This work investigates the use of Virtual Reality (VR) to present forensic evidence to the jury in a courtroom trial. The findings of a between-participant user study on comprehension of an expert statement are presented, examining the benefits and issues of using VR compared to traditional courtroom presentation (being still images). Participants listened to a forensic scientist explain bloodstain spatter patterns while viewing a mock crime scene in either VR or as still images in video format. Under these conditions, we compared understanding of the expert domain, mental effort and content recall. We found that VR significantly improves the understanding of spatial information and knowledge acquisition. We also identify different patterns of user behaviour depending on the display method. We conclude with suggestions on how to best adapt evidence presentation to VR.

This paper investigates the use of immersive virtual reconstructions as an aid for jurors during a courtroom trial. The findings of a between-participant user study on memory and decision-making are presented in the context of viewing a simulated hit-run-death scenario. Participants listened to the opening statement of a prosecutor and a defence attorney before viewing the crime scene in Virtual Reality (VR) or as still images. We compare the effects on cognition and usability of using VR over images presented on a screen. We found several significant improvements, including that VR led to more consistent decision-making among participants. This shows that VR could provide a promising solution for the court to present crime scenes when site visitations are not possible.

In this work, we explore if the immersion afforded by Virtual Reality can improve the cognitive integration of information in Cinematic Virtual Reality (CVR). We conducted a user study examining participants' cognitive activities (recall performance and cortical response) when consuming visual information of emotional and emotionally neutral scenes in a non-CVR environment (i.e. a monitor) versus a CVR environment (i.e. a head-mounted display). Cortical response was recorded using electroencephalography. The results showed that participants had greater early visual attention with neutral emotions in a CVR environment, and showed higher overall alpha power in a CVR environment. The use of CVR did not significantly affect participants' recall performance.

This paper showcases one way of how virtual reconstruction can be used in a courtroom. The results of a pilot study on narrative and spatial memory are presented in the context of viewing real and virtual copies of a simulated crime scene. Based on current court procedures, three different viewing options were compared: photographs, a real life visit, and a 3D virtual reconstruction of the scene viewed in a Virtual Reality headset. Participants were also given a written narrative that included the spatial locations of stolen goods and were measured on their ability to recall and understand these spatial relationships of those stolen items. The results suggest that Virtual Reality is more reliable for spatial memory compared to photographs and that Virtual Reality provides a compromise for when physical viewing of crime scenes are not possible. We conclude that Virtual Reality is a promising medium for the court.

This paper presents the results of two cognitive load studies comparing three augmented reality display technologies: spatial augmented reality, the optical see-through Microsoft HoloLens, and the video see-through Samsung Gear VR. In particular, the two experiments focused on isolating the cognitive load cost of receiving instructions for a button-pressing procedural task. The studies employed a self-assessment cognitive load methodology, as well as an additional dual-task cognitive load methodology. The results showed that spatial augmented reality led to increased performance and reduced cognitive load. Additionally, it was discovered that a limited field of view can introduce increased cognitive load requirements. The findings suggest that some of the inherent restrictions of head-mounted displays materialize as increased user cognitive load.