IEEE 1st International Conference on Cognitive Aspects of Virtual Reality • CVR 2022 • 11-12 May 2022, Online
Virtual Reality Support of Cognitive Processes in
Firefighter Skills Training
Cecilia Hammar Wijkmark
2022 1st IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Aspects of Virtual Reality (CVR) | 978-1-6654-8516-6/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/CVR55417.2022.9967649
Department of Safety, Chemistry and Biomedical
Laboratory Sciences
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
Haugesund, Norway
cecilia.hammar.wijkmark@hvl.no
Maria Monika Metallinou
Department of Safety, Chemistry and Biomedical Laboratory Sciences
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
Haugesund, Norway
monika.metallinou@hvl.no
Abstract—Practice-based training in realistic settings is
necessary to acquire and retain competence as a firefighter. Hot-
Fire Live Simulation (HF-LS) training in real fire and smoke,
using training buildings, vehicles, and equipment, has been the
only available practice-based training format available, and
therefore accepted despite its limitations. Virtual Reality (VR)
development has provided possibilities for supplementing HF-LS
training. However, hesitation exists, often because of doubt
regarding the represented realism of virtual fire situations. This
paper investigates how immersive VR supports cognitive processes
and affects fidelity in firefighter training, compared with HF-LS.
Data were collected from firefighter recruits, experienced
firefighters, and instructors at a Fire and Rescue Service in
Sweden, 33 persons in total, during VR and HF-LS training. VR
experiences were compared with previous experiences of HF-LS.
The results emphasize the current benefits and limitations of VR
versus HF-LS training in relation to the support of cognitive
processes and the representations’ fidelity.
Keywords— Virtual Reality; immersive; firefighter; training;
Live Simulation; cognitive processes; fidelity
I. INTRODUCTION
Firefighters are trained to handle a wide spectrum of
emergency situations. All fires are different and the situation can
change according to fuel, location, and other circumstances.
Firefighters are expected to be able to handle each situation,
which requires awareness and the ability to recognize risks and
make quick and correct decisions in critical circumstances where
lives may be at risk.
Practice-based Hot-Fire Live Simulation (HF-LS) in the
controlled environment on training grounds, using real fire
(burning wood or gas), smoke, and vehicles, is currently the gold
standard for drill training. It allows firefighters to familiarize
themselves with available equipment and work in high
temperatures. The physical objects, buildings, and environment
in HF-LS are considered to enable sufficiently naturalistic
experiences, and thereby trigger Cognitive Processes (CP)
similar to real incidents. However, HF-LS has certain
limitations. Training facilities (involving a limited number of
978-1-6654-8516-6/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Viettel Group. Downloaded on June 05,2023 at 06:10:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Ilona Heldal
Department of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering
and Mathematical Sciences
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
Bergen, Norway
ilona.heldal@hvl.no
steel-and-concrete buildings, which will have already sustained
numerous fires and have limited similarity to buildings within
real society) provide limited variation in terms of buildings,
objects, and interaction possibilities.
During the last decade, the interest in Virtual Reality (VR)
training has increased for training applications in different
domains, such as medicine, industry, and the military, where
practice-based skills training is associated with high risk or high
cost [1-3]. Simulation-based training (HF-LS or VR) aims to
reproduce realistic situations with adequate perceptual
information and thus trigger behavior similar to a real situation.
In VR applications, the user can interact with the computer-
generated graphical environment and representations of objects,
based on rules, feedback, and experiences influenced by the
allowed interaction possibilities and technology used.
Consequently, it is crucial that users understand the concordance
between the simulated environment and its objects, and the
corresponding real-world objects as well as the task [3]. This
understanding relies on the perceived realism of the VR
representations; in other words, it depends on the ability of VR
to support the CPs [4]. This paper uses the term fidelity for the
degree of exactness with which virtual representation copy or
reproduce objects, people, phenomena, interactions or real-life
environments. We also use the broader term realism which also
refers to how believable abstractions are represented in VR.
Notwithstanding current interest and availability, there is
hesitation toward VR training in Fire and Rescue Service (FRS)
organizations, which can be explained by mistrust in the
conveyed realism of representations in VR training and fear that
VR training will replace HF-LS [5]. However, the critical voices
also recognize the possible complementary value of VR [6].
Based on a field study, this paper discusses how immersive
VR, in relation to HF-LS, can support a number of higher CPs
identified as crucial in firefighter skills training as well as the
relation to fidelity. The study involved 33 persons; firefighter
recruits, experienced firefighters, and instructors from the FRS
Östra Skaraborg, Sweden. None of the participants had any
previous experience of VR-based training. The study was
000027
