Month: January 2026

When comparing AR on smartphones with VR headsets such as Meta Quest, the discussion should not only focus on immersion, but also on practical use in real retail environments.

Defining the technologies briefly

• Smartphone-based AR (Augmented Reality) means digital elements are added to the real world through a phone screen. The user stays fully aware of their surroundings.
• VR (Virtual Reality) uses head-mounted displays that fully replace the real environment with a virtual one.

While VR offers stronger immersion, this strength also creates operational challenges in retail.

Hardware management and constant care in stores

One major difference between smartphones and VR headsets is device ownership and responsibility.

Smartphones are personal devices. Customers bring their own phones, meaning:

• no shared hardware
• no setup by staff
• no maintenance by the store
• no hygiene management

VR headsets, on the other hand, are shared devices in retail settings. This means they require:

• staff supervision
• setup assistance
• regular cleaning and sanitization
• technical troubleshooting

Retail research on VR adoption highlights operational complexity and maintenance effort as key barriers to implementing VR experiences in stores. Studies reviewing VR use in retail environments point out that head-mounted displays require additional resources and management, which makes them harder to integrate into everyday shopping situations.
(Source: Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2025 – VR adoption barriers)
 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virtual-reality/articles/10.3389/frvir.2025.1721321/full

Throughput and waiting time: one user vs many users

Another critical issue is throughput, meaning how many people can use a system at the same time.

• Smartphone AR allows many users simultaneously, because everyone uses their own device.
• VR headsets allow only one user at a time per headset.

In busy retail environments, this creates waiting times, which research in consumer behavior shows can reduce satisfaction and willingness to engage. Even highly engaging experiences lose value if customers have to wait, ask for assistance, or interrupt their shopping flow.

low-effort, fast-access solutions are more likely to be adopted than complex systems that slow down the shopping process.

Security and loss prevention as a realistic concern

Another practical issue is security.

VR headsets are:

• expensive
• portable
• visually attractive

In open retail environments, this means they often need:

• constant supervision
• fixed stations
• anti-theft measures

This adds another layer of operational effort. Smartphones avoid this issue entirely because the store does not provide the hardware. From a retail management perspective, this significantly lowers risk and responsibility.

Why smartphones fit everyday retail better

Research on mobile AR in retail shows that smartphones work well because they:

• integrate into existing shopping behavior
• require no additional learning or equipment
• allow users to start and stop instantly
• support short, spontaneous interactions

 ease of use and familiarity strongly influence acceptance and engagement in retail contexts.

Conclusion: immersion vs reality

VR headsets like Meta Quest are powerful tools for guided experiences, events, or brand storytelling. However, in everyday retail environments, they introduce challenges related to:

• hardware care
• waiting times
• staff involvement
• security and maintenance

Smartphone-based AR avoids these issues by using devices people already own. This makes it more scalable, safer, and better aligned with real shopping behavior.

For these reasons, smartphone AR currently represents a more realistic and responsible solution for retail experiences focused on comfort, accessibility, and smooth user flow.

In public store environments, VR users must often remain in fixed positions for safety, while wearing highly visible head-mounted displays. Studies show that this increases self-consciousness and feelings of being observed or judged by others, making VR less suitable for casual, everyday shopping experiences. As a result, VR is often better suited to private or controlled environments than open retail spaces.

I particularly appreciate the approach taken by Schwind et al. (2018), as the authors do not only theorize about social acceptance, but empirically investigate how people actually feel when using VR glasses in public spaces—and how the surrounding public reacts to this use. By testing VR glasses in different everyday contexts, the study shows that while VR use is more accepted in private or socially isolated situations (such as at home or on a train), acceptance decreases significantly in public environments where social interaction is expected. This finding is especially relevant for retail contexts, as the high level of immersion provided by VR glasses also makes the user more visible and socially exposed, which can increase self-consciousness and discomfort.

Virtual Reality on the Go? A Study on Social Acceptance of VR Glasseshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/327256690_Virtual_reality_on_the_go_a_study_on_social_acceptance_of_VR_glasses

(In the development of this blogpost, AI (ChatGPT) was used as a supportive writing and structuring tool. I provided the conceptual content, research direction, theoretical preferences, and methodological decisions, while the AI assisted in translating it to English, refining the wording, organising the material and generating coherent academic formulations based on my input. The AI did not produce research or arguments but helped transform my ideas into a clear and well-structured text draft.)

The interview was conducted on January 17, 2026

Medical Perspectives on Sensory Overload, AR, and Emotional Comfort in Retail

My focus in this case lies particularly on people who experience shopping as stressful or overwhelming, such as introverted individuals, people with social anxiety, and users on the autism spectrum.

