Virtual Materiality: From Digital to Physical

• Virtual materiality is the study of digital artifacts that acquire material-like properties through interactions with physical infrastructures and immersive technologies.
• This field integrates sociomateriality, actor–network theory, and empirical methods to analyze the dynamic interplay between user interactions and digital environments.
• Practical applications include haptic feedback in XR, physics-informed simulations, and energy-efficient semiconductor processing that underscore both technical and societal impacts.

Virtual materiality denotes the phenomenon whereby digital artifacts—virtual objects, environments, data representations, and mediated interactions—acquire qualities or affordances analogous to those of physical matter. This encompasses both the experiential agency of virtual elements in shaping user cognition and the infrastructural reality that all digital processes are sustained by, and manifest through, intricate assemblages of physical, chemical, and energetic matter. The field brings together theories of sociomateriality, actor–network frameworks, digital and synthetic knowing, technical system architectures, and empirical analyses from VR/XR, AR, and digital infrastructure research. Virtual materiality thus encompasses both the intra-active entanglement of virtual items with user agency and the material substratum beneath seemingly intangible digital phenomena.

1. Theoretical Foundations of Virtual Materiality

The concept of virtual materiality is methodologically grounded in sociomateriality (Orlikowski, Barad) and actor–network theory (Latour) (Arya et al., 22 Apr 2025). Sociomateriality posits that entities—whether human or non-human—emerge through their intra-actions rather than possessing inherent, static properties. Barad's agential realism introduces "intra-action" as a process in which agency is distributed and entities are mutually constituted. Actor–network theory extends this perspective by positioning human and non-human actants as elements in dynamic networks whose effects cannot be decomposed into individual intentions or technical affordances.

In digital contexts, Monteiro and Parmiggiani define digital materiality as constituted by digital artifacts that are characterized by liquefaction (the capacity of digital representations to detach and recombine independently of physical referents) and open-endedness (their generativity and configurability) (Monteiro et al., 2019). Synthetic knowing emerges where digital artifacts (algorithms, sensor streams, models) cease to supplement reality and instead co-constitute experience and action by virtue of their materialized presence.

2. Mechanisms and Metrics in Virtual Environments

Virtual materiality in immersive environments is realized when virtual objects function as active agents—prompting, reframing, or modifying user experience independently of user intent (Arya et al., 22 Apr 2025). Arya et al. formalize virtual materiality as follows: let $O = \{o_1, o_2, \dots, o_n\}$ denote the set of virtual objects, $P = \{p_1, p_2, \dots, p_k\}$ their material properties (shape, color, lighting, texture, arrangement), and $I = \{i_1, i_2, \dots, i_m\}$ the set of possible user interactions (teleportation, gaze, selection). Then virtual materiality arises as $VM \coloneqq f(O, P, I) \to E$, where $E$ is the set of experiential influences (e.g., memory triggers, metaphorical associations, emotional responses).

Empirically, virtual materiality is traceable through the deployment of reflective interventions, such as "clean-question" coaching within VR. Methods center on transcript coding at the reflective stage (Problem, Outcome, Resource, Change, Action, Comment, Wobble) and environmental influence (Association, Memory, Emotion, Metaphor, Ethical, Social, Embodied). Recurrence and co-occurrence of these codes across iterative reflective cycles serve as principal metrics for the agency of virtual objects and environmental parameters.

3. Materiality of Digital Infrastructure

Virtual materiality fundamentally implicates the chemical, metallurgical, and energetic substrate underlying all digital activity. In the context of semiconductor manufacturing, the so-called "virtual" is materialized through ultra-high-purity requirements that govern the extraction, refinement, and integration of over 85% of non-radioactive periodic table elements (Roussilhe et al., 23 Sep 2025). Key quantitative thresholds include:

• Purity levels for semiconductor materials, expressed as "nN" notation (e.g., 5N = 99.999%, 11N ≈ 99.999999999%)
• Impurity concentrations at ppb or ppt scales,

$$p_{\mathrm{ppb}} = \frac{m_{\mathrm{impurity}}}{m_{\mathrm{total}}} \times 10^9, \quad p_{\mathrm{ppt}} = \frac{m_{\mathrm{impurity}}}{m_{\mathrm{total}}} \times 10^{12}$$

• Energy and resource metrics: Czochralski wafer growth dominates energy (several MWh/wafer); global polysilicon production is heavily concentrated

Table 1. Upstream Purity and Virtuality in Semiconductors

Material	Purity Achieved	Major Upstream Actor(s)
Si	9N - 11N	GCL-Poly, Shin-Etsu
Al	≥5N	Hydro, Umicore
Au	4N - 5N	Bullion/electrolytic
Ne	6N - 9N	Linde, ASU-linked firms

This substratum underscores that all "cloud," AI, and XR applications are predicated on the extraction, purification, and integration of such material flows.

