assessing surgical ex-
pertise in the context of medical education using machine learning and a virtual reality
simulation. Aiming at effectively evaluating the performance on virtual reality simulators
regarding surgical expertise, they created and presented the Machine Learning to Assess
Surgical Expertise (MLASE) checklist. They examined published articles that used these
technologies and found out that articles published in computer science journals had a more
in-depth description of the study design and weaker discussion quality while articles that
were published in medical journals were the exact opposite. Hence, this checklist aims to
provide common ground for future studies to use to assess the effectiveness of their systems
and applications. Mirchi et al. [79] explored the creation of a virtual operative assistant
using virtual reality and explainable artificial intelligence tools. Specifically, they focused
on simulation-based training in surgery and medicine in the context of medical education.
Their virtual operative assistant was capable of effectively classifying the users into differ-
ent categories based on their skills and performance and provided them with immediate
visual feedback. Their study also highlighted the potential benefits that the use of artificial
intelligence and virtual reality can have in education as well as the merits that can be
yielded when combining instructor inputs, objective feedback, and expertise classification.
Focusing on artificial intelligence-enhanced classrooms, Holstein et al. [80] examined
the influence of using a mixed-reality teacher awareness tool on students’ learning in
K-12 education. Their results revealed that through the use of intelligent tutoring systems
and real-time analytics, it is possible to reduce the disparity in learning outcomes among
students with different levels of prior ability. Finally, the study comments upon the potential
benefits that can be yielded when integrating machine and human intelligence in classrooms
to support students’ learning. Divekar et al. [83] focused on the design and evaluation
aspects of foreign language learning using extended reality technologies and artificial
intelligence. Based on the outcomes, students had a positive learning experience and
statistically significant differences were observed in knowledge acquisition and retention.
Hence, the study highlighted that the combination of extended reality technologies with
artificial intelligence can result in effective and naturalistic conversational interaction that
can improve learning outcomes in the context of foreign language learning. Ma [84] also
focused on exploring the combination of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and
virtual reality as an immersive context teaching method for foreign language learning
in higher education. The study revealed the immersive and interactive nature of virtual
reality learning environments. Additionally, it highlighted the positive impact that this
combination can have on students’ learning outcomes as students who learned through
this approach performed better than those of the control group who adopted common
traditional teaching methods. Finally, the study pointed out the benefits of combining
virtual reality with constructivism theory to improve students’ learning.
Ahuja et al. [81] put emphasis on the potential applications of the metaverse in medical
education, in integrative health, and in artificial intelligence. Their study went over the
related concepts and highlighted the role and benefits of the metaverse in each domain.
Additionally, the combination of the metaverse with artificial intelligence, virtual reality,
and augmented reality technologies was highly regarded due to its potential applications
in the field of healthcare in the context of medical education. The study quoted that this
combination could revolutionize and shift the paradigm of traditional medical education.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 23 of 28

Bissonnette et al. [82] also focused on the use of virtual reality and artificial intelligence
within medical education focusing on surgical training. Their study put emphasis on dif-
ferent algorithms and their ability to effectively perform classification tasks within virtual
reality training scenarios. Their approach showed a high level of accuracy across twelve
metrics when retrieving and analyzing real-time data from the virtual reality environment.
Finally, the study highlighted the potential of artificial intelligence to support and enrich
current educational paradigms and better prepare future professionals. Focusing on ex-
amining the influence of artificial intelligence tutoring on medical students’ surgical skills,
Fazlollahi et al. [84] carried out a study involving a virtual operative assistant. According
to their findings, when compared to instructor-based teaching and to the control group,
the group of students, who learnt through the virtual operative assistant within the virtual
reality environment, showcased significantly improved outcomes in practice expertise
scores and realistic expertise scores. However, no significant differences were observed
in terms of negative and positive emotions nor in cognitive learning among the three
different groups.

