pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07699 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.ET

Smells Like Fire: Exploring the Impact of Olfactory Cues in VR Wildfire Evacuation Training

Alison Crosby , MJ Johns , Eunsol Sol Choi , Tejas Polu , Katherine Isbister , Sri Kurniawan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.ET
keywords virtual realityolfactory cueswildfire evacuationimmersionpreparednessVR trainingmultisensory VRdisaster preparedness
0
0 comments X

The pith

Adding smoke scent to VR wildfire evacuation training boosts reported immersion.

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

The paper explores the impact of adding an olfactory smoke cue to a virtual reality simulation for wildfire evacuation training. In a pilot with 18 participants split into smoke and control groups, those experiencing the smell reported significantly higher immersion in the task. Both groups indicated feeling more prepared for real-life wildfire evacuations after completing the VR experience. This suggests that multisensory elements like smell can enhance the effectiveness of VR for building emergency readiness skills.

Core claim

The central finding is that the smoke condition led to significantly higher immersion scores on post-task surveys compared to the no-smoke control, and that the VR evacuation task increased perceived preparedness for real-world scenarios in all participants.

What carries the argument

The olfactory stimulus of smoke introduced during the VR game, acting as a sensory enhancer to increase the realism and immersion of the evacuation training scenario.

Load-bearing premise

That the differences in self-reported immersion and preparedness are caused by the smoke scent and not by placebo effects or other variables in this small pilot sample.

What would settle it

Running a larger randomized controlled trial that includes behavioral tests, such as measuring how quickly participants identify exit routes or their physiological responses, and finding no significant differences between the smoke and control conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07699 by Alison Crosby, Eunsol Sol Choi, Katherine Isbister, MJ Johns, Sri Kurniawan, Tejas Polu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A view of what players can see from a window in the house. A loaded truck filled with items to evacuate with. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparing the pre-test and post-test Likert scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparing the pre-test and post-test Likert scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents a pilot study exploring the effects of an olfactory stimulus (smoke) for a Virtual Reality game designed to support wildfire evacuation preparedness. Participants (N=18) were split evenly into either a smoke or a control condition, and both completed the same evacuation task. Post-task surveys assessed the participants' perceived preparedness and overall experience. Initial findings suggest participants in the smoke condition reported significantly higher immersion compared to those in the control condition. Across both groups, participants expressed an increased sense of preparedness for real-world wildfire evacuations following the experience.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper presents a pilot study (N=18) examining the effects of an olfactory smoke cue versus a control condition during a VR wildfire evacuation task. Participants completed identical evacuation scenarios, after which post-task surveys measured perceived immersion and preparedness for real-world evacuations. The central claims are that the smoke group reported significantly higher immersion and that both groups showed increased preparedness following the experience.

Significance. If the results are statistically substantiated, this work would provide initial evidence that olfactory cues can enhance immersion in VR-based emergency training, an under-explored multisensory approach with potential value for public safety and preparedness education. The pilot design is appropriate for feasibility testing, but the small sample and subjective measures limit immediate generalizability. The manuscript correctly positions itself as exploratory rather than definitive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The claim that participants in the smoke condition 'reported significantly higher immersion' provides no statistical details (test used, p-value, effect size, degrees of freedom, or data distribution). With only N=9 per group and exclusive reliance on self-reports, this omission is load-bearing for the headline result and prevents assessment of whether the difference exceeds sampling variability or expectancy effects.
  2. [Methods] Methods: The design uses only post-experience self-report surveys without baseline measures of immersion or preparedness, objective behavioral proxies (e.g., evacuation latency, route choice accuracy, or physiological responses), or placebo-control procedures. This leaves the attribution of any immersion difference specifically to the olfactory stimulus vulnerable to demand characteristics and uncontrolled confounds.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The survey instruments should be described in more detail (e.g., exact Likert-scale items, reliability statistics if available) to support replicability and evaluation of construct validity.
  2. [Discussion] The Discussion would benefit from an explicit statement of the study's limitations, including the small sample size and subjective-only measures, when interpreting the 'initial findings.'

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback on our pilot study. We have revised the manuscript to address the major comments by adding statistical details and expanding the limitations discussion. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The claim that participants in the smoke condition 'reported significantly higher immersion' provides no statistical details (test used, p-value, effect size, degrees of freedom, or data distribution). With only N=9 per group and exclusive reliance on self-reports, this omission is load-bearing for the headline result and prevents assessment of whether the difference exceeds sampling variability or expectancy effects.