 C. Hammar Wijkmark et al. • Virtual Reality Support of Cognitive Processes in Firefighter Skills Training
conducted using a previously published method [7] based on
data collected through questionnaires and observations of VR
and HF-LS training and problem-solving, [7]. This research
investigates how immersive VR supports the following CPs
recognition, comprehension, learning and decision making, in
relation to HF-LS training.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Learning approach and limitations
Firefighter training often incorporates two different HF-LS
training formats involving real fire and smoke: 1) container
training, used for basic training in understanding the fire
behavior and use of extinguishing methods, and equipment (see
Fig.1), and scenario training in concrete buildings or steel ship
container constructions used for full incident scenario training
(HF-LS Scenario training). Both formats require the firefighters
to use Breathing Apparatus (BA) and to perform smoke diving.
HF-LS scenario training involves a Breathing Apparatus Entry
(BAE) team, whereby two firefighters enter the building (smoke
diving) while a BAE leader keeps track of time and available air
and should be prepared to enter the building if necessary.
In HF-LS, the available training facilities (buildings, fire
trucks, and equipment) can be used to simulate several scenarios
to train technical skills in a controlled environment, as close to
the realism of actual incidents as possible.
These steel and concrete buildings at FRS training grounds
around the world have been built to withstand fire and water
numerous times per week for many years. They must represent
different types of buildings from the society, e.g., sometimes a
supermarket, other times an office building. Thus, they cannot
resemble many real-life buildings that the firefighters will
encounter in real fire situations. Additionally, safety precautions
and environmental regulations limit the quantities and types of
fuel that can be used, resulting in limited fire development. This
limits the possibility for the simulation of cues, events, and
consequences of incorrect or no actions. The smoke in HF-LS
also contains carcinogenic substances, harmful if inhaled and/or
through skin exposure, since they penetrate fire protective
clothing [8].
Fig. 1. HF-LS container, exterior (left) and interior (right).
B. Higher Cognitive Processes
Education research often considers findings from Cognitive
Science, particularly for defining aspects that improve learning
[9], as well as how the human brain functions. In the Layered
Reference Model of the Brain, LRMB [10], the main CPs are
decomposed into six layers and a total of 37 basic CPs. The
000028
Authorized licensed use limited to: Viettel Group. Downloaded on June 05,2023 at 06:10:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
higher CPs recognition, comprehension, learning and decision
making are identified as necessary for training and measurable
using self-reports and observations, in non-immersive VR
training for Incident Commanders [7]. In the current study, we
examine the same CPs for immersive VR training for
firefighters` skill training . The following higher CPs (Layer 6
of the LRMB) are discussed in this report:
• Recognition: the ability to identify an object, which
relates to the realism of buildings, vehicles, avatars,
flames, and smoke. Recognition of subtle risks and
warning signals, (e.g., changing smoke behavior is
essential for firefighter preparation).
• Comprehension: the capability to understand the
relationship between the objects and attributes of the
incident scene (e.g., how the fire is spreading). This
aspect can be related to situational awareness (see
Endsley [11, 12]).
• Learning: the ability to perform in steps and practical
procedures, and thereby update the cognitive models of
the brain in the long-term memory. This draws parallels
to applying knowledge [13] and gaining a new concrete
experience [14, 15].
• Decision-making: the process of choosing a course of
action from a set of alternatives. In fire situations, the
time constraints and the levels of risk significantly affect
this process, and it is often highly critical to act and
evaluate the courses of action quickly. The importance of
rapid decision-making in these situations has been
described in the Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD)
model [16].
III. METHODOLOGY
The field study was conducted at the FRS Östra Skaraborg
training facilities, where 33 employees participated over a period
of six days in October 2020. The participants were divided into
three groups depending on previous firefighting experience. The
groups were:
Stud (students): Firefighter recruits (15 participants)
participating in the introductory program. At the time of the
study, they were in their second week of the three-week program
designed to prepare them to work as part-time firefighters. Prior
to the study, they had performed three or four BA-entries in
container training. The decision to schedule VR training at this
point in the schedule was motivated by the expected value to
prepare for the HF-LS scenario training the following week.
Instr (instructors): The instructors (5 participants) were
experienced firefighters who had been assigned as instructors.
Exp (experienced firefighters): 13 professional firefighters
with more than 3 years of practice.
A. Study Design
The study was conducted in two steps: A) the VR training
(Stud, Instr and Exp), and B) the HF-LS scenario-based training
(Stud).
A. The field study of the VR training was performed using
the study design previously published [17]. The participants
 IEEE 1st International Conference on Cognitive Aspects of Virtual Reality • CVR 2022 • 11-12 May 2022, Online

