Why Tenure and Gaming Experience Don't Predict VR Firefighter Training Performance
Authors/Institution
Authors: Lucas O. P. S. Gomes (corresponding), Pedro L. