. 2024 Apr 30;14:9883. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-60791-3

Table 3.

Comparison of current VR frameworks since 2015.

Framework	Platform	Experiments as Code
		Doc.	Infrastructure				Data Collection				Data Assembly		Data Analysis		Managem.		Access
		Protocol^†	Multi-user Server	Immersive VR	Provisioning^†	Deployment^†	Prefab. tasks	Task config. files	Game engine code	Questionnaires	Remote Storage	Database	Analysis	Replay	Participants	Monitoring	github/bitbucket	Unity package
AGENT⁶⁸	Any							$✓$	$✓$
bmlTUX⁷⁵	Unity							$✓$	$✓$							$✓$	$✓$
EVE⁶²	Unity			*			$✓$	*	$✓$	$✓$		$✓$	$✓$	$✓$			$✓$
DeFINE⁷⁷	Unity			$✓$				$✓$	$✓$	$✓$	$✓$	$✓$					$✓$
Landmarks⁷²	Unity			$✓$			$✓$	$✓$	$✓$	$✓$			*				$✓$	$✓$
NVR-DeSciL⁶³	Unity		$✓$						$✓$		$✓$				$✓$	$✓$
OpenMaze⁸⁰	Unity			*				$✓$									$✓$
Toggle Toolkit⁷¹	Unity			*			*										$✓$
VO⁷³	Unity			$✓$					$✓$		$✓$	$✓$		$✓$
VRate⁸¹	Unity			$✓$				$✓$		$✓$
VREVAL⁷⁹	Unreal			$✓$			$✓$			$✓$			$✓$					-
VREX⁷⁰	Unity			$✓$			*	*	*
VR-Rides⁷⁸	Unity			$✓$					$✓$			$✓$	*				$✓$
USE⁷⁶	Unity							$✓$									$✓$
UXF⁶⁹	Unity			$✓$				$✓$	$✓$		$✓$	$✓$					$✓$	$✓$

The features are grouped by correspondence to the six pillars taxonomy of the ExaC paradigm. Features are evaluated on the description of the frameworks in their accompanying paper. We also report the availability of the frameworks. The development of ExaCT aims to address gaps found in current VR frameworks to better align them with the specific requirements of each of the six experimental pillars identified.

$✓$ : Feature, *: Partial Feature, -: Not possible, ^†: Never implemented.