To support my design research with a medical perspective, I conducted a qualitative expert interview with Dr. Sofia Kuhn, a psychiatrist working in the clinical context of AKH Wien.

About her:

Dr. Sofia Kuhn is a medical doctor working in the field of psychiatry, with clinical experience in the context of child and adolescent mental health. She is affiliated with AKH Wien, one of Austria’s largest university hospitals, which is closely connected to the Medical University of Vienna.

Her professional work focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric and developmental conditions, including autism spectrum conditions, anxiety-related disorders, and social difficulties in children and adolescents. Through her clinical practice, she works closely with patients and families who face challenges related to sensory sensitivity, emotional regulation, and social interaction.

Due to her medical background and daily clinical experience, Dr. Kuhn brings a psychiatric and therapeutic perspective to questions of environmental stress, sensory overload, and behavioral responses. This makes her expertise particularly relevant for research at the intersection of mental health, user experience, and design, especially when exploring how digital or immersive tools may influence comfort, stress, and participation in everyday environments.

The aim of this interview was to gain insight into how sensory environments are experienced from a psychiatric point of view—and how design decisions may support, but also potentially challenge, mental wellbeing.

Reaching the interview: more complex than expected

Arranging this interview was already part of the research process. I initially contacted AKH Vienna via email, explaining my academic background and research topic. Due to institutional structures, several emails were required before an appropriate specialist could be assigned. I also went there personally to support the process.

After Dr. Kuhn was assigned, I sent a short written presentation of my thesis topic together with several versions of interview questions. She asked to see the questions in advance and selected the ones she felt were most relevant and realistic to answer within the given time. I agreed to this approach, as it respects both clinical workload and qualitative research ethics.

Interview setting, consent, and technical limitations

The interview was conducted via Zoom and recorded as audio and screen video, with explicit consent given at the beginning of the conversation. I clearly stated that the interview was being documented for academic purposes.

Originally, the interview was planned for 10 minutes only. Despite this strict limitation, we managed to slightly extend the conversation beyond the original 10-minute limit, especially toward the end, when the discussion became more reflective.

For transcription, I used AmberScript. Due to the limitations of the free version, only 10 minutes of audio could be transcribed. The transcript therefore contains minor grammatical inaccuracies and repetitions. However, for qualitative thematic analysis, this is acceptable, as the focus lies on meaning and content rather than linguistic perfection. I asked for permission to record it and use it in the future.

---

Selected interview questions (original wording)

Dr. Kuhn selected and answered the following questions during the interview. The wording below is documented in its original form, as prepared and shared with the interviewee in advance:

1. Before we start, could you briefly tell us about your medical background and your current position?
2. It is well known that visual sensitivity is common in children on the autism spectrum. In your opinion, can autistic children benefit from predictable and visually simple screen interfaces rather than complex or highly animated ones?
3. In your experience, can controlling brightness, color intensity, and visual clutter on screens help reduce stress or anxiety in autistic children?
4. What aspects of shopping environments—such as visual stimuli, unpredictability, mirrors, or fitting rooms—you think can be especially overwhelming for autistic, introverted and people with social anxiety?
5. Could screen-based AR guidance, such as step-by-step instructions or visual navigation, help people feel more in control during shopping experiences?
6. Does this mean that digital or AR-based try-ons on phones or tablets could reduce sensory overload compared to physical try-ons in stores?
7. From a psychiatric perspective, what visual design principles should designers consider when developing screen-based tools or AR applications for autistic children?
8. What main problems or challenges do you see with this concept in practice and how accessible do you think this concept is for different groups of people?
9. In Austria, do you see a growing need for sensory-friendly digital solutions in everyday environments such as retail, public services, or education?

These questions structured the entire conversation

key moments from the interview (quoted)

One of the most valuable outcomes of this interview was the unexpected depth of medical reflection, especially given the strict 10-minute time limit. Several statements by Dr. Sofia Kuhn stood out.

1. Shopping environments as cumulative sensory stressors

When asked which aspects of shopping environments can be overwhelming, Dr. Kuhn clearly described shopping as a multi-layered sensory challenge, especially for autistic children and their families:

“Shopping can be particularly difficult for autistic children and their parents. Retail environments are often overwhelming and tiring, as children are required to process multiple sensory stimuli at the same time, including bright lights, loud sounds, crowded spaces, and visually intense product displays.” 

She further emphasized that overload is not limited to one space, but builds up through constant transitions:

“Frequent transitions, for example moving from one store to another, being exposed to street noise and entering new environments, can further heighten sensory overload and make the experience especially challenging.”…

Why this is important:
This confirms that sensory overload in retail is cumulative, not isolated. From a design perspective, this means AR should aim to reduce overall mental effort, not just improve one single interaction.

