Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 35 references

3D Gaussian Splatting and Mesh-Based Digital Twins: An Exploratory Study for Virtual Reality Tourism

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In VR tourism, photorealistic 3D Gaussian splatting scores lower on user experience than a mesh-based digital twin, despite higher perceived realism.

desk verdict Small exploratory VR tourism study with honest hedging, but the headline realism-vs-UX trade-off is not identifiable from a comparison that varies location, navigation, and features. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01969 v1 pith:EG6VHCFB submitted 2026-08-03 cs.HC

Maximilian Warsinke , Francesco Vona , Abm Tariqul Islam , Tanja Kojić , Jan-Niklas Voigt-Antons , Sebastian Möller This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords virtualrealitytourism3DGaussiansplattingdigitaltwinsuserexperiencepresencecybersicknessmeshrenderingrealismperception
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This exploratory study compares two versions of a VR tourism application: one built from 3D meshes and one from 3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS). The central finding is that the 3DGS version felt more realistic but was rated worse on pragmatic quality and overall UX, while the mesh version was more usable and better received. The authors argue this shows that increased realism perception does not automatically improve user experience. They also report low presence and notable cybersickness in both versions, and they stress that the results are descriptive because the versions differ in location, navigation, and features.

What carries the argument

The comparison rests on two rendering pipelines: a mesh pipeline (NeRF-based reconstruction followed by isosurface extraction and manual post-processing) and a 3D Gaussian splatting pipeline (drone imagery, Structure-from-Motion, and optimization into 3D Gaussian primitives). These feed two versions of a Unity VR application evaluated with standardized questionnaires (UEQ-S, IPQ, CSQ-VR, Affective Slider) and a custom digital-twin perception questionnaire. The central mechanism is the contrast between the photorealism of splatting and the pragmatic usability of a coherent, freely explorable mesh world.

What would settle it

A controlled crossover experiment presenting the same location in both mesh and 3DGS forms, with identical navigation and interaction features, would settle the claim: if 3DGS pragmatic quality scores no longer fall below mesh scores in such a setup, the realism-versus-usability trade-off collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a within-subjects lab study with 20 participants, the mesh-based environment outperformed the 3DGS environment on pragmatic quality (UEQ-S mean 1.70 vs 0.41) and overall UX, while the 3DGS version scored higher on IPQ experienced realism (-0.71 vs -0.83 on the -3 to 3 scale). Cybersickness was similar across versions (19.5 vs 17.8 on CSQ-VR). The authors conclude that increased realism perception alone does not necessarily translate to an increased user experience. They emphasize that comparative statements are descriptive only, since the two versions also differed in replicated place, environment connectivity, and interaction features such as IoT sensor panels.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's comparative interpretation assumes that the two versions differ primarily in rendering technique, when they also differ in location, navigation structure, and features (e.g., IoT panels), as the authors explicitly acknowledge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If realism does not drive UX, developers of VR tourism should prioritize coherent navigation and interactive features over pure visual fidelity.
  • 3DGS in its current form may introduce visual artifacts that contribute to cybersickness and lower pragmatic quality.
  • Both rendering approaches yield low presence scores, indicating that immersion design needs improvement independent of rendering technique.
  • The custom digital-twin questionnaire suggests simulation and understanding are strengths, while reliability and information access need work.
  • A controlled 2x2 crossover study with identical content is required to isolate the effect of the rendering technique on user experience.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A likely implication left implicit is that the lower pragmatic quality of the 3DGS version may stem from its menu-driven, isolated POI navigation rather than from splatting itself; integrating splatted scenes into a continuous world could narrow the UX gap.
  • If 3DGS artifacts diminish with future algorithmic improvements, the realism advantage could grow without the usability penalty, potentially flipping the overall UX balance in favor of splatting.
  • Because users freely explored, the custom questionnaire results depend on which content they encountered (e.g., sensor panels may have been ignored), so guided tasks could yield more discriminating DT perception metrics.
  • A hybrid approach—splatting for distant photorealistic views and meshes for interactive close-up elements—could be a testable extension that combines realism with pragmatic usability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper reports an exploratory within-subjects study of two VR tourism digital-twin implementations: a mesh-based digital twin of Etteln and a 3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) digital twin of Vilanova i la Geltrú. Twenty participants explored both versions and completed standardized questionnaires (UEQ-S, IPQ, CSQ-VR, Affective Slider, ATI) plus an unvalidated custom DT questionnaire. The authors present descriptive statistics and explicitly refrain from inferential comparisons between versions. They find positive affect in both versions, good UX ratings for the mesh version, poorer pragmatic quality for the 3DGS version, low-to-moderate presence, and mild cybersickness; the 3DGS version scored slightly higher on IPQ experienced realism. The conclusion frames this as suggesting that increased realism perception alone is not necessarily associated with increased UX.