performed virtual BA-entries individually in three VR scenarios: C. Data collection

1) a fire in a kitchen, 2) a fire in a bedroom on the second floor Data were collected through questionnaires influenced by
of a family home, and 3) a fire in a car involved in a traffic Schroeder et al. [19], based on the presence questionnaire
accident in a tunnel. The VR scenario started with the participant developed by Slater et al. [20]. The difference between presence
positioned at the scene, besides the fire truck, viewing the family and immersiveness was emphasized through presence questions
house from the street (1,2) and the car in the tunnel from a relating to the user’s feeling of being and acting in the VR
distance of approximately 20 meters (3). From this point, the environment.
participant could move and act as he/she wished. Since BAE is
not an individual task, one instructor, involved in the design of
this field study, helped with role-playing, playing the voice of
the second firefighter and the BAE team leader, and giving the
participant the verbal information realistically as when driving
to, preparing for and performing the BA entry. The VR scenario
ended when the participant had completely extinguished the fire.
For the VR training, every participant was given a time slot of
one hour to a) complete a background questionnaire Q1 (six
questions) and receive information about the study, b) don
his/her own protective clothing, put on the immersive VR set,
and perform three fire scenarios, and c) take off the VR set and
complete the second questionnaire Q2 (23 questions). A total of
13 of the 23 questions required answers on a Likert scale, and
the rest comprised a “yes” or “no” form or open-ended answers.
For the Likert scale questions, a five-point Likert scale was used, Fig. 2. The immersive VR technology used in these studies (left) and a
ranging from the worst alternative to the best; for example, cropped screenshot from a scenario (right).
regarding presence experience, the possible options were:
1=very low, 2=low, 3=acceptable, 4=high, 5=very high degree IV. RESULTS
of experience. Several questions had sub-questions with the A. Background information and expectations
option for free comment.
Table 1 presents information on the participant groups,
B. The HF-LS scenario-based training was examined including the number of participants in each group (No), their
through observations and verbal questions after completing the average experience in years (avg.y.), the length of time they had
training. In this step, the seven Stud participants (of the total of been a firefighter/firefighter instructor (in years), and gender
15) who performed in the BAE team were included owing to (M-male/F-female). The table also shows the number of
their ability to compare the HF-LS scenario training with the participants with previous experience of immersive VR (VR) in
previously performed VR training. During the HF-LS scenario general, and the number of participants that played games on
training, the whole scenario was trained from dispatch until their mobile phone (mobile), or on computers or consoles
completion of the response for both the firefighters and their (comp) once a week or more frequently.
commander. This included all the physical aspects of preparing
TABLE 1. The participant groups and their characteristics.
hoses, entering the building, searching for victims, and
extinguishing the fire. One training session took approximately
No. avg. y. Span M/F VR Mobile Computer
two hours, including restoring the equipment and involved one
or two active BAE teams. The participants were involved in a Stud 15 0 N/A 12/1 2 1 3
two-hour time slot, with the BAE team being active for Instr 5 9 2-20 4/1 0 1 0
approximately 20 minutes.
Exp 13 16 3-30 14/1 2 1 2
B. Technology used
The reason for choosing VR technology was based on the
expressed wish of FRS Östra Skaraborg to use a highly Although only four participants in total had experienced
immersive VR, which allowed the practice of several relevant other types of VR, 100% of the participants stated that they
dynamic firefighting scenarios, thus meeting the learning believed VR could be employed for firefighter skills training
objectives of the introductory program [7]. Hence, the FLAIM before trying it. Some comments illustrate the lack of knowledge
trainer was chosen [18]. This immersive VR concept includes a about what to expect and some risks or hesitation with respect to
head mounted display (HMD), a Self-Contained Breathing its use in firefighter training, such as “It is not reality. But I think
Apparatus (SCBA) comprised of an air tank with harness, a you can get as close to reality as possible in VR” (Stud 8), “You
mouth mask and regulator piece (this was not used in this study can forget how stress and heat affect you” (Stud 1), “The heat is
because of Covid-19 precautions), and a vest with heating not affecting you in VR” (Instr 3), and “You cannot see the
elements that responds to the participant’s position in relation to effects of your actions in VR” (Exp 6).
the fire. A real hose and nozzle are included, thereby providing Regarding previous HF-LS, all Instr and Exp had completed
weight and pressure feedback from the equipment (see Fig. 2). firefighter education (introduction program or firefighter
The participants also wore protective clothing, gloves, and education at a Fire Academy) between 2-30 years ago.
hoods. According to Swedish regulations, it is mandatory to participate

