Lionel Roche
Ian Cunningham
Cathy Rolland3
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- 1Département des Sciences de l'Activité Physique, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
- 2School of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
- 3Laboratory Activité, Connaissance, Transmission, Éducation, Clermont Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France
1 Introduction
Over the previous years, immersive technologies have been increasingly used in different fields (Suh and Prophet, 2018; Tang et al., 2022). Furthermore, Ranieri et al. (2022) underlined that interest toward the educational use of immersive technologies has grown (p. 1200). Despite this emerging craze, some technologies are not recent and do not constitute a real innovation. Indeed, virtual reality (VR) appeared more than half a century ago as Fuchs and Guitton (2011) pointed out and the term “virtual reality” has been used for more than 15 years. Indeed, Gigante (1993) recounts Morton Heilig's (1962) design of a multi-sensorial simulator: the Sensorama. This device had all the hallmarks of a VR system; except that it was not interactive, it offered the possibility to perceive wind, noise, and smells.
In the last decade or so, a new technology has developed in educational settings (Roche et al., 2021b): 360° video. However, Snelson and Hsu (2020) pointed out some vagueness in the naming of this technology in the current scientific literature. This definitional vagueness is in part due to the novelty of this technological tool but the fact that this field of research is emerging (Snelson and Hsu, 2020) and immature (Paraskevaidis and Fokides, 2020; Reyna Zeballos, 2018).
Based on the current literature, the aim of this study was therefore to propose a circumscribed definition for 360° video so that research on this technology is clearly identified. It is under this premise that we believe it is possible to clearly delineate the boundaries of a research field focused on the uses of 360° video.
2 Method
In the current literature, 360° video is referred to using various terms, which creates definitional ambiguity and complicates the identification of key research findings regarding the uses of this technology. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to pinpoint and compare the main research results within this field. To address this issue, we conducted a narrative review (Baumeister and Leary, 1997) to explore and synthesize the diverse definitions and terminologies used to describe 360° video technology, with a focus on understanding the scope of this ambiguity and its implications for the research field. This type of review approach assists in critically assessing how the terms have evolved and offers a conceptual framework for understanding these terms and their conceptual variations (Grant and Booth, 2009).
In conducting this review, we aimed to critically assess the different terms used for 360° video, analyze their conceptual distinctions, and examine how these terms impact the understanding and application of the technology. Rather than mapping all evidence related to 360° video uses, as it is typical in a scoping review, the purpose of this narrative review was to focus specifically on how the technology has been defined and named in existing research and to offer a synthesis of these definitions to establish greater clarity for future studies.
2.1 Search strategy
To identify the relevant literature, we performed a comprehensive search across six key academic databases: Scopus, ERIC, ScienceDirect, LearnTechLib, ProQuest, and PubMed. We conducted multiple iterations of search queries to capture the broad range of terminology used in the literature. The search was not restricted by publication date, ensuring that we captured a diverse selection of articles that contributed to the evolving discourse surrounding 360° video.
The search queries included a combination of the following keywords and phrases to capture the various ways 360° video is described:
• First query search: “360 video OR immersive panoramic video OR panoramic video OR 360VR.”
• Second query search: “360 video OR immersive panoramic video OR panoramic video OR 360VR OR spherical video, spherical video based virtual reality (SVVR).”
• Third query search: “360 video OR immersive panoramic video OR panoramic video OR 360VR OR spherical video, spherical video based virtual reality (SVVR) OR 360°VR video, 360 degrees video.”
We also employed a “snowball” technique, through which we examined the citations within the included articles to identify additional relevant sources. This iterative search process continued until no new terms for 360° video emerged, signaling saturation in the terminology identified.
2.2 Study selection
In our review, we focused on studies that contributed to the ongoing debate about the terminology and conceptual definitions of 360° video. We included articles that presented or discussed different names and definitions for the technology, whether in academic studies, industry reports, or other relevant publications. After filtering out irrelevant sources, we identified nine distinct terms used to refer to 360° video technology (Figure 1). These terms included the following: immersive panoramic video; panoramic video; spherical video; immersive video; spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR); 360°VR video; 360VR video; 360 degrees video; and 360° video.