Significance. Reported as an exploratory study, the paper offers a useful early data point on 3DGS versus mesh-based VR tourism. Strengths include reliance on standardized questionnaires with external benchmarks, transparent acknowledgement that the custom DT questionnaire is unvalidated, AB/BA order balancing, and conservative Holm–Bonferroni correction in the correlation analyses. The contribution is hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory: the observed differences are descriptive, the realism advantage is small, and the two versions differ in multiple respects beyond rendering technique. With appropriate reframing, the paper could serve as a motivation for controlled follow-up studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.1 and Conclusion] The takeaway 'This indicates that increased realism perception alone is not necessarily associated with an increased UX' is not licensed by the design. The 3DGS and Mesh versions differ not only in rendering technique but also in location (Vilanova vs Etteln), navigation structure (isolated menu-selected POIs vs continuous interconnected environment), and interaction features (IoT panels only in the Mesh version). Section 5.1 correctly states that no direct conclusions about relative performance should be drawn, but the abstract and conclusion do not carry this qualification. Please reframe the conclusion as a descriptive observation or as a hypothesis for a controlled follow-up, and soften the corresponding abstract sentence.
  2. [§4 Results, Tables 2–3, Fig. 2] The narrative treats the 3DGS version's IPQ Experienced Realism advantage as a substantive finding, but the difference is 0.12 points on a [-3, 3] scale (M=-0.71, SD=1.06 vs M=-0.83, SD=0.96; n=20). The distributions overlap almost completely, and no inferential test or effect size is reported. In addition, the IPQ Experienced Realism subscale measures a subjective sense of realness, not necessarily photographic fidelity; the discussion equates it with the rendering technique's 'photorealistic appeal'. Please add uncertainty estimates and explicitly acknowledge the small magnitude before using this difference as the basis of the paper's central tension.
  3. [§2.4 / §3.1] The research gap in §2.4 is framed as determining 'what implications 3DGS-based DTs can have on UX and perception'. Given the multi-factor design, the study cannot support implications of the rendering technique; it can only describe two different systems. Consider narrowing the stated contribution to 'a first descriptive exploration that motivates controlled comparisons', or adding a follow-up design (e.g., same location, same navigation, only representation varied) to the future-work section. This would bring the aim, design, and conclusions into alignment.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4.2] The correlation result says 'Experience Realism' but the IPQ subscale is 'Experienced Realism'; please correct the terminology.
  2. [§5 Discussion] The discussion says 'the point cloud data was reduced to simple mesh geometry', but §3.2.2 describes mesh extraction from a NeRF density field. Align the terminology with the reconstruction description.
  3. [Abstract / §5.1] The abstract says the 3DGS version showed 'clear weaknesses in pragmatic quality'. Since no statistical comparison is made, consider qualifying this as a descriptive sample-level observation rather than an unequivocal characterization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the study's claims are empirical measurements using standardized instruments, with no fitted parameters, self-citations, or definitional equivalences.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical user study comparing two VR tourism digital twin versions. The central claims—that the 3DGS version scored higher on experienced realism but lower on pragmatic quality—are direct descriptive measurements from standardized, externally benchmarked questionnaires (IPQ, UEQ-S). No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then 'predicted'; no output is defined in terms of an input; no self-citation chain is load-bearing. The custom DT questionnaire is explicitly labeled as unvalidated and not standardized, and the paper's conclusions do not rest on it alone. The authors explicitly acknowledge that the study was not a controlled experiment with a single manipulated variable and that they refrained from inferential comparisons, so any comparative statements are descriptive. The confounds (different locations, navigation structure, IoT features) are validity threats that limit causal interpretation, but they do not constitute circularity. The paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem or prior work by the same authors to forbid alternatives. Its reasoning is self-contained: it reports what was measured and interprets the measured differences cautiously. Therefore, no circular step exists.

