In this interview, Professor Oronzo Parlangeli discusses the opportunities and challenges of using Virtual Reality (VR), Extended Reality (XR), and Artificial Intelligence for industrial training. Drawing on the EMPAIRED project developed within the MASTER XR initiative, the conversation explores cognitive and physical ergonomics, the transfer of learning from virtual environments to real-world workplaces, the role of social interaction in training, and the design of effective immersive experiences. The interview concludes with a broader reflection on the relationship between humanity and technology, and an introduction to the ECCE 2026 conference in Siena.
Interviewer: Good morning, everyone. Today we are here with Professor Oronzo Parlangeli, Professor of Psychology at the Department of Social, Political and Cognitive Sciences at the University of Siena. Thank you very much for accepting our invitation.
Prof. Parlangeli: Thank you for having me.
Interviewer: To begin, could you tell us about your work and your main research interests?
Prof. Parlangeli: I am a cognitive psychologist, but I have always been interested in the social and ergonomic aspects of interacting with complex systems. Psychology is the foundation, but it naturally connects to our relationships with other human beings and to the way we understand those relationships, as well as our interactions with complex technological systems. That is really the central focus of what I do.
At the moment, within this broader framework, my interests have increasingly shifted toward social robotics and artificial intelligence.
Interviewer: Thank you very much. Today we are here to talk about the EMPAIRED project, which the University of Siena is coordinating together with two other partners: Moebeus and Deep Reality.
EMPAIRED is one of the winning projects from the Open Call 2 of MASTER XR, a European project that promotes the adoption of Extended Reality technologies in industrial training and manufacturing robotics.
More specifically, EMPAIRED brings together three main components. The first is the virtual reality component, developed during the first Open Call: a platform that makes it possible to monitor physical ergonomics and obtain real-time information about how a person is moving within the simulation.
This is complemented by the Algho virtual assistant platform: an embodied conversational agent that can interact with users while they are performing the simulation.
We will now show you a short demo video and then ask you a question about it.
Demo video
Interviewer: After watching the EMPAIRED demo and the scenario we are developing, we would like to ask what you think are the main opportunities—and possible limitations—of using VR or XR technologies for training in industrial contexts.
Prof. Parlangeli: The potential is obviously enormous. However, the challenge has always been the same since people first began talking about these technologies: how to adapt their capabilities to the specific needs and requirements of a particular situation. And that is never straightforward.
Simply placing someone in an immersive VR environment does not automatically guarantee the levels of engagement, realism, or learning outcomes we might expect—as if the person were actually in the real world. Many factors influence this. Recreating something that looks as similar as possible to the real-world environment does not necessarily produce the same results as the real-world experience. Ultimately, the answer is always: it depends on how the system is designed and implemented.
Interviewer: Absolutely, thank you. Staying on the topic of potential limitations: when a person is immersed in a virtual environment, there is always a risk that they lose awareness of their body and feel somewhat disoriented. We have seen many studies that try to assess these kinds of dynamics.
Of course, when discussing physical ergonomics this aspect is crucial, but from a cognitive perspective there is also the risk of overload. For instance, I imagine someone with little experience in VR who is trying to complete tasks while also remembering which controllers to use, how to move correctly, and so on.
So our question concerns the design of these activities: do you think enough attention is currently given to ergonomics—both physical and especially cognitive—when these environments are created, or is there a need for different tools and approaches?
Prof. Parlangeli: When attention is given to these aspects, I think it is sometimes done in the wrong way. Often the attempt is to reproduce the characteristics of the real world within a context that is not actually designed for that purpose.
For example, when I bend down, I experience certain sensations coming from receptors in my joints; if I lift a heavy object, I perceive other sensations from the sensors and receptors in my body that signal effort. What people often try to do in virtual environments is recreate these kinds of physical sensations: they add weight, simulate weight, and so on—as if the problem were simply to restore those physical sensations to the body.
Personally, I believe that cognitive ergonomics—and its interaction with physical ergonomics—should instead focus on more cognitive forms of representing the body and reproducing the sensations that physical ergonomics is based on.
For example, if the goal is to teach a procedure like the one in your project—moving a heavy object from a milling machine to a shelf—perhaps the solution is not to simulate the weight on the user’s arm. Instead, it might be more effective to ensure through other mechanisms that the movement performed is ergonomically correct. That correct movement could then be “rewarded” because it achieves the goal—perhaps by awarding points in a game-like system. Conversely, an incorrect movement from a physical standpoint could either be prevented altogether or simply not rewarded.
In other words, we should look for cognitive solutions to physical requirements, guiding behavior toward the correct path through constraints, interruptions, or rewards for correct actions. This might be more effective than trying to simulate reality by adding more and more stimuli—visual, tactile, auditory, and so on—to an already complex immersive environment.
Immersion does not always require a large number of additional stimuli. Sometimes immersion simply comes from focusing deeply on something. In many cases, the solution is cognitive rather than physical—even when the goal is to teach physical ergonomics.
Interviewer: So it is more about transforming the task than simply reproducing it exactly as it exists in the real world.
Prof. Parlangeli: Exactly. The goal is to create an experience that still has value once someone leaves the virtual environment, rather than trying to make the virtual world identical to the real one—which it never truly will be.
Interviewer: Another question we are asking ourselves is how to evaluate whether what people learn in VR actually transfers to their everyday work.
Prof. Parlangeli: Exactly. And in a way you are already taking a step in that direction by including a virtual assistant. You are introducing at least a minimal level of social interaction, which is extremely important in real workplaces.
