Keywords
aging-in-place
context-aware infrastructure
gerontechnology
person-centered support
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article, as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
How to Cite
Abstract
Population aging is increasing the need for support models that preserve autonomy, functional independence, emotional well-being, and participation in everyday environments. Although extended reality technologies are increasingly discussed in health, rehabilitation, and gerontechnology, mixed reality is often framed mainly as an immersive tool or as a technical variation within the extended reality continuum. This perspective may overlook its broader conceptual value for aging-in-place, where digital support must remain connected to physical spaces, daily routines, social relationships, and changing functional needs. This article develops a conceptual perspective rather than an empirical evidence synthesis. Drawing on interdisciplinary contributions from digital health, gerontechnology, human-computer interaction, implementation science, and ethical innovation, it examines mixed reality as a context-aware infrastructure for aging-in-place. The analysis highlights five conceptual attributes that distinguish mixed reality from other immersive modalities: embodied interaction, environmental continuity, situated cognition, perceptual anchoring, and bidirectional interaction between digital and physical environments. These attributes suggest that mixed reality should not be viewed only as a medium for delivering isolated interventions, but as a potential infrastructure for integrating cognitive, motor, emotional, and relational support within everyday life. The article further argues that its relevance may increase when combined with artificial intelligence, ambient assisted living technologies, and adaptive digital health systems. However, its implementation raises important ethical, clinical, and social challenges, including accessibility gaps, digital exclusion, privacy risks, technological dependence, usability barriers, and unequal adoption across care contexts. Mixed reality should therefore be approached not merely as an emerging immersive technology, but as a conceptual pathway for designing more adaptive, situated, and person-centered support systems for aging-in-place. Its future contribution will depend on responsible design, inclusive implementation, and frameworks that prioritize clinical meaning, human dignity, and equitable access.
References
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
Beard, J. R., Officer, A., de Carvalho, I. A., Sadana, R., Pot, A. M., Michel, J. P., Lloyd-Sherlock, P., Epping-Jordan, J. E., Peeters, G. M. E. E., Mahanani, W. R., Thiyagarajan, J. A., & Chatterji, S. (2016). The World report on ageing and health: A policy framework for healthy ageing. The Lancet, 387(10033), 2145–2154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00516-4
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–480. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270
Cabric, F., Dubois, E., & Serrano, M. (2021). A predictive performance model for immersive interactions in mixed reality. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) (pp. 202–210). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR52148.2021.00035
Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement. Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333
Czaja, S. J., & Lee, C. C. (2007). The impact of aging on access to technology. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5, 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0060-x
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4, 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28, 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
McCormack, B., & McCance, T. (2017). Person-centred practice in nursing and health care: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), 1321–1329.
Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4
Peek, S. T. M., Wouters, E. J. M., van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K. G., Boeije, H. R., & Vrijhoef, H. J. M. (2014). Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(4), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004
Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. MIT Press.
Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sixsmith, A., & Sixsmith, J. (2008). Ageing in place in the United Kingdom. Ageing International, 32, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-008-9019-y
Skarbez, R., Smith, M., & Whitton, M. C. (2021). Revisiting Milgram and Kishino’s reality-virtuality continuum. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, 647997. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.647997
Speicher, M., Hall, B. D., & Nebeling, M. (2019). What is mixed reality? Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300767
Šlosar, L., Voelcker-Rehage, C., Paravlić, A. H., Abazovic, E., de Bruin, E. D., & Marusic, U. (2022). Combining physical and virtual worlds for motor-cognitive training interventions: Position paper with guidelines on technology classification in movement-related research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1009052. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1009052
Topol, E. (2019). Deep medicine: How artificial intelligence can make healthcare human again. Basic Books.
Wang, C.-Y., & Lin, F.-S. (2024). AI-driven privacy in elderly care: Developing a comprehensive solution for camera-based monitoring of older adults. Applied Sciences, 14(10), 4150. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14104150
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
World Health Organization. (2015). World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization.
Mohr, D. C., Weingardt, K. R., Reddy, M., & Schueller, S. M. (2017). Three problems with current digital mental health research... and three things we can do about them. Psychiatric Services, 68(5), 427–429. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201600541
Nahum-Shani, I., Smith, S. N., Spring, B. J., Collins, L. M., Witkiewitz, K., Tewari, A., & Murphy, S. A. (2018). Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: Key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52(6), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9830-8
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
World Health Organization. (2021). Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health. World Health Organization.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Pablo Buele, Joan Álvarez, Leslie Sánchez (Author)