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

No numeric free parameters are fitted. The paper rests on standard psychometric assumptions for the questionnaires and on the representativeness of the reconstructed scenes. The most fragile premise is that the two versions' comparative ratings can be read as reflecting rendering technique, which the authors themselves qualify as descriptive only.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standardized questionnaires (UEQ-S, IPQ, CSQ-VR, Affective Slider, ATI) validly measure the intended constructs in this VR context.
    The paper interprets these scores as UX, presence, cybersickness, affect, and tech affinity with benchmarks, which presumes their validity for 3DGS content.
  • domain assumption Self-reported answers reflect actual user experience.
    All outcome data are subjective self-reports; the conclusions rest on their accuracy.
  • domain assumption The drone-captured reconstructions are representative of the respective towns at the level claimed.
    The paper assumes the 3DGS and mesh pipelines produced content faithful enough for the UX comparison to be meaningful.
  • domain assumption The two versions can be meaningfully compared despite differing in location, connectivity, and interactive features.
    The interpretive framing of the comparative results leans on this premise even though the authors explicitly refrain from causal inference (Section 5.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D Gaussian Splatting and Mesh-Based Digital Twins: An Exploratory Study for Virtual Reality Tourism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EG6VHCFB

@misc{pith2026260801969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D Gaussian Splatting and Mesh-Based Digital Twins: An Exploratory Study for Virtual Reality Tourism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EG6VHCFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01969}
}
read the original abstract

Digital Twins (DTs) are increasingly used for immersive experiences in virtual tourism. Virtual Reality (VR) enables remote visits to replicated locations for promotional purposes or access to fragile and rural cultural heritage sites. However, developing high-fidelity DTs of tourist destinations is costly, due to the manual creation of 3D environments. Novel 3D rendering techniques, such as 3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS), pose a promising approach to creating immersive experiences. This study investigates the user experience (UX) of a 3D-mesh-based scene and a 3DGS-based scene within a VR tourism application. In a laboratory study, 20 participants engaged with both versions and rated UX, cybersickness, presence and affect through standardized questionnaires. A custom questionnaire was created to measure the perception of the DTs. The collected data suggests that both versions were enjoyed and induced positive affect, with the Mesh version receiving good UX ratings. While the 3DGS version scored higher in terms of experienced realism, it showed clear weaknesses in pragmatic quality. Further, the results suggest that the feeling of presence could be enhanced and cybersickness reduced in both versions. Overall, the study contributes to the understanding of UX in VR tourism applications by implementing mesh-based and 3DGS-based DTs and raising important questions about the perception of realism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Screenshots of the Mesh version (left) and the 3DGS version (right) of the application. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Boxplots showing the distributions of IPQ responses for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Screenshot from the Mesh version that depicts the simpli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Screenshot from the 3DGS version that shows rendering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references

  1. [1]

    M. S. Anwar, M. Ali, M. Elwardy, S. Ahmad, P. N. Ahmad, and M. Ahmad. Gamified Immersive Learning and User Experience Eval- uation of Metaverse-Based Cultural Heritage Education. InPro- ceedings of the International Workshop on Intelligent Immersification in the Metaverse: AI-Driven Immersive Multimedia, I2M-MM ’25, pages 44–52, New York, NY , USA, Oct. 2...