000029

Authorized licensed use limited to: Viettel Group. Downloaded on June 05,2023 at 06:10:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 C. Hammar Wijkmark et al. • Virtual Reality Support of Cognitive Processes in Firefighter Skills Training

in a minimum of two HF-LS sessions annually. However, longer
intervals may occur, as was the case for five of the experienced
participants in the study. All Stud participated in their first HF-
LS container training the week prior to the study. When the
experienced firefighters and instructors were asked to estimate
the length of time they had been actively training, in the last HF-
LS, the Instr stated an average of 20 minutes and the Exp 14
minutes. The total time spent in the training session, including
all preparations and restoring equipment, was on average two
hours for the Instr and 1.5 hours for Exp. Therefore, HF-LS
provides a time efficiency of 16%, calculated by dividing the
active training time by the total time required. By comparison,
three VR scenarios were conducted in 20 minutes without
preparation and with only minutes of restart before the next
participant. In 120 minutes, the firefighter could perform in 17
VR scenarios at a pace corresponding to this study (an average
of 6.6 minutes per scenario).
and 73% of the Stud scored this as Likert 3 or higher. When
asked, “To what extent did you experience a feeling of this
incident happening for real?” 100% of Exp, 80% of Instr, and
73% of Stud scored this as Likert 3 or higher. When asked
further about the more physical feeling of extinguishing in VR,
and compared with the feeling of extinguishing a fire in HF-LS,
85% of the Exp and 40% of both Inst and Stud scored the
similarity between VR and HF-LS as acceptable (3 on the Likert
scale or higher). Detailed responses included: “I think it was a
bit harder to extinguish in VR compared with the container
(wood and LPG) fires.” (Stud 10) and “The few times I have
extinguished for real [in HF-LS container], I have had more
effect and extinguished faster” (Stud 3). Further research is
needed to explore whether extinguishment in HF-LS or by using
VR tools provides the closest fidelity to real incident fire
behavior and extinguishment.
When starting the scenarios, the participants were

TABLE 2. Results from Questionnaire 2, after immersive VR training, for the three groups of firefighter recruits (Stud), instructors (Inst) and
Experienced firefighters (Exp). The first column in each group presents the percentage that scores acceptable or higher (Likert >=3). The
second column presents the average (Avg.) and the third column presents the standard deviation (SD.)

Stud (n=15) Inst (n=5) Exp (n=13)

Summary Likert Avg. SD Likert Avg. SD Likert Avg. SD

>=3 >=3 >=3
Presence
Think of some previous hot fire training session when you 73% 3,40 1,08 80% 3,40 0,75 92% 3,92 0,92
experienced a high presence. Compared to that, to what extent
did you experience presence in the VR simulation today?

Think of the experience. To what extent did you experience a 73% 3,07 1,00 80% 3,20 1,02 100% 3,92 0,73
feeling of this incident happening for real?