Figure 1
Figure 1. List of identified names from the literature review search.
2.3 Data extraction and synthesis
Once relevant studies were selected, we extracted and synthesized the different definitions and descriptions provided for each of these terms. In cases where visual content (such as illustrations or diagrams) was provided, we screened these to distinguish between the literature on 360° video and the literature on virtual reality (VR), ensuring that the definitions applied specifically to 360° video. We then summarized the range of terminology used, highlighting the overlap and differences in how the technology is conceptualized across the literature.
This lack of definitional clarity is clearly explained by Rosendahl and Wagner (2023) who suggested that “on one hand, 360° videos are associated with the medium of video in general due to the recording and sequencing of moving images. On the other hand, it is associated with VR because of its immersive possibilities” (p. 3). 360° video is not yet well established in the research field and is not yet a consensually well-defined field of research. Following the example of Roche et al. (2021b) and Rosendahl and Wagner (2023), we believe it is necessary to adopt a clear terminology to develop robust research in the field of this technology use.
3 A great diversity of names for the same technology
With his seminal study in computer sciences, Nayar (1997) developed the first device that offered the possibility to create panoramic video: the catadioptric omnidirectional camera. Following this study, Neumann et al. (2000) introduced their study on immersive panoramic video, stating that “panoramic video overcomes the passive and structured limitations of how video imagery is presented and perceived” and they added that “viewers of panoramic video become virtual participants immersed in the observed scene, creating a new dimension in the way people perceive video imagery” (p. 493).
This research focused on the development of the first cameras capable of capturing panoramic films, marking the starting point for studies on the applications of this technology. In the 2010s, consumer models of omnidirectional cameras emerged, such as the Sony Bloggie (2010), the Ricoh (2013), and the Kodak SP360 (2014). As a result, the name 360° video became more readily available to the public. However, in scientific literature during the same period, the term “spherical video” was also commonly used. For example, Ozkeskin and Tunc (2010) underlined that “spherical videos have the advantage of reflecting the environment as it is” (p. 64). For Yusof et al. (2019), spherical video constitutes a new generation of video that assures bigger acceptance or “immersiveness” than traditional video, and for Fokides and Kefallinou (2020), this technology “surpasses one of the fundamental limitations of regular videos, that of the single point of view, given that they are recorded using cameras able to capture images from a whole sphere. When viewing such videos, the users can freely select, at any given time, which part of the scene to view” (p. 429).
In line with spherical videos, it is also possible to identify in the literature the existence of spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR). This technology is used in various application domains, such as journalism (Hendriks Vettehen et al., 2019), medical care (O'Sullivan et al., 2018), or education (Chen et al., 2022). According to Chang et al. (2020), spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR) “refers to the VR approach that employs spherical videos, allowing viewers to pan and tilt in an uninterrupted circle instead of the fixed viewpoint of a traditional video” (p. 917). This technology allows users the opportunity to look around in all directions and gives them the possibility to control what they want to see (Yang et al., 2022). Furthermore, SVVR solves the problems of using conventional 3D graphic-based VR, which is highly technical and expensive in terms of both time and money. Nonetheless, in the literature, SVVR covers various types of resources such as 360° videos but also 360° hypervideos. Chambel et al. (2011) defined 360° hypervideo as a resource that allows one to interact with the video, explore it, navigate in a space of related information, and open additional content such as links to webpages or links to 2D videos.
Other studies are focused on 360°VR uses such as Pirker and Dengel (2021) had underlined. For example, Kittel et al. (2020b) used 360°VR for improving decision-making with amateur Australian football umpires. Kittel et al. (2020a) specify that “where VR involves virtual characters sourced through motion capture systems, 360°VR uses real-world footage filmed from a 360° camera” (p. 1).
The last name we have identified in the literature is immersive video. In their study for improving decision-making in basketball, Panchuk et al. (2018) used immersive video and stated that it “maintains some of the benefits of VR but is not as resource intensive” (p. 2) because they are based on real images.