---

2. AR guidance as a tool for stress reduction and focus

When discussing screen-based AR guidance, Dr. Kuhn highlighted its potential to improve concentration and reduce stress—if designed carefully:

“I think it could be helpful by reducing stress and increasing concentration. Such tools may help children focus better on their actions.” 

She directly linked this to visual design choices:

“The use of soft colors and gentle animations could make the experience more comfortable and enjoyable for such children.” 

Why this is important:
This statement validates key design principles for my AR prototype from a psychiatric perspective, not just a UX one.

---

3. Simplicity and visual restraint in design

When asked which visual design principles should guide AR tools for autistic children, Dr. Kuhn gave a very clear answer:

“Visual design should remain uncluttered and include only the elements and symbols that are essential for the given context. Color should be selected very thoughtfully and kept at a moderate intensity.” 

She also stressed the importance of motion control:

“Animations, if used, should be subtle and smooth, avoiding sharp or sudden movements. Overall, the design should be intuitive and easy for children to understand.” 

When I asked directly whether simpler design is better, her response was unambiguous:

“Yes. Of course.” 

Why this is important:
This supports the idea that “less is better” is not a stylistic trend, but a mental health requirement for certain user groups.

---

4. Digital try-ons as a way to avoid stressful physical experiences

Regarding AR-based try-ons, Dr. Kuhn confirmed their potential benefit:

“Yes, they certainly could. Digital trials may help avoid some of the stressful sensory experiences associated with physical fitting rooms.” 

Why this is important:
This quote directly supports the relevance of AR try-ons as a stress-reducing alternative, not merely as a technological novelty.

5. The most critical insight: when innovation can become harmful

The most unexpected and influential part of the interview emerged when discussing limitations and risks. Dr. Kuhn emphasized that innovation is never universally positive:

“Every innovation has both positive and negative aspects. Not everyone will benefit from such innovations.” 

She explained that for certain psychiatric conditions, reduced interaction can conflict with therapeutic goals:

“For a person with social phobia, Asperger’s syndrome, depression, or other disorders, avoiding social interactions is part of the condition. Such innovative technologies may even reduce direct contact with anxiety, which is especially necessary in exposure-based psychotherapy.”

She stated this very clearly:

“This is not the goal of therapy. The goal is for the person to be able to communicate.” inteview 10 min at end verion t…

Why this is important:
This insight fundamentally changed my thinking. It introduced an ethical boundary for AR design: reducing stress must not mean reinforcing avoidance.

---

6. AR as encouragement, not replacement

Toward the end of the interview, Dr. Kuhn clarified how such technologies can still be useful when applied responsibly:

“An easier form of communication may help people decide to go to a shop, knowing that they will only need minimal interaction. This can be beneficial at a certain stage, as a form of encouragement.” 

However, she immediately added a clear limitation:

“This is beneficial only up to a certain stage. At later stages, we would expect a stronger therapeutic effect.” 

She concluded with a statement that strongly frames my design responsibility:

“It’s essential that such innovative approaches are introduced with great care. These advancements should not reduce real-world communication or lead to social isolation. Sensory-friendly technology should support interaction with the outside world, not replace it.” inteview 10 min at end verion t…

Summary: Key insights from the interview

Understand AR not as a tool to remove social interaction, but as a supportive layer that reduces stress while still allowing real-world engagement.

From a psychiatric perspective, shopping environments were described as highly demanding sensory spaces, especially for autistic and sensitive individuals. Sensory overload results from the combination of bright lights, noise, crowds, visual clutter, and frequent transitions between environments, making shopping exhausting rather than neutral.

Dr. Kuhn emphasized that predictable, visually simple, and uncluttered interfaces—using moderate colors and gentle animations—can help reduce stress and improve concentration. This confirms that visual simplicity is a psychological necessity, not just an aesthetic choice.

She also confirmed that digital or AR-based try-ons can reduce sensory overload compared to physical fitting rooms by avoiding confined spaces, mirrors, and time pressure.

At the same time, the interview highlighted a critical limitation: for certain psychiatric conditions, reducing social interaction too much can reinforce avoidance behavior. Therefore, sensory-friendly technologies should support gradual participation, not eliminate communication entirely.

Overall, the interview strengthened the medical and ethical foundation of my thesis and directly informed the design principles of my AR prototype, reinforcing the idea that AR should support interaction with the outside world rather than replace it.

(In the development of this blogpost, AI (ChatGPT) was used as a supportive writing and structuring tool. I provided the conceptual content, research direction, theoretical preferences, and methodological decisions, while the AI assisted in translating it to English, refining the wording, organising the material and generating coherent academic formulations based on my input. The AI did not produce research or arguments but helped transform my ideas into a clear and well-structured text draft.)