Compared to the feeling of extinguishing a fire in hot fire 40% 2,33 1,07 40% 2,60 0,80 85% 3,23 0,80
training, how similar would you say the feeling of
extinguishing in VR was?
Visual realism
To what extent did you find the virtual representation of the 87% 3,20 1,11 100% 3,80 0,40 92% 3,62 0,84
FIRE realistic?
To what extent did you find the virtual representation of the 87% 3,13 0,96 80% 3,40 0,80 92% 3,54 0,75
SMOKE realistic?

To what extent did you find the virtual representation of the 73% 3,20 1,17 100% 3,80 0,40 100% 3,92 0,47
WATER realistic?

To what extent did you find the task realistic? 93% 3,87 0,96 100% 4,40 0,49 92% 3,85 0,66

Overall
In general, how positive are you about VR training? 93% 4,33 0,87 100% 4,40 0,80 100% 4,77 0,58

B. Experiences of Immersive VR training
A summary of the answers from Q2 is presented in Table 2.
In response to the question, “Think of some previous HF-LS
training session when you experienced a high presence.
Compared with that, to what extent did you experience presence
in the VR simulation today?”, 92% of the Exp, 80% of the Inst,
realistically informed about the situation and safety measures,
by the instructor playing the role of the BAE-leader. This
information only contained the information available when
arriving at a scene, not more, such as “ the fire is on the second
floor of a family house”. As in real-life incidents, after arriving,
the firefighter can, and is required to, recognize the objects
involved, comprehend what is happening, and identify risks

000030

Authorized licensed use limited to: Viettel Group. Downloaded on June 05,2023 at 06:10:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 IEEE 1st International Conference on Cognitive Aspects of Virtual Reality • CVR 2022 • 11-12 May 2022, Online

directly by looking at the high fidelity virtual 3D scene. No risks. The fire cannot spread and therefore dynamic effects of
additional verbal information is necessary to recognize an wrong actions cannot be demonstrated, HF-LS does not support
object. When entering the building, the firefighter can identify updating the cognitive models of the brain in the long-term
different rooms, such as a kitchen or a living room, by observing memory regarding wrong actions, thus limiting learning
the virtual objects. opportunities.
The results (Table 2) also illustrate the recognition of Seven out of the total of 15 Stud performed in the BAE team
objects, the perceived realism of fire, smoke, water, and the task in the observed HF-LS training. A total of 86% of them scored
to be performed in the scenario, such as extinguishing the fire. acceptable or higher (Likert >=3) for the question “Think of the
The average perceived realism was 3, with the highest value for
water (average 3.92 from Inst) and the lowest for smoke
(average 3.13 from Stud). Explanations related to lower
experienced realism of smoke in the Stud group included: “I did
not experience the smoke in the same way as in real training
[HF-LS]” (Stud 4), and “it was unrealistic that the smoke did not
get lower” (Stud 10). One Exp and one Inst stated that more
smoke would increase the realism, while others made contrary
statements such as “the flames and their color were realistic”
(Exp 6), “the intensity of the flames” (Exp 5), “the clear smoke
layer” (Exp 4), and “the smoke was thick and rolling” (Exp 5).
Regarding the support for learning, and the possibility of
updating the cognitive models in the brain in the long-term
memory, the immersive VR training supports active
experimentation, through repetitive “runs”, e.g., also trying to
extinguish the fire using a “wrong” method. Correspondingly,
decision-making is supported by the dynamic scenario; for Fig. 3. HF-LS scenario training building