4 360° video: it is not VR
Rosendahl and Wagner (2023), in line with Roche et al. (2021b), underlined the necessary terminological separation of both technologies of 360° video and VR. For Wohl (2017), 360° videos are video recordings in which a view in every direction is recorded at the same time by using a specific camera with a fish-eye lens. Furthermore, Snelson and Hsu (2020) highlight that “ambisonics may also be included for a full sphere surround sound experience” (p. 404). In comparison with VR, this aspect is specificity of 360° video.
Fuchs and Guitton (2011) defined VR as “…a scientific and technical domain that uses computer science (i) and behavioral interfaces (ii) to simulate in a virtual world (iii) the behavior of 3D entities, which interact in real time (iv) with each other and with one or more users in pseudo-natural immersion (v) via sensorimotor channels” (p. 8). They underlined that VR offers “the possibility of creating computer-generated images in real time and enabling a real-time interaction between the user and the virtual world” (p.6). The purpose of VR is to represent and model human action and a real environment to allow actions and sensory-motor feedback in a virtual world. This is not the case with 360° video. With VR, each person can perceive and act in a virtual world, sometimes with specific devices such as head-mounted displays or haptic gloves. VR is characterized by “the illusion of participation in a synthetic environment rather than external observation of such an environment” (Gigante, 1993, p. 3). VR can be defined based on three main dimensions: (i) computer-generated, (ii) three-dimensional, and (iii) interactive (Bryson, 1996). For Wohlgenannt et al. (2020), VR is based on three main properties: presence (i.e., the feeling of being physically somewhere other than where one actually is), interactivity (i.e., users can manipulate their virtual environment in real time), and immersion (i.e., characterized by different dimensions such as cognitive immersion, emotional immersion, sensory-motoric immersion, and spatial immersion). Unlike VR, 360° video is not interactive and it does not offer the possibility to interact with the environment or objects in the video. Furthermore, Lee et al. (2022) pointed out that 360° video “does not allow the viewer to walk in a VR environment” (p. 310) and the spectator “is not able to move through the space in which the scene was filmed” (Vosmeer and Schouten, 2014, p. 144). This is because this technology offers only three degrees of freedom (DoF) and VR 6 DoF (Griffin et al., 2021). With 360° videos, the user can freely choose his viewing angle in a 360° angle around the camera, but it is not possible to move in the filmed scene (Table 1).
Table 1
Table 1. Main characteristics of VR and 360° video.
5 Discussion
Similar to Kardong-Edgren et al. (2019) who pointed out about VR that “the lack of clarity creates problems when reviewing literature and comparing findings” (p. 31), we believe the same is true for 360° video. The wide variety of definitions related to the same technology highlights the lack of standardization or coherence in this field of research. In addition, in order to be able to consider a precise organization of the research field related to the technology allowing to create 360° video of real situations and to capitalize on the research results related to the use of this technology, we propose to adopt the term: 360° video. Indeed, this term seems to be adapted for several reasons: (i) It removes the confusion with VR, (ii) it refers to the production of real images (i.e., a video), and (iii) it corresponds to the name under which this technology is marketed. Indeed, Snelson and Hsu (2020) confirm the call for studies on the effectiveness of 360° videos, but for developing robust research in this field, it is necessary to adopt a clear and shared definition of this technology.
Finally, although some studies (Araiza-Alba et al., 2021; Rosendahl and Wagner, 2023) have highlighted that 360° videos can be viewed with both low-immersion devices (on desktop) and high-immersion devices (HMDs), the use of VR headsets continues to raise concerns about the definition of this technology. However, it is reductive to consider that 360° video would be immersive and would generate a feeling of presence only if they are viewed with an HMD. Indeed, some studies have shown that viewing on a desktop could also generate a feeling of presence and immersion (Roche et al., 2021a). Furthermore, the adjective “immersive” does not constitute a technical characteristic of the audiovisual material but refers to the potential experience that a user may have in a viewing situation. While some studies aim to characterize these user experiences in a variety of situations, we feel it would be more coherent and prudent not to declare videos to be immersive a priori.
We hope that our contribution will help stabilize a unified definition of 360° video and improve the organization of the research field related to this technology, thereby enabling a clearer identification of all research findings in this area.
Author contributions
LR: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IC: Writing – review & editing. CR: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. Publication was supported by funding from Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur la Formation et la Profession Enseignante (CRIFPE-UQ), Montréal, Canada.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Araiza-Alba, P., Keane, T., Matthews, B., Simpson, K., Strugnell, G., Chen, W. S., et al. (2021). The potential of 360-degree virtual reality videos to teach water-safety skills to children. Comput. Educ. 163:104096. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104096
Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1, 311–320. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311
Bryson, S. (1996). Virtual reality in scientific visualization. Commun. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 39, 62–71. doi: 10.1145/229459.229467
Chambel, T., Chhaganlal, M. N., and Neng, L. A. R. (2011). Towards immersive interactive video through 360° hypervideo. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Adv. Comput. Entertain. Technol. 78, 1–2. doi: 10.1145/2071423.2071518
Chang, S.-C., Hsu, T.-C., Chen, Y.-N., and Jong, M. S. (2020). The effects of spherical video-based virtual reality implementation on students' natural science learning effectiveness. Interact. Learn. Environ. 28, 915–929. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1548490
Chen, Y.-T., Li, M., Huang, C.-Q., Han, Z.-M., Hwang, G.-J., and Yang, G. (2022). Promoting deep writing with immersive technologies: an SVVR-supported Chinese composition writing approach for primary schools. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 53, 2071–2091. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13247
Fokides, E., and Kefallinou, M. (2020). Examining the impact of spherical videos in teaching endangered species/environmental education to primary school students. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 19, 427–450. doi: 10.28945/4612
Fuchs, P., and Guitton, P. (2011). “Introduction to virtual reality,” in Virtual Reality: Concepts and Technologies, 1st ed., eds. P. Fuchs, G. Moreau, and P. Guitton, (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 3–10.
Gigante, M. A. (1993). Virtual reality: definitions, history and applications. Virtual Real. Syst. 3−14. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-227748-1.50009-3
Grant, M. J., and Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26, 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Griffin, R., Langlotz, T., and Zollmann, S. (2021). 6DIVE: 6 degrees-of-freedom immersive video editor. Front. Virtual Real. 2:676895. doi: 10.3389/frvir.2021.676895
Hendriks Vettehen, P., Wiltink, D., Huiskamp, M., Schaap, G., and Ketelaar, P. (2019). Taking the fullview: How viewers respond to 360-degree video news. Comput. Hum. Behav. 91, 24–32. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.018
Kardong-Edgren, S., Farra, S. L., Alinier, G., and Young, H. M. (2019). A call to unify definitions of virtual reality. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 31, 28–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2019.02.006
Kittel, A., Larkin, P., Cunningham, I., and Spittle, M. (2020a). 360° virtual reality: a SWOT analysis in comparison to virtual reality. Front. Psychol. 11:563474. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.563474
Kittel, A., Larkin, P., Elsworthy, N., Lindsay, R., and Spittle, M. (2020b). Effectiveness of 360° virtual reality and match broadcast video to improve decision-making skill. Sci. Med. Football 4, 255–262. doi: 10.1080/24733938.2020.1754449
Lee, S., Jeong, J.-B., and Ryu, E.-S. (2022). “Efficient group-based packing strategy for 6DoF immersive video streaming,” in Proceedings 2022 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN) (IEEE), 310–314.
Nayar, S. (1997). “Catadioptric omnidirectional camera,” in IEEE Computer Soc. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, (San Juan, PR), 482–488.
Neumann, U., Pintaric, T., and Rizzo, A. (2000). “Immersive panoramic video,” in Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 493-494.
O'Sullivan, B., Alam, F., and Matava, C. (2018). Creating low-cost 360-degree virtual reality videos for hospitals: a technical paper on the dos and don'ts. J. Med. Internet Res. 20:e239. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9596
Ozkeskin, E. E., and Tunc, T. (2010). Spherical video recording and possible interactive educational uses. Int. J. New Trends Educ. Their. Implicat. 1, 69–79.