    Authors: We agree that the original submission omitted the full statistical details for the immersion comparison. In the revised manuscript we have added the complete reporting, including the specific test, p-value, effect size, degrees of freedom, and data-distribution checks. We have also strengthened the language framing the study as exploratory given the small sample. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods: The design uses only post-experience self-report surveys without baseline measures of immersion or preparedness, objective behavioral proxies (e.g., evacuation latency, route choice accuracy, or physiological responses), or placebo-control procedures. This leaves the attribution of any immersion difference specifically to the olfactory stimulus vulnerable to demand characteristics and uncontrolled confounds.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the post-only self-report design in this pilot leaves results open to demand characteristics and confounds. In the revision we have added a dedicated Limitations subsection that explicitly discusses the lack of baselines, objective proxies, and placebo controls, along with plans for future studies that will incorporate physiological and behavioral measures. No new data could be collected, but the expanded textual discussion directly addresses the concern. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical pilot study with no derivations or self-referential definitions

full rationale

The paper reports a straightforward pilot study (N=18) comparing smoke vs. control conditions in a VR wildfire evacuation task, using post-task self-report surveys for immersion and preparedness. No equations, parameters, derivations, or predictive models are present. Claims rest on direct empirical comparison without any reduction of results to inputs by construction, self-citation chains, or imported uniqueness theorems. This is the expected non-finding for a small-scale HCI experiment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No mathematical model, free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are present. The claims rest entirely on the validity of a small-scale user study with self-reported outcomes.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5407 in / 1047 out tokens · 45335 ms · 2026-05-10T18:17:12.341838+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Murphy, and Morgan Eudy

    Julian Abich, Jason Parker, Jennifer S. Murphy, and Morgan Eudy. 2021. A review of the evidence for training effectiveness with virtual reality technology.Virtual Real.25, 4 (Dec. 2021), 919–933. doi:10.1007/s10055-020-00498-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10055-020-00498-8 2021

  2. [2]

    Ostwald, and Marcus Foth

    Alethea Blackler, Nagida Helsby-Clark, Michael J. Ostwald, and Marcus Foth. 2024.Supporting Disaster Preparedness Through User-Centred Interaction Design in Immersive Environments. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 123–136. doi:10. 1007/978-3-031-56114-6_10

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Alison Crosby and MJ Johns. 2024. Supporting Wildfire Evacuation Preparedness through a Virtual Reality Simulation. InProceedings of the 30th ACM Sympo- sium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology(Trier, Germany)(VRST ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 86, 2 pages. doi:10.1145/3641825.3689521

    work page doi:10.1145/3641825.3689521 2024

  4. [4]

    Alison Crosby, MJ Johns, Katherine Isbister, and Sri Kurniawan. 2025. Designing FEVR: a VR Game for Wildfire Evacuation Readiness. InProceedings of the 20th In- ternational Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. doi:10.1145/3723498.3723766

    work page doi:10.1145/3723498.3723766 2025

  5. [5]

    Reza Ebrahimi and Ali Humairi. 2024. VR Simulation: Advancing Practical Skills in Computer Science Education. InProceedings of the 18th European Conference on Games Based Learning, Vol. 18. 22–30. doi:10.34190/ecgbl.18.1.2819

    work page doi:10.34190/ecgbl.18.1.2819 2024

  6. [6]

    David P Eisenman and Lindsay P Galway. 2022. The mental health and well-being effects of wildfire smoke: a scoping review.BMC public health22, 1 (2022), 2274

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    González, Robert Amor, Ruggiero Lovreglio, and Guillermo Cabrera-Guerrero

    Zhenan Feng, Vicente A. González, Robert Amor, Ruggiero Lovreglio, and Guillermo Cabrera-Guerrero. 2018. Immersive virtual reality serious games for evacuation training and research: A systematic literature review.Computers & Education127 (2018), 252–266. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.002 2018

  8. [8]

    Carlos F Gould, Sam Heft-Neal, Mary Johnson, Juan Aguilera, Marshall Burke, and Kari Nadeau. 2024. Health effects of wildfire smoke exposure.Annual Review of Medicine75, 1 (2024), 277–292

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Rachel S. Herz. 2021. Olfactory Virtual Reality: A New Frontier in the Treatment and Prevention of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.Brain Sciences11, 8 (2021), 1070. doi:10.3390/brainsci11081070

    work page doi:10.3390/brainsci11081070 2021

  10. [10]

    Anna Humphreys, Elizabeth G Walker, Gregory N Bratman, and Nicole A Errett

    work page

  11. [11]

    What can we do when the smoke rolls in? An exploratory qualitative analysis of the impacts of rural wildfire smoke on mental health and wellbeing, and opportunities for adaptation.BMC Public Health22, 1 (2022), 41

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    2021.Evolution of VR Software and Hardware for Explosion and Fire Safety Assessment and Training

    Chad Jarvis, Veronika Solteszova, Dag Magne Ulvang, Djurre Siccama, and Daniel Patel. 2021.Evolution of VR Software and Hardware for Explosion and Fire Safety Assessment and Training. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 273–290. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90716-7_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90716-7_8 2021

  13. [13]

    Zoe Loh, Alison Crosby, Sri Kurniawan, and Spencer C. Castro. 2023. Toward Evacuation Training in Virtual Reality: Requirements Gathering for Wildfire Experiences.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting67, 1 (2023), 1989–1994. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231192209 doi:10.1177/21695067231192209

    work page doi:10.1177/21695067231192209 2023

  14. [14]

