Multisensory museum experience: an integrative view and future research directions

Figures & data

Figure 1. A Conceptual framework for understanding the phenomenon of multisensory museum experience advocate for its use in future systematic reviews.

Figure 2. Situational factors for visitor-exhibition interaction. Source: adapted from Falk and Dierking (2018).

Figure 3. Extant technologies and devices for multisensory representation in museums or relevant aesthetic sites, categorised by human sensation.

Table 1. Key findings of the multisensory museum experience and research gaps: an integrative framework

Areas	Key findings	Guidelines of the findings	Potential new research topics
Research Framework	Experience theories and environmental psychology have contributed to our understanding of visitor experiences.	Different theoretical traditions can interpret one particular museum experience. Researchers should consider the specific contexts and research objectives before choosing the proper interpretive theories.	How do we re-explain the multisensory museum experience through different theoretical traditions?
	Key factors of visitor-exhibition interaction vary from personal, physical, and sociocultural contexts.	Studies should account for factors influencing the visitor-exhibition interaction and the corresponding evaluative outcomes. The museum experience is subjective and context-specific, and the stimuli depend on personal, physical, and sociocultural contingencies.	How can specific museum atmospheres be crafted to trigger intended visitor experiences? Which factors are essential in influencing visitor-exhibition interaction and its consequences to visitors’ reactions? How do we employ the learned guidelines in exhibition design?
	There is a multidisciplinary state in researching the multisensory museum experience.	It is better to take a multidisciplinary approach to understand the complexity of the relationship between senses and individual experiences within internal and external environments. It embraces dynamism in visitor-exhibition interaction, refusing Cartesian dualism of separations between mind and body, subject and object, and nature and culture.	How does a multidisciplinary approach, drawing on insights from various disciplines, deepen our understanding of the impacts of different senses on visitor experiences?
Conceptualisation of the Multisensory Museum Experience	A multi-sensorial possibility of sensation is being extended.	Individual sensation comes from (1) exteroceptive senses, (2) interoceptive senses, and (3) other emerging senses.	What are the impacts of different sensory modalities? Is it possible to configure new terminology in describing the emerging sensory phenomenon (e.g., cross-modal associations, multisensory integration)?
	The senses serve three primary functions: experiencing artworks, accessing information, and perceiving phenomena.	Crafting multisensory exhibitions can be done through (1) creating artworks, (2) transforming sensory information, and (3) supporting contextualised lived experiences through the immersive environment.	What design strategy should we take in exhibition design, and in which specific situation or context?
	The multisensory experience journey consists of several touchpoints from interaction subject to stage to form.	Three specific phases are involved in the whole multisensory experience journey: (1) the pre-visit stage, (2) the visit stage, and (3) the post-visit stage. Two responsible subjects are for the interactive process: (1) the visitor and (2) the outside world. Three interaction forms that visits are engaged in an exhibition: (1) real, (2) virtual, and (3) on-life fashion.	Does the proposed model of the visitor-exhibition interaction with touchpoints and response qualities need to be adapted? How do we understand the connectivity among different touchpoints and response qualities? Which interaction touchpoints are better to prompt the response qualities?
	Six response qualities reflect the nature of the visitor-exhibition interaction process.	Response qualities include: (1) experience dimensionality, (2) duration, (3) attention, (4) sensory intensity, (5) emotion valence, and (6) engagement level. It is still unclear to what extent each quality is potentially (un)important for visitor-exhibition interaction.	To what extent does each quality create value and contribution to the visitor-exhibition process? In what way(s)? What qualities are important aspects influencing the interactive process? At which interaction touchpoints?
Technology In Museum Practices	Extended Reality (XR) has provided potential for museums to develop memorable and engaging encounters.	Extended reality includes virtual, augmented, and mixed reality based on the balance of virtual and real elements. The current XR technologies are still limited to triggering all sensations, mainly derived from applying the sense-motor system.	How can we maximise the use of multi-senses in exhibition design with the support of technology? To what extent do technologies change our sensory perceptions and evaluations?
	Technologies can be used in all stages of the multisensory experience journey, though main objectives differ from specific stages.	Technologies are mainly employed in the visit stage to enhance the visiting experiences like learning. In the pre-visit stage, there are three main application domains: archive, information promotion, and intention to visit. In the post-visit stage, memory enhancement and loyalty building are the primary purposes.	What specific expectations do the visitors seek across different visit stages?
	Children have emerged as a focal group of interest within the museum context.	A strategic utilisation of both sensory cues and technical embodiment of sensory representations is important in exhibition design tailored for children.	In comparison to adults, what exhibition design strategies should museums adopt for Children?

Falk, J. H., and L. D. Dierking. 2018. Learning from Museums. Washington: Rowman & Littlefield.

 Google Scholar