Panchuk, D., Klusemann, M. J., and Hadlow, S. M. (2018). Exploring the effectiveness of immersive video for training decision-making capability in elite, youth basketball players. Front. Psychol. 9:2315. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02315
Paraskevaidis, P., and Fokides, E. (2020). Using 360 videos for teaching volleyball skills to primary school students. Open J. Inf. Technol. 3:21. doi: 10.32591/coas.ojit.0301.03021p
Pirker, J., and Dengel, A. (2021). The potential of 360° virtual reality videos and real VR for education—a literature review. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 41, 76–89. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2021.3067999
Ranieri, M., Luzzi, D., Cuomo, S., and Bruni, I. (2022). If and how do 360° videos fit into education settings? Results from a scoping review of empirical research. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 38, 1199–1219. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12683
Reyna Zeballos, J. (2018). “The potential of 360-degree videos for teaching, learning and research,” in INTED2018 Proceedings (Valencia: IATED Academy), 1448–1454.
Roche, L., Cunnigham, I., and Rolland, C. (2021a). Enriching internship with 360° video. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 29, 369–388. Available online at: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/219587/
Roche, L., Kittel, A., Cunningham, I., and Rolland, C. (2021b). 360° video integration in teacher education: a SWOT analysis. Front. Educ. 6:761176. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.761176
Rosendahl, P., and Wagner, I. (2023). 360° videos in education–a systematic literature review on application areas and future potentials. Educ. Inf. Technol. 29, 1319–1355. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11549-9
Snelson, C., and Hsu, Y. C. (2020). Educational 360-degree videos in virtual reality: a scoping review. Tech. Trends 64, 404–412. doi: 10.1007/s11528-019-00474-3
Suh, A., and Prophet, J. (2018). The state of immersive technology research: a literature analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 86, 77–90. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.019
Tang, Y. M., Chau, K. Y., Kwok, A. P. K., Zhu, T., and Ma, X. (2022). A systematic review of immersive technology applications for medical practice and education—trends, application areas, recipients, teaching contents, evaluation methods, and performance. Educ. Res. Rev. 35:100429. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100429
Vosmeer, M., and Schouten, B. (2014). “Interactive cinema: engagement and interaction,” in Interactive Storytelling, eds. A. Mitchell, C. Fernández-Vara, and D. Thue (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 140–147. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12337-0_14
Wohl, M. (2017). The360° Video Handbook: A Step-by-step Guide to Creating Video for Virtual Reality (VR). Los Angeles, CA. Vrrrynice.com.
Wohlgenannt, I., Simons, A., and Stieglitz, S. (2020). Virtual reality. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 62, 455–461. doi: 10.1007/s12599-020-00658-9
Yang, Q.-F., Lin, H., Hwang, G.-J., Su, P.-Y., and Zhao, J.-H. (2022). An exploration-based SVVR approach to promote students' chemistry learning effectiveness. Interact. Learn. Environ. 32, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2135106
Yusof, A. A., Adnan, A. H. M., Kamal, N. N. M., and Kamal, M. A. M. (2019). “Education 4.0 immersive learning with spherical videos (360°) and virtual reality (VR) experiences,” in Proceedings of the International Invention, Innovative and Creative (InIIC) Conference, vol. 2 (Seremban: MNNF Network), 52–60.
Keywords: 360° video, immersive panoramic video, panoramic video, spherical video, immersive video, spherical video based virtual reality, 360°VR video, 360VR video
Citation: Roche L, Cunningham I and Rolland C (2025) What is and what is not 360° video: conceptual definitions for the research field. Front. Educ. 10:1448483. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1448483
Received: 13 June 2024; Accepted: 21 February 2025;
Published: 12 March 2025.
Edited by:
Cyrille Gaudin, University of Limoges, FranceReviewed by:
Magali Descoeudres, Haute École Pédagogique du Canton de Vaud, SwitzerlandCopyright © 2025 Roche, Cunningham and Rolland. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Lionel Roche, cm9jaGUubGlvbmVsQHVxYW0uY2E=