    Paola Lorusso, Melissa De Iuliis, Sebastiano Marasco, Marco Domaneschi, Gian Paolo Cimellaro, and Valentina Villa. 2022. Fire Emergency Evacuation from a School Building Using an Evolutionary Virtual Reality Platform.Buildings 12, 2 (2022). doi:10.3390/buildings12020223

    work page doi:10.3390/buildings12020223 2022

  15. [15]

    Katerina Mania and Alan Chalmers. 2001. The effects of levels of immersion on memory and presence in virtual environments: A reality centered approach. CHI EA ’26, April 13–17, 2026, Barcelona, Spain Crosby et al. Cyberpsychology & behavior4, 2 (2001), 247–264

    work page 2001

  16. [16]

    J McLennan, G Elliot, M Omodei, I McNeill, P Dunlop, and J Suss. 2011. Bushfire survival-related decision making: what the stress and performance research literature tells us. InProceedings of Bushfire CRC & AFAC 2011 conference science day, Vol. 1. 307–319

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    Sydney Pratte, Anthony Tang, and Lora Oehlberg. 2021. Evoking Empathy: A Framework for Describing Empathy Tools. InProceedings of the Fifteenth Inter- national Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction(Salzburg, Austria)(TEI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 25, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3430524.3440644

    work page doi:10.1145/3430524.3440644 2021

  18. [18]

    Nimesha Ranasinghe, Pravar Jain, David Tolley, Shienny Karwita Tailan, Ching Chiuan Yen, and Ellen Yi-Luen Do. 2020. Exploring the Use of Olfac- tory Stimuli Towards Reducing Visually Induced Motion Sickness in Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Virtual Event, Canada)(SUI ’20). Association for Computing M...

    work page doi:10.1145/3385959.3418451 2020

  19. [19]

    A. G. Rappold, M. C. Hano, S. Prince, L. Wei, S. M. Huang, C. Baghdikian, B. Stearns, X. Gao, S. Hoshiko, W. E. Cascio, D. Diaz-Sanchez, and B. Hubbell

    work page

  20. [20]

    Smoke Sense Initiative Leverages Citizen Science to Address the Growing Wildfire-Related Public Health Problem.GeoHealth3, 12 (2019), 443–457. doi:10. 1029/2019GH000199

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Emily Shaw, Tessa Roper, Tommy Nilsson, Glyn Lawson, Sue V. G. Cobb, and Daniel Miller. 2019. The Heat Is On: Exploring User Behaviour in a Multisensory Virtual Environment for Fire Evacuation. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). ACM, 1–13. doi:10.1145/ 3290605.3300856

    work page arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Donghee Shin. 2018. Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in human behavior78 (2018), 64–73

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Shou-En Tsai, Wan-Lun Tsai, Tse-Yu Pan, Chia-Ming Kuo, and Min-Chun Hu

    work page

  24. [24]

    In2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)

    Does Virtual Odor Representation Influence the Perception of Olfactory Intensity and Directionality in VR?. In2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 279–285. doi:10.1109/VR50410.2021.00050

    work page doi:10.1109/vr50410.2021.00050 2021

  25. [25]

    Jessica Vega, Sophia Rose, Christian Eckhardt, Liudmila Tahai, Irene Humer, and Krzysztof Pietroszek. 2017. VR wildfire prevention: teaching campfire safety in a gamified immersive environment. InProceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology(Gothenburg, Sweden)(VRST ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY...

    work page doi:10.1145/3139131.3141218 2017

  26. [26]

    Sara Ventura, Laura Badenes-Ribera, Rocio Herrero, Ausias Cebolla, Laura Galiana, and Rosa Baños. 2020. Virtual reality as a medium to elicit empa- thy: A meta-analysis.Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking23, 10 (2020), 667–676

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Alejandra Vilaplana and Toshimasa Yamanaka. 2015. Effect of Smell in Space Perception.International Journal of Affective Engineering14 (06 2015), 175–182. doi:10.5057/ijae.IJAE-D-15-00010

    work page doi:10.5057/ijae.ijae-d-15-00010 2015

  28. [28]

    Donald A Washburn, Lauriann M Jones, R Vijaya Satya, Clint A Bowers, and A Cortes. 2003. Olfactory use in virtual environment training.Modeling & Simulation2, 3 (2003), 19–25

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    I felt like I successfully evacuated with every item I needed

    Christine Youngblut, Rob E Johnston, Sarah H Nash, Ruth A Wienclaw, and Craig A Will. 1996. Review of Virtual Environment Interface Technology. (1996). A System Usability and Gameplay Questions Participants rated their agreement with the questions on a 1 to 5 Likert scale; 1(Bad), 2 (Poor), 3 (Fair), 4 (Good), 5 (Excellent). (1) How would you rate your ab...

    work page 1996