    2025

  2. [2]

    Baker, K

    J. Baker, K. Nam, and C. S. Dutt. A user experience perspective on heritage tourism in the metaverse: Empirical evidence and design dilemmas for VR.Information Technology & Tourism, 25(3):265– 306, Sept. 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  3. [3]

    M. K. Bekele, R. Pierdicca, E. Frontoni, E. S. Malinverni, and J. Gain. A Survey of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality for Cultural Her- itage.J. Comput. Cult. Herit., 11(2):7:1–7:36, Mar. 2018. 2

    2018

  4. [4]

    Betella and P

    A. Betella and P. F. M. J. Verschure. The affective slider: A digital self-assessment scale for the measurement of human emotions.PLOS ONE, 11(2):1–11, 02 2016. 3

    2016

  5. [5]

    D. S. de Almeida, F. B. e Abreu, and I. Boavida-Portugal. Digital twins in tourism: A systematic literature review, Jan. 2025. 1, 2

    2025

  6. [6]

    Franke, C

    T. Franke, C. Attig, and D. Wessel. A personal resource for technology interaction: development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ati) scale.International Journal of Human-Computer In- teraction, 35(6):456–467, 2019. 3

    2019

  7. [7]

    Girginova

    K. Girginova. When XR meets digital twins: Redrawing the concep- tual map of extended reality.Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 7:1762601, Feb. 2026. 1, 2

    2026

  8. [8]

    JASP (Version 0.95.4)[Computer software], 2025

    JASP Team. JASP (Version 0.95.4)[Computer software], 2025. 4

    2025

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Kerbl, G

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimkuehler, and G. Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4), July 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  2. [10]

    Kourtesis, J

    P. Kourtesis, J. Linnell, R. Amir, F. Argelaguet, and S. MacPherson. Cybersickness in virtual reality questionnaire (csq-vr): A brief tool for evaluating the virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (vrise), Dec. 2022. 4

    2022

  3. [11]

    Kritzinger, M

    W. Kritzinger, M. Karner, G. Traar, J. Henjes, and W. Sihn. Digital Twin in manufacturing: A categorical literature review and classifica- tion.IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(11):1016–1022, Jan. 2018. 1, 2

    2018

  4. [12]

    K. Li, M. Masuda, S. Schmidt, and S. Mori. Radiance fields in xr: A survey on how radiance fields are envisioned and addressed for xr re- search.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(11):9709–9719, 2025. 2

    2025

  5. [13]

    X. Li, Q. Zhang, D. Kang, W. Cheng, Y . Gao, J. Zhang, Z. Liang, J. Liao, Y .-P. Cao, and Y . Shan. Advances in 3D Generation: A Sur- vey, Jan. 2024. 2

    2024

  6. [14]

    J. Liu, X. Huang, T. Huang, L. Chen, Y . Hou, S. Tang, Z. Liu, W. Ouyang, W. Zuo, J. Jiang, and X. Liu. A Comprehensive Survey on 3D Content Generation, Mar. 2024. 2

    2024

  7. [15]

    S. M. C. Loureiro, J. Guerreiro, and F. Ali. 20 years of research on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism context: A text-mining approach.Tourism Management, 77:104028, Apr. 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  8. [16]

    P. K. Pandey, P. K. Pandey, S. Mahajan, J. Paul, and S. Iyer. Chapter 13 - Digital Twin and Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality. In S. Iyer, A. Nayyar, A. Paul, and M. Naved, editors,Digital Twins for Smart Cities and Villages, pages 273–293. Elsevier, Jan

  9. [17]

    Pavelka Jr., T

    K. Pavelka Jr., T. Bou ˇcek, and A. Rapuca. Virtual and Augmented Reality as a Modern Way of Exploring and Analysing Historical Ob- jects in High Quality.The International Archives of the Photogram- metry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XLVIII-M- 9-2025:1161–...

    2025

  10. [18]

    Pekridou, C

    E. Pekridou, C. Hitiris, S. Vasileiou-Kyriakou, V . Karamerou, D. J. Vergados, P. Sarigiannidis, and A. Michalas. LabTwinXR: A Real- Time eXtended Reality Digital Twin Testbed for Smart Buildings. In 2025 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), pages 1–6, Oct. 2025. 2

    2025

  11. [19]

    I.-G. Project. Igroup presence questionnaire (ipq). Online. 4

  12. [20]

    H. M. Rifqi. Virtual Reality in Tourism Research: A Thematic Lit- erature Review.SBS Journal of Applied Business Research, pages 59–102, Aug. 2025. 1, 2

    2025

  13. [21]