example, the fire will spread if the correct decisions on actions
are not made. previous HF-LS container training. Compared with that, to what
extent did you experience presence in the VR simulation today?”
In response to the question “In general, how positive are you The result was the same (86%, Likert >=3) for the question “To
about VR training?”, 100% of the Exp and Inst scored Likert 3 what extent did you experience a feeling of this incident
or above, and 93% of the Stud, namely one participant (Stud 5) happening for real?” When asked to compare the feeling of
scored Likert 2 for this question, giving no explanation. extinguishing in HF-LS with the feeling of extinguishing in VR,
C. Hot-Fire Live-Simulation 86% scored Likert 3 or higher. Comments related to the
similarity between VR and HF-LS realism of fire, smoke, and
The HF-LS scenario-based training observed in this study
water included: “the handling of the nozzle, the amount of water
was performed in the building shown in Fig. 3, which is a
and the recoil was extremely similar in VR, compared with the
standard building found at numerous Swedish FRS training
reality” (Stud 10), “the extinguishing feels very similar and the
facilities that represents an apartment building. Although the
functions of the nozzle were very similar” (Stud 10). One Stud
fire, flames, smoke, and heat are real, they are limited because
(Stud 8) underlined in the comments that “Reality is reality, and
of safety and the amount of fuel allowed. The interior has a
VR is a simulation and you will never get away from the fact
staircase and rooms, but it is difficult to recognize different
that it is not for real”.
rooms owing to the lack of furniture and the black soot covering
all surfaces. The instructor plays the role of the dispatcher, the D. The support for Cognitive Processes
commander, and the house owner. The Stud firefighter team The compared training formats, HF-LS and immersive VR,
receives the call in their firetruck and drives to the scene. Until support the higher CPs to a different extent. This is summarized
this point, the communication is verbal, similar to the HF-LS, in Table 3. The differences highlight the complementarity of the
VR, and real life. The difference between HF-LS and VR methods and may enhance the knowledge about benefits and
becomes more apparent when firefighters arrive at the scene. limitations of each.
Through role-play and verbal information, the instructor
describes the objects and the situation, with instructions such as V. CONCLUSIONS
“the fire is on the second floor, to the left”, “there is an attic”, or
If accurate simulation of real-life incidents is necessary for
“the building on the left is a garage”. The firefighter cannot
good training, neither VR nor HF-LS are sufficiently realistic
recognize what type of (real-world) building this is representing
today. The challenge is to identify their specific benefits and
and cannot comprehend what is going on, namely the situation,
limitations and utilize a combination that would provide the best
cues, and risks. With no additional information, the situation can
training value for handlinig future incident situations. Enhanced
be interpreted as: “there is smoke coming out from a concrete
training values lie in knowing how to supplement training.
construction with several openings and doors. There are no open
flames visible. Next to this construction is a steel container”. It The results highlight the possibility of using immersive VR
is not possible to simulate different fire or smoke behaviors to support the CPs for recognition (e.g., perceive real-like
allowing the recognition and comprehension of cues or specific objects, comprehension (e.g., perceive realistic dynamic

