Pedalling through Pixels: Decoding the methodological framework of virtual reality cycling research

• VR studies capture cyclist behavior, opinions, and perceptions. • Lack of behavioral validation raises concerns about applicability. • Methodological inconsistencies in VR research can yield conflicting results. • Simulator sickness tied to methodology may affect outcomes. • Common beliefs in VR research lack sufficient supporting evidence. As cycling continues to grow in popularity and importance, virtual reality (VR) presents an opportunity to conduct safe and efficient studies on cyclist behaviours, opinions, and perceptions. The goal of this review is to develop an improved understanding of the methodological framework for conducting cycling simulator research. To do this, 50 VR cycling studies from 2020 to 2024 were reviewed, examining their study design and methodological considerations, technological setup and apparatuses, and data collection and evaluation techniques. From this analysis, it was found that there are many inconsistencies in the design and execution of VR cycling studies, including number of trials (range from 1 to 54), time in VR, participant sample sizes (range from 1 to 208), processes for calibration and validation, and data collection and evaluation techniques. The current lack of consistency within the field of VR cycling research presents a significant challenge, since changes in the methodological framework can influence the results and insights obtained. Even in recent years, conflicting results have been reported in the literature, and either no supporting evidence or conflicting evidence was found in this review for some commonly held beliefs about VR cycling research. In the future, studies are needed to investigate how the identified inconsistencies affect study results to move towards a more rigorous methodological framework for cycling simulator research.