5. Conclusions
The convergence of artificial intelligence with augmented reality and virtual reality
technologies is being increasingly examined. Due to the benefits they can bring in the
educational domain, emphasis is put on their role and integration into teaching and learn-
ing. This study aimed at examining the existing literature to present the state of the art
regarding the combination of artificial intelligence with augmented reality and virtual
reality technologies and its use in education and to reveal future research areas. As a
result, using two databases, documents relevant to the topic were identified, processed, and
analyzed using various tools and approaches. Specifically, this study explored the existing
literature in terms of the main characteristics of the relevant documents, that is, publica-
tion frequency, citation, count, authors, countries, affiliations, and sources. Additionally,
this study looked into the most prominent topics regarding the integration of artificial
intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual reality in education, examined the trend topics
and thematic evolution of the topic, and highlighted the most popular themes and areas
through the use of Bibliometrix, VOSviewer, and topic modeling.
Although efforts were made to offer a broader look at the existing literature, there are
a few limitations that should be considered. Firstly, due to the tools used (e.g., Bibliometrix
and VOSviewer), this study did not involve an in-depth content-wise analysis of the
documents but focused primarily on the bibliometric data. Secondly, the documents were
retrieved from two databases based on the aforementioned reasons. Thirdly, only English
documents were analyzed. Hence, future studies should focus on examining more specific
areas of this field through systematic literature review studies to explore the impact that
the combination of artificial intelligence with extended reality technologies can have in
education and how it can affect teaching and learning practices. Finally, specifying and
identifying the number of topics is a challenge when using LDA; hence, a perplexity metric
was used to specify a number of topics that yielded distinct topics representative of the
document collection.
According to the results and focusing on the keyword and topic analysis, the potential
of combining artificial intelligence with virtual reality and augmented reality can contribute
to creating personalized, interactive, and immersive learning experiences. Due to their
nature, these technologies can be used in all educational levels in both formal and informal
settings supporting both students and teachers. The ability to create intelligent tutoring
systems that have a virtual presence and can effectively play the role of a tutor or peer
learner was evident. Additionally, such immersive intelligent tutoring systems can be
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 24 of 28

regarded as affective and social entities with cognitive, social, and emotional skills that
can provide personalized and affective learning. Through the behavioral personalization
that they offer and their ability to recommend appropriate content and modify learning
resources, material, and activities based on each learner’s skills, knowledge, needs, and
preferences, such systems can improve students’ engagement, learning motivation, and aca-
demic performance. Additionally, they enable students to be engaged in experiential-based
learning and problem-based learning through their involvement in hands-on activities
within immersive and safe virtual environments. Hence, by combining these technologies,
students take part in self-directed learning and in collaborative learning experiences and
settings within virtual environments without which they would not have the opportunity
to experience them. Although the combination of artificial intelligence with extended
reality technologies is mostly being examined in the fields of computer science, medical
and healthcare education, and in engineering, studies have also revealed its potential to be
integrated in other domains as well.
Although the specific topic is in its infancy, it is rapidly advancing as can be concluded
based on the significantly high annual growth rate (60.58%). The interest in the topic
and the wider adoption and integration of artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and
virtual reality in educational settings is expected to further increase in the coming years.
Nonetheless, there is a clear need for more empirical, experiential, and case study-based
studies to be conducted following appropriate methodologies and involving students’
prolonged exposure to learning through the use of artificial intelligence and extended
reality technologies. Future studies should also focus on identifying the most effective
approaches to design such tools and systems, to create related educational material, and to
effectively introduce them to classrooms. Additionally, emphasis should be put on how
to integrate them in teaching and learning activities and on creating common guidelines
and standards for others to adopt and follow. Moreover, and as the field of artificial
intelligence is rapidly progressing, future studies should explore how to design and create
effective, interactive, immersive, and customizable intelligent tutoring systems that can be
integrated into extended reality environments that offer personalized learning experiences.
Additionally, there is a need to evaluate how these technologies affect students’ soft skills
and knowledge acquisition. Given the social traits of immersive intelligent tutoring systems
and their virtual presence, future studies should also look into how the virtual presence
influences students’ cognitive and socio-emotional development. Therefore, it is important
to examine how the physical presence that characterizes some new technologies (e.g.,
social robots) compares to the virtual presence that extended reality technologies offer in
terms of overall learning outcomes and students’ development. Given the scope of this
study and the keywords used, future studies should focus on further examining different
types of artificial intelligence. Finally, it is also vital to explore how these technologies can
affect learning design, evaluation, and assessment, as well as the role of teachers in an
ever-increasing digitally enriched classroom.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Haleem, A.; Javaid, M.; Qadri, M.A.; Suman, R. Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustain.
Oper. Comput. 2022, 3, 275–285. [CrossRef]
2. Admiraal, W.; Huizenga, J.; Akkerman, S.; Dam, G.t. The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 2011, 27, 1185–1194. [CrossRef]
3. Lampropoulos, G.; Kinshuk. Virtual reality and gamification in education: A systematic review. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2024, 72,
1691–1785. [CrossRef]
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 25 of 28

4. Bernacki, M.L.; Greene, M.J.; Lobczowski, N.G. A systematic review of research on personalized learning: Personalized by whom,
to what, how, and for what purpose(s)? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 33, 1675–1715. [CrossRef]
5. Shemshack, A.; Spector, J.M. A systematic literature review of personalized learning terms. Smart Learn. Environ. 2020, 7, 33.
[CrossRef]
6. Grant, P.; Basye, D. Personalized Learning: A Guide for Engaging Students with Technology; International Society for Technology in
Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
7. Pane, J.; Steiner, E.; Baird, M.; Hamilton, L. Continued Progress: Promising Evidence on Personalized Learning 2015; RAND Corporation:
Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2015. [CrossRef]
8. Conati, C.; Barral, O.; Putnam, V.; Rieger, L. Toward personalized XAI: A case study in intelligent tutoring systems. Artif. Intell.
2021, 298, 103503. [CrossRef]
9. Raj, N.S.; Renumol, V.G. A systematic literature review on adaptive content recommenders in personalized learning environments
from 2015 to 2020. J. Comput. Educ. 2022, 9, 113–148. [CrossRef]
10. Chen, C.-M. Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path guidance. Comput. Educ. 2008, 51, 787–814.
[CrossRef]
11. Pratama, M.P.; Sampelolo, R.; Lura, H. Revolutionizing education: Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence for personalized
learning. Klasikal J. Educ. Lang. Teach. Sci. 2023, 5, 350–357. [CrossRef]
12. Deci, E.L.; Vallerand, R.J.; Pelletier, L.G.; Ryan, R.M. Motivation and education: The Self-Determination perspective. Educ. Psychol.
1991, 26, 325–346. [CrossRef]
13. Beauchamp, G.; Kennewell, S. Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 759–766.
[CrossRef]
14. Bond, M.; Buntins, K.; Bedenlier, S.; Zawacki-Richter, O.; Kerres, M. Mapping research in student engagement and educational
technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 2. [CrossRef]
15. Shapiro, L.; Stolz, S.A. Embodied cognition and its significance for education. Theory Res. Educ. 2019, 17, 19–39. [CrossRef]
16. Dede, C. Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science 2009, 323, 66–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Lampropoulos, G. Augmented reality and artificial intelligence in education: Toward immersive intelligent tutoring systems.
In Augmented Reality and Artificial Intelligence; Geroimenko, V., Ed.; Springer Nature: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 137–146.
[CrossRef]
18. Bughin, J.; Hazan, E.; Ramaswamy, S.; Chui, M.; Allas, T.; Dahlstrom, P.; Trench, M. Artificial Intelligence: The Next Digital Frontier;
McKinsey Global Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
19. Chen, L.; Chen, P.; Lin, Z. Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 75264–75278. [CrossRef]
20. Holmes, W.; Bialik, M.; Fadel, C. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning; Center for
Curriculum Redesign: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020.
21. Hwang, G.-J.; Xie, H.; Wah, B.W.; Gašević, D. Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education.
Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2020, 1, 100001. [CrossRef]
22. Pedro, F.; Subosa, M.; Rivas, A.; Valverde, P. Artificial Intelligence in Education: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable
Development; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2019.
23. Haenlein, M.; Kaplan, A. A brief history of artificial intelligence: On the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. Calif.
Manag. Rev. 2019, 61, 5–14. [CrossRef]
24. Duan, Y.; Edwards, J.S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of big data-evolution, challenges and
research agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 48, 63–71. [CrossRef]
25. Stone, P.; Brooks, R.; Brynjolfsson, E.; Calo, R.; Etzioni, O.; Hager, G.; Hirschberg, J.; Kalyanakrishnan, S.; Kamar, E.; Kraus, S.;
et al. Artificial intelligence and life in 2030: The one hundred year study on artificial intelligence. arXiv 2016, arXiv:2211.06318.
26. Brynjolfsson, E.; Mcafee, A. Artificial intelligence, for real. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2017, 1, 1–31.
27. Li, D.; Du, Y. Artificial Intelligence with Uncertainty; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
28. Chen, X.; Zou, D.; Xie, H.; Cheng, G.; Liu, C. Two decades of artificial intelligence in education. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2022, 25, 28–47.
29. Baidoo-Anu, D.; Owusu Ansah, L. Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential
benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. J. AI 2023, 7, 52–62. [CrossRef]
30. Zhai, X.; Chu, X.; Chai, C.S.; Jong, M.S.Y.; Istenic, A.; Spector, M.; Liu, J.-B.; Yuan, J.; Li, Y. A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in
education from 2010 to 2020. Complexity 2021, 2021, 8812542. [CrossRef]
31. Chiu, T.K.F.; Xia, Q.; Zhou, X.; Chai, C.S.; Cheng, M. Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research
recommendations of artificial intelligence in education. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2023, 4, 100118. [CrossRef]
32. Crompton, H.; Burke, D. Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2023, 20,
22. [CrossRef]
33. Lin, C.-C.; Huang, A.Y.Q.; Lu, O.H.T. Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring systems toward sustainable education: A
systematic review. Smart Learn. Environ. 2023, 10, 41. [CrossRef]
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 26 of 28

34. Ouyang, F.; Zheng, L.; Jiao, P. Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from
2011 to 2020. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 7893–7925. [CrossRef]
35. Song, P.; Wang, X. A bibliometric analysis of worldwide educational artificial intelligence research development in recent twenty
years. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2020, 21, 473–486. [CrossRef]
36. Hinojo-Lucena, F.-J.; Aznar-Díaz, I.; Cáceres-Reche, M.-P.; Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M. Artificial intelligence in higher education: A
bibliometric study on its impact in the scientific literature. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 51. [CrossRef]
37. Rauschnabel, P.A.; Felix, R.; Hinsch, C.; Shahab, H.; Alt, F. What is XR? Towards a framework for augmented and virtual reality.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 133, 107289. [CrossRef]
38. Milgram, P.; Kishino, F. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994, 77, 1321–1329.
39. Sherman, W.R.; Craig, A.B. Understanding Virtual Reality: Interface, Application, and Design; Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA,
USA, 2018.
40. Sherman, W.R.; Craig, A.B. Understanding virtual reality—Interface, application, and design. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ.
2003, 12, 441–442. [CrossRef]
41. Anthes, C.; Garcia-Hernandez, R.J.; Wiedemann, M.; Kranzlmuller, D. State of the art of virtual reality technology. In Proceedings
of the 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, 5–12 March 2016; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
42. Burdea, G.C.; Coiffet, P. Virtual Reality Technology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003.
43. Ryan, M.-L. Narrative as Virtual Reality 2: Revisiting Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media; JHU Press:
Baltimore, MD, USA, 2015.
44. Psotka, J. Immersive training systems: Virtual reality and education and training. Instr. Sci. 1995, 23, 405–431. [CrossRef]
45. Blascovich, J.; Bailenson, J. Infinite Reality: Avatars, Eternal Life, New Worlds, and the Dawn of the Virtual Revolution; William Morrow
& Co: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
46. Biocca, F.; Delaney, B. Immersive virtual reality technology. Commun. Age Virtual Real. 1995, 15, 127–157. [CrossRef]
47. Azuma, R.T. A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1997, 6, 355–385. [CrossRef]
48. Lee, K. Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends 2012, 56, 13–21. [CrossRef]
49. Cipresso, P.; Giglioli, I.A.C.; Raya, M.A.; Riva, G. The past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality research: A
network and cluster analysis of the literature. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2086. [CrossRef]
50. Carmigniani, J.; Furht, B. Augmented reality: An overview. In Handbook of Augmented Reality; Borko Furht Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 3–46. [CrossRef]
51. Carmigniani, J.; Furht, B.; Anisetti, M.; Ceravolo, P.; Damiani, E.; Ivkovic, M. Augmented reality technologies, systems and
applications. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2011, 51, 341–377. [CrossRef]
52. Radianti, J.; Majchrzak, T.A.; Fromm, J.; Wohlgenannt, I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher
education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput. Educ. 2020, 147, 103778. [CrossRef]
53. Freina, L.; Ott, M. A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. In Proceedings
of the International Scientific Conference Elearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, Romania, 25–26 April 2015; pp. 1–8.
54. Kavanagh, S.; Luxton-Reilly, A.; Wuensche, B.; Plimmer, B. A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes Sci. Technol.
Educ. 2017, 10, 85–119.
55. Akçayır, M.; Akçayır, G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the
literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017, 20, 1–11. [CrossRef]
56. Chen, P.; Liu, X.; Cheng, W.; Huang, R. A review of using augmented reality in education from 2011 to 2016. In Innovations in
Smart Learning; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 13–18. [CrossRef]
57. Avila-Garzon, C.; Bacca-Acosta, J.; Kinshuk; Duarte, J.; Betancourt, J. Augmented reality in education: An overview of Twenty-Five
years of research. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2021, 13, ep302. [CrossRef]
58. Garzón, J. An overview of Twenty-Five years of augmented reality in education. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2021, 5, 37.
[CrossRef]
59. Lampropoulos, G.; Keramopoulos, E.; Diamantaras, K.; Evangelidis, G. Augmented reality and gamification in education: A
systematic literature review of research, applications, and empirical studies. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6809. [CrossRef]
60. Maas, M.J.; Hughes, J.M. Virtual, augmented and mixed reality in k-12 education: A review of the literature. Technol. Pedagog.
Educ. 2020, 29, 231–249. [CrossRef]
61. Sala, N. Virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality in education. In Advances in Higher Education and Professional
Development; IGI Global: NewYork, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 48–73. [CrossRef]
62. Banjar, A.; Xu, X.; Iqbal, M.Z.; Campbell, A. A systematic review of the experimental studies on the effectiveness of mixed reality
in higher education between 2017 and 2021. Comput. Educ. X Real. 2023, 3, 100034. [CrossRef]
63. López-Belmonte, J.; Pozo-Sánchez, S.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; Lampropoulos, G. Metaverse in education: A systematic review.
Rev. De Educ. A Distancia 2023, 23, 1–25. [CrossRef]
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 27 of 28

64. Lin, H.; Wan, S.; Gan, W.; Chen, J.; Chao, H.-C. Metaverse in education: Vision, opportunities, and challenges. In Proceedings of
the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Osaka, Japan, 17–20 December 2022. [CrossRef]
65. Zhang, X.; Chen, Y.; Hu, L.; Wang, Y. The metaverse in education: Definition, framework, features, potential applications,
challenges, and future research topics. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1016300. [CrossRef]
66. Ellegaard, O.; Wallin, J.A. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics 2015, 105,
1809–1831. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and
guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [CrossRef]
68. Gusenbauer, M.; Haddaway, N.R. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evalu-
ating retrieval qualities of google scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res. Synth. Methods 2020, 11, 181–217. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
69. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An r-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975.
[CrossRef]
70. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84,
523–538. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Blei, D.M.; Ng, A.Y.; Jordan, M.I. Latent dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2003, 3, 993–1022. [CrossRef]
72. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2015, 106,
213–228. [CrossRef]
73. Zhu, J.; Liu, W. A tale of two databases: The use of web of science and scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics 2020, 123,
321–335. [CrossRef]
74. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88,
105906. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Westerfield, G.; Mitrovic, A.; Billinghurst, M. Intelligent augmented reality training for motherboard assembly. Int. J. Artif. Intell.