    F. Sang, H. Wu, Z. Liu, and S. Fang. Digital twin platform design for zhejiang rural cultural tourism based on unreal engine. In2022 In- ternational Conference on Culture-Oriented Science and Technology (CoST), pages 274–278, 2022. 1

    2022

  14. [22]

    Schrepp, A

    M. Schrepp, A. Hinderks, and J. Thomaschewski. Design and evalu- ation of a short version of the user experience questionnaire (ueq-s). International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelli- gence, 4:103, Jan. 2017. 3

    2017

  15. [23]

    Seabold and J

    S. Seabold and J. Perktold. statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python. In9th Python in Science Conference, 2010. 4

    2010

  16. [24]

    Stankov, M

    U. Stankov, M. D. Vuji ˇci´c, P. Orero, and U. Gretzel. Accessibility of tourism 4.0—designing more meaningful and inclusive tourist experi- ences.Universal Access in the Information Society, 23(4):1503–1506, Nov. 2024. 1

    2024

  17. [25]

    M. Tang, M. Nikolaenko, A. Alrefai, and A. Kumar. Metaverse and Digital Twins in the Age of AI and Extended Reality.Architecture, 5(2):36, May 2025. 1, 2

    2025

  18. [26]

    T. Q. Tran, T. Langlotz, J. Young, T. W. Schubert, and H. Regenbrecht. Classifying presence scores: Insights and analysis from two decades of the igroup presence questionnaire (ipq).ACM Trans. Comput.- Hum. Interact., 31(5), Nov. 2024. 4, 5

    2024

  19. [27]

    Tromp, D

    J. Tromp, D. Schofield, P. Raeisian Parvari, M. Poyade, C. Eagle- sham, J. C. Torres, T. Johnson, T. J ¨urivete, N. Lauer, A. Reyes- Lecuona, D. Gonz´alez-Toledo, M. Cuevas-Rodr´ıguez, and L. Molina- Tanco. Designing and Evaluating XR Cultural Heritage Applications Through Hum...

    2025

  20. [28]

    X. Tu, L. Radl, M. Steiner, M. Steinberger, B. Kerbl, and F. de la Torre. Vrsplat: Fast and robust gaussian splatting for virtual reality. Proc. ACM Comput. Graph. Interact. Tech., 8(1), May 2025. 2, 5

    2025

  21. [29]

    I. P. Tussyadiah, D. Wang, T. H. Jung, and M. C. tom Dieck. Vir- tual reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism.Tourism Management, 66:140–154, June 2018. 1, 2

    2018

  22. [30]

    Vachha, Y

    C. Vachha, Y . Kang, Z. Dive, A. Chidambaram, A. Gupta, E. Jun, and B. Hartmann. Dreamcrafter: Immersive editing of 3d radiance fields through flexible, generative inputs and outputs. InAdjunct Proceed- ings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Techn...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Polat, Y . Fen...

    2020

  24. [32]

    C. Wang, Z. Li, and L. Wang. P-4.6: Generative AI meets 3D: Ex- ploring cutting-edge advances in AI-generated 3D content.SID Sym- posium Digest of Technical Papers, 56(S1):935–939, June 2025. 2

    2025

  25. [33]

    L. Wang, W. Xu, Y . Liu, M. Wang, B. Wang, X. Yang, L. Xu, Z. Tan, R. Fan, Z. Wang, C. Wang, H. Zhang, Y . Wen, H. Yang, J. Wu, J. Fan, H. Wang, Q. Zhang, G. Wang, Y . Wang, and Q. Zhao. Artificial in- telligence for virtual reality: A review.Science China Information Sciences...

    2025

  26. [34]

    Y . Wang, H. Xu, Y . Li, and F. Tian. High-Fidelity Virtual Reality With 3D Gaussian Splatting: User Experience Pathways and System Performance Evaluation.IEEE Access, 14:8238–8249, 2026. 1, 2

    2026

  27. [35]

    I. Y . Wuni, M. Grieves, M. J. Yamin, and S. A. Koroma. Conceptu- alising the digital twin: An analysis of 358 definitions.Digital Twin, 0(0):2600763, Dec. 2025. 2 7

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.