4. Algorithmic, Phenomenological, and Political Dimensions

Monteiro and Parmiggiani (Monteiro et al., 2019) decompose virtual materiality into four synthetic knowing concepts, which highlight its epistemic, experiential, and political valences:

1. Algorithmic phenomena: Objects of knowing become algorithmically generated entities (e.g., ocean biomass indices) whose materiality is validated through their operational effects rather than physical existence.
2. Sensorial streams: IoT sensors instantiate continuous, phenomenologically compelling representations (e.g., seabed cameras, real-time data widgets).
3. Scoped constructions: All digital artifacts are materially bounded by sensor configuration and algorithmic visibility; what is made visible is always a materially constrained construction.
4. Political open-endedness: Digital artifacts, especially when opened as data, become loci of contestation and legitimacy, enabling conflicting narratives and political mobilization on the basis of the same digital substrate.

Virtual materiality is thus neither a neutral nor a purely technical phenomenon; it shapes and is shaped by institutional, political, and social settings.

5. Computational Methods for Materiality in XR/AR Systems

Material-aware interaction in XR and AR systems is realized through deep semantic mapping, physics-informed parameterization, and dynamic control mechanisms (Chen et al., 2017, Hu et al., 2024, Signer et al., 2017). Implementations combine camera tracking, dense volumetric reconstruction (e.g., KinectFusion, TSDF), per-pixel or per-voxel material segmentation using deep neural models (FCNs), and semantic fusion into 3D environments. Material class labels are mapped to physics parameters—friction ($\mu$), restitution ($e$)—for real-time simulation, physically plausible trajectory, and environmental response.

Tables of physical parameters:

Class	Friction $\mu$	Restitution $e$
Wood	0.45	0.30
Glass	0.20	0.10
Fabric	0.80	0.40
Metal	0.30	0.60
Concrete	0.60	0.25

In Thing2Reality, arbitrary 2D content is transformed into 3D Gaussian objects through conditioned multiview synthesis and neural optimization, enabling shared spatial referencing and object manipulation (Hu et al., 2024). Mobile haptic augmentation platforms such as Tangible Holograms use body-mounted robotic arms and actuated spheres to render shape, texture, and temperature feedback congruent with registered virtual objects, closing the loop between visual digital content and physical sensation (Signer et al., 2017).

6. Empirical Evidence and User Impacts

User studies consistently demonstrate that the emergence of virtual materiality traverses subjective perception, collaborative dynamics, and cognitive reframing. Arya et al. found that metaphorical associations triggered by virtual environments catalyze explicit shifts in perspective and decision-making during reflective interventions (Arya et al., 22 Apr 2025). In Thing2Reality, participants reported greater control, flexibility, and efficiency when interacting with 3D Gaussian objects versus 2D snapshots, with the majority preferring 3D artifacts for both explanation and comprehension in collaborative XR tasks (Hu et al., 2024).

Informal and planned user evaluations in Tangible Holograms indicate enhanced sense of embodiment, task throughput, and presence when virtual objects exhibit congruence between visual and haptic cues (Signer et al., 2017). In the domain of IoT and marine environmental monitoring, algorithmic phenomena and open data portals have real political and operational consequences, as demonstrated by stakeholders' reliance on digital artifacts to draw or contest environmental boundaries (Monteiro et al., 2019).

7. Further Directions and Open Questions

Current research identifies several directions for advancing the study and application of virtual materiality:

• Quantitative modeling of VM as a function $P = \{p_1, p_2, \dots, p_k\}$0 and correlation with psychometric or behavioral scales (Arya et al., 22 Apr 2025)
• Expansion to urban, abstract, and multi-agent VEs; richer interaction modalities (object manipulation, collaborative embodiment)
• Comparative studies contrasting the effects of virtual versus physical materiality on cognition, behavior, and learning outcomes
• Systematization and inclusion of high-purity material flows and energy budgets in digital LCA frameworks to properly account for the "materialization" of virtual processes (Roussilhe et al., 23 Sep 2025)
• Technical advances in haptic rendering, tactile material patterning, and dynamic feedback congruent with virtual objects (Chen et al., 2017, Signer et al., 2017)

A plausible implication is that as XR, IoT, and AI systems proliferate, the concept of virtual materiality will become central to design, evaluation, and policy—forcing reconsideration of the boundaries between virtual agency, physical infrastructure, usability, and environmental accountability.