Educ. 2015, 25, 157–172. [CrossRef]
76. Bradford, S.C. Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering 1936, 137, 85–86.
77. Hwang, G.-J.; Chien, S.-Y. Definition, roles, and potential research issues of the metaverse in education: An artificial intelligence
perspective. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2022, 3, 100082. [CrossRef]
78. Winkler-Schwartz, A.; Bissonnette, V.; Mirchi, N.; Ponnudurai, N.; Yilmaz, R.; Ledwos, N.; Siyar, S.; Azarnoush, H.; Karlik, B.; Del
Maestro, R.F. Artificial intelligence in medical education: Best practices using machine learning to assess surgical expertise in
virtual reality simulation. J. Surg. Educ. 2019, 76, 1681–1690. [CrossRef]
79. Mirchi, N.; Bissonnette, V.; Yilmaz, R.; Ledwos, N.; Winkler-Schwartz, A.; Del Maestro, R.F. The virtual operative assistant: An
explainable artificial intelligence tool for simulation-based training in surgery and medicine. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0229596.
[CrossRef]
80. Holstein, K.; McLaren, B.M.; Aleven, V. Student learning benefits of a Mixed-Reality teacher awareness tool in AI-Enhanced
classrooms. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 154–168. [CrossRef]
81. Ahuja, A.S.; Polascik, B.W.; Doddapaneni, D.; Byrnes, E.S.; Sridhar, J. The digital metaverse: Applications in artificial intelligence,
medical education, and integrative health. Integr. Med. Res. 2023, 12, 100917. [CrossRef]
82. Bissonnette, V.; Mirchi, N.; Ledwos, N.; Alsidieri, G.; Winkler-Schwartz, A.; Del Maestro, R.F. Artificial intelligence distinguishes
surgical training levels in a virtual reality spinal task. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2019, 101, e127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Divekar, R.R.; Drozdal, J.; Chabot, S.; Zhou, Y.; Su, H.; Chen, Y.; Zhu, H.; Hendler, J.A.; Braasch, J. Foreign language acquisition
via artificial intelligence and extended reality: Design and evaluation. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2022, 35, 2332–2360. [CrossRef]
84. Fazlollahi, A.M.; Bakhaidar, M.; Alsayegh, A.; Yilmaz, R.; Winkler-Schwartz, A.; Mirchi, N.; Langleben, I.; Ledwos, N.; Sabbagh,
A.J.; Bajunaid, K.; et al. Effect of artificial intelligence tutoring vs expert instruction on learning simulated surgical skills among
medical students. JAMA Netw. Open 2022, 5, e2149008. [CrossRef]
85. Ma, L. An immersive context teaching method for college english based on artificial intelligence and machine learning in virtual
reality technology. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2021, 2021, 2637439. [CrossRef]
86. Zhang, J.; Yu, Q.; Zheng, F.; Long, C.; Lu, Z.; Duan, Z. Comparing keywords plus of WOS and author keywords: A case study of
patient adherence research. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 967–972. [CrossRef]
87. Afzal, A.; Khan, S.; Daud, S.; Ahmad, Z.; Butt, A. Addressing the Digital Divide: Access and Use of Technology in Education. J.
Soc. Sci. Rev. 2023, 3, 883–895. [CrossRef]
88. Khalid, M.S.; Pedersen, M.J.L. Digital Exclusion in Higher Education Contexts: A Systematic Literature Review. Procedia-Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2016, 228, 614–621. [CrossRef]
89. Lythreatis, S.; Singh, S.K.; El-Kassar, A.N. The Digital Divide: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 2022, 175, 121359. [CrossRef]
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 11 28 of 28

90. Livingstone, S.; Helsper, E. Gradations in Digital Inclusion: Children, Young People and the Digital Divide. New Media Soc. 2007,
9, 671–696. [CrossRef]
91. Lampropoulos, G.; Fernández-Arias, P.; Antón-Sancho, Á.; Vergara, D. Affective computing in augmented reality, virtual reality,
and immersive learning environments. Electronics 2024, 13, 2917. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.