000031

Authorized licensed use limited to: Viettel Group. Downloaded on June 05,2023 at 06:10:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 C. Hammar Wijkmark et al. • Virtual Reality Support of Cognitive Processes in Firefighter Skills Training

situations), and learning (e.g., explore the possibility of trying [12] M. Endsley, “Endsley, M.R.: Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in
different – including wrong - actions), and decision making, Dynamic Systems. Human Factors Journal 37(1), 32-64,” Human Factors:
The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 37, pp.
(through evaluating the effects of actions or non-actions). 32-64, 03/01, 1995.
The presence experience was reported to be higher in the Exp [13] W. A. L. Blyth, B. S. Bloom, and D. R. Krathwohl, "Taxonomy of
and Instr groups than in the Stud group, as was the perceived Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain," Faber & Faber
Limited, 1966, pp. 119-119.
realism of flames, smoke, and water representation.
[14] D. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience As The Source Of Learning
Additional values of using VR illustrated by this study And Development, 1984.
included the time efficiency and no particle of heat exposure, [15] D. A. Kolb, R. E. Boyatzis, and C. Mainemelis, "Experiential Learning
which firefighters encounter in HF-LS [8]. The mandatory two Theory: Previous Research and New Directions," pp. 227-248: Routledge,
2001.
HF-LS trainings per year relate to heat exposure, which is an
[16] R. Eisenberger, “Decision making in action: Models and methods, Klein,
important aspect of BAE. Scenario-based HF-LS is seldom G.A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R. and Zsambok, C.E. (eds). Norwood,
performed, presumably because of the associated limits in NJ: Ablex, 1993, 480 pp. ISBN 0–89391–794–X (pb),” Journal of
supporting CPs. This study demonstrates the acceptance of Behavioral Decision Making, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 218-219, 1995/09/01,
scenario based- training employing immersive VR, as a 1995.
supplement to the other training methods, in a time efficient and [17] C. H. Wijkmark, M. M. Metallinou, and I. Heldal, “Remote Virtual
safe format. Simulation for Incident Commanders—Cognitive Aspects,” Applied
Sciences, vol. 11, no. 14, pp. 6434, 2021.
Future research is needed to investigate the support for other [18] "FLAIMTrainer," https://www.flaimsystems.com/flaim-trainer/.
basic CPs, identify what aspects of realism contributing to the [19] R. Schroeder, A. Steed, A.-S. Axelsson, I. Heldal, Å. Abelin, J.
support for the CPs, the experienced fidelity and presence and to Wideström, A. Nilsson, and M. Slater, “Collaborating in networked
explore how this impacts training value. immersive spaces: as good as being there together?,” Computers &
Graphics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 781-788, 2001.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [20] M. Slater, A. Sadagic, M. Usoh, and R. Schroeder, “Small-group behavior
in a virtual and real environment: A comparative study,” Presence:
We would like to thank the Fire and Rescue Service Östra Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 37-51, 2000.
Skaraborg, the participants and the coordinator, Mr. Pär [21] M. Sommer, G. S. Braut, and O. Njå, “A model for learning in emergency
Hagbohm, and Mr. Sune Fankvist, for assistance in the study. response work,” International Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 9,
pp. 151, 2013.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Checa, and A. Bustillo, “A review of immersive virtual reality serious
games to enhance learning and training,” Multimedia Tools and
Applications, vol. 79, no. 9, pp. 5501-5527, 2020.
[2] I. Heldal, “The usability of collaborative virtual environments: Towards
an evaluation framework,” Ph.D thesis vid Chalmers Technical
University, 2004.
[3] D. Harris, M. Wilson, and S. Vine, “Development and validation of a
simulation workload measure: the simulation task load index (SIM-
TLX),” Virtual Reality, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 557-566, 2020.
[4] I Horváth, Borbála Berki, Anna Sudár, Péter Baranyi, “Definition,
Background and Research Perspectives Behind ‘Cognitive Aspects of
Virtual Reality’ (cVR),” Journal of Cognitive Infocommunications, vol.
1, no. 1, pp. 1-6, 2022.
[5] H. Wijkmark, Cecilia, I. Heldal, and M. M. Metallinou, “Can Remote
Virtual Simulation Improve Practice-Based Training?–Presence and
performance in incident commander education,” PRESENCE: Virtual and
Augmented Reality, pp. 1-57, 2021.
[6] F. M. Williams-Bell, B. M. Murphy, B. Kapralos, A. Hogue, and E. J.
Weckman, “Using Serious Games and Virtual Simulation for Training in
the Fire Service: A Review,” Fire Technology, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 553-584,
May, 2015.
[7] C. H. Wijkmark, I. Heldal, and M.-M. Metallinou, "Experiencing
Immersive VR Simulation for Firefighter Skills Training."
[8] H. Wingfors, J. R. Nyholm, R. Magnusson, and C. H. Wijkmark, “Impact
of fire suit ensembles on firefighter PAH exposures as assessed by skin
deposition and urinary biomarkers,” Annals of work exposures and health,
vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 221-231, 2018.
[9] J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, "How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school."
[10] Y. Wang, Y. Wang, S. Patel, and D. Patel, “A layered reference model of
the brain (LRMB),” Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications
and Reviews, IEEE Transactions on, pp. 124-133, 04/01, 2006.
[11] M. R. Endsley, “Design and Evaluation for Situation Awareness
Enhancement,” Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual
Meeting, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 97-101, 1988/10/01, 1988.

000032

Authorized licensed use limited to: Viettel Group. Downloaded on June 05,2023 at 06:10:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