In real work contexts, people learn from others: colleagues teach you, correct you, chat with you, or tell you about problems they encountered. There is also the influence of supervisors and role models. What happens on a construction site, for example, is not only about the correct procedure or safety rules—it is also about what everyone else does.
If nobody wears a safety harness, I will probably not be the only “fool” who puts it on. But if everyone wears it, I will not be the rebel who refuses to do so.
So the question becomes: how much of what we learn in an abstract environment—one that differs from the real operational setting—will actually transfer to reality? The truth is that we cannot know, because we do not know what the real context will look like. That context will introduce both facilitators and obstacles, many of which are social. You reproduce this dimension only to a limited extent in your simulation, and its final impact cannot really be predicted.
Unless you already know the exact operational context and try to reproduce all its social dynamics—but those are often impossible to simulate.
Interviewer: That is also because in our case the artificial intelligence acts as a form of support: the avatar is there to help you, whereas in real workplaces social interactions can often be distracting.
Prof. Parlangeli: Exactly—that is the issue. Interruptions often outweigh assistance; distractions can override the informational support.
The transition from “knowing something” to actually applying it in real life is very complex. I can have all the information in the world about the health risks of smoking or alcohol, and yet still smoke or drink depending on the context.
Practical knowledge does not follow a linear path. You cannot skip the step of real-world application.
Training based on doing—on practice—can bring us closer to reality, sometimes more and sometimes less, but the outcome can never be fully predicted in advance because it depends on too many external factors. Even if you perfectly simulated a context, changing just one colleague or a hierarchical relationship could completely alter the dynamics. In that sense, perfect simulation is something of a chimera.
Interviewer: For this reason, we are experimenting with inserting a sudden alarm into the simulation. Participants are not informed about it beforehand—we want to see how an unexpected event changes their behavior inside the virtual environment.
Prof. Parlangeli: That is actually a perfect example of a cognitive intervention applied to a physical task. You are dealing with a bodily ergonomic activity but managing it through cognition.
An alarm communicates that something is wrong—that the procedure is incorrect. And it does so not through a physical limitation, such as making an object too heavy to lift, but through a cognitive signal.
Interviewer: We will see from the results what effect that interruption has.
Prof. Parlangeli: I would add that another aspect often overlooked in immersive virtual reality is motivation.
There is a big difference between learning for its own sake and learning when your future job depends on it. Apprenticeships work precisely because of this: you are not only being tested for a few months, you are also learning, presenting yourself in a certain way, and trying to be evaluated positively.
This relationship between the person who puts you in a learning situation and the person who will later reward you with employment is often missing in experimental settings. And this is not your fault—you simply do not have that audience. Your participants are students who may take part for free or for a small compensation.
However, motivation plays a huge role in learning how to operate a machine such as a milling machine and in transferring those skills to real work situations.
Students already know they are participating in a “game” that will not necessarily have consequences in real life. This strongly affects learning outcomes, effectiveness, and above all the level of personal immersion in the experience.
Someone who truly needs to learn a skill for their job is likely to become deeply engaged. Someone who does not may approach the task more casually.
Interviewer: There is also the awareness of taking part in an experiment—something that exists in a setting separate from real life.
Prof. Parlangeli: Exactly. So if you were able to find mechanisms that support this kind of immersion—not physical immersion, but cognitive immersion—you could further increase the effectiveness and value of what you are doing.
Interviewer: Thank you very much for these extremely valuable insights.
One last question: would you like to tell us something about the ECCE conference that you are organizing in Siena? More generally, what themes will be addressed? And perhaps you could also tell us a bit about the European Association of Ergonomics.
Prof. Parlangeli: The theme of the conference is both concrete and metaphorical. At a time in history when the development of technologies and artifacts is advancing rapidly, the title of the event will be “Toward a peaceful alliance between human and technology.”
Given the historical context we are living in, the idea of a “peaceful alliance” adds something important. It is not only about technologies being fit for purpose; it also suggests a sense of communion, solidarity, and collaboration—doing things together toward a shared goal.
Today, perhaps especially thanks to the rise of artificial intelligence, technology can be seen as a true ally, a relational counterpart. It is no longer simply something that serves us, nor are we merely its operators. We need to start thinking about a more harmonious relationship between two poles whose boundaries are increasingly blurred: what counts as humanity and what counts as artificiality.
We are looking for a form of harmonized symbiosis. From this perspective, much research is already moving beyond the idea of technology as a mere tool and beyond the idea of humans as people who simply need to “learn how to use” it. Instead, the focus is on developing innovative and relational systems in a sustainable way.
Traditionally, usability focused on effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction. Now the perspective is broader: paradoxically, we might even want technology itself to be “satisfied” with how the interaction unfolds. It is another step forward—we are focusing on the harmony of the relationship and how it evolves over time.
This year’s conference will also include something new: a design marathon, a Hackathon, where participants can try to design something innovative. The theme will be broad: “thinking positively—the game for the development of humanity.” We hope to award the most promising project among those submitted.
For the rest, the conference will intentionally remain relatively small: around 150 scholars, so that discussions can remain close and interactive. This will allow participants to engage more directly with each other thanks to a careful selection of contributions.
The conference will take place from September 15 to 18, and we will have three excellent keynote speakers: Professor Marti; Harry Witchel, who works on the relationship between technology and mental health; and Agnieszka Wykowska from the Italian Institute of Technology in Genoa, one of the world’s leading experts in social robotics. It should be a very stimulating environment.
Interviewer: Thank you very much for organizing what sounds like a very exciting conference, and thank you for the time and generosity with which you answered our questions.
Prof. Parlangeli: Thank you, and best of luck with your work.
To stay informed, leave your contact details here.