TABLE 3. Higher Cognitive Processes supported in HF-LS and VR
Higher Cognitive
Processes
6.1 Recognition
Here focused on the
perceived visual realism of
the fire incident related to
flames, smoke, buildings,
and suppressant agent.
6.3 Comprehension
The action or capability of
understanding. Involves
constructing internal
representations based on
existing knowledge.
(Previous experience from
real incidents and HF-LS
training sessions may affect
comprehension. We
therefore distinguish
between experienced
firefighters and novices
with only limited HF-LS
training).
6.4 Learning
Acquisition of knowledge
and skills result in an
upgrade of the cognitive
model. Confirmation of
existing knowledge or
deeper understanding are
also recognized as learning
[21]
6.8 Decision making
The process of choosing a
course of action based on
the current situation and the
available resources.
Decision-making is based
on the above-mentioned
aspects of cognition.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Viettel Group. Downloaded on June 05,2023 at 06:10:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE 1st International Conference on Cognitive Aspects of Virtual Reality • CVR 2022 • 11-12 May 2022, Online
HF-LS
Buildings: Real, built to withstand several fires per day.
Despite their odd appearance and fixed layout, they represent
different real-world objects depending on the scenario. Low
visual realism.
Fire trucks and equipment: Real and visually realistic.
Crashed vehicles: Real but old vehicles, sanitized from oils
and electronics etc. limited models, and difficult to prepare
with realistic crash damage, resulting in low visual realism.
Burning vehicles: May be a real already burnt-out car, or a
steel construction representing a car, with no tires, interior or
engine with a wood or LPG fire inside, resulting in unrealistic
fire and smoke development.
Safety precautions and environmental regulations limit the
type and amount of fuel for fires.
Changes in the situation, such as spreading of fire, are not
supported.
Cues and specific fire behavior situations are limited, difficult
or impossible to represent.
Recognition is partly supported based on the above
representations.
All experienced firefighters who participated in the study
were familiar with the HF-LS buildings on the facility, while
student participants only had brief knowledge of the facility.
The instructors verbally provided necessary information,
such as what the concrete or steel building represented in this
specific training session, and whether special risks were
represented.
Previous experience of HF-LS training (i.e., the allowed
placements of fires, and known layout) may have affected the
way the participants comprehended the possible scenarios.
Experience from real incidents may have been less relevant
when performing in HF-LS training, since the fire and smoke
dynamics cannot resemble a real-world fire scenario.
Comprehension is partly supported.
Upgrading a cognitive model requires new challenges. This
is difficult to achieve in HF-LS for experienced firefighters.
However, confirmation of existing knowledge or deeper
understanding (also recognized as learning) may occur. HF-
LS is a bigger challenge for novices, who therefore acquire
knowledge and skills despite the shortcomings of the
representations.
Active experimentation in realistic settings is not supported.
Procedural learning is supported.
Learning cannot be supported for all learning objectives
It is not always possible to choose a course of action if the
fire needs to be kept going for others to train, or if there are
other limitations posed by the instructors.
Decision-making is partly supported.
000033
VR
Buildings: Virtual, with variations, representing
different real-world objects, with variations in size
(stories and number of rooms). resulting in visual
realism.
Fire trucks and equipment: Virtual, visually realistic.
Crashed vehicles: Virtual, modern models, different
crash damages supported, including special vehicles
e.g. mining trucks or tractors, resulting in good visual
realism.
Burning vehicles: Virtual models representing a
variety of vehicles including interior and tires etc.
resulting in visually realistic (virtual) fire and smoke
development.
Changes in the situation, e.g., spread of fire, are
supported.
It is possible to represent cues and specific fire
behavior situations t.
Recognition is supported based on the above
representations.
The virtual environment and object; buildings and
scenarios are all new to both experienced and new
firefighters.
The comprehension of the situation, the involved
objects and the fire and smoke dynamics need to be
based on the previous experiences. This is both
previous HF-LS training and real fires, for
experienced firefighters, while new firefighters only
have some HF-LS experience.
Comprehension is supported over a wider spectrum
than in HF-LS. Experience from real incidents may
play a bigger role compared to HF-LS.
The fire situation can evolve and change
characteristics, such as the color, behavior and amount
of the flames and smoke, thus simulating a real fire.
Active experimentation (70, KOLB) is supported,
since the situation is dynamic and affected by the
actions taken. This will enhance learning.
Procedural learning is supported.
Learning can be supported for several learning
objectives.
Decision-making is supported based on a wider
spectrum of stimuli, the above-mentioned aspects and
the potential to try different courses of actions.
 C. Hammar Wijkmark et al. • Virtual Reality Support of Cognitive Processes in Firefighter Skills Training

000034

Authorized licensed use limited to: Viettel Group. Downloaded on June 05,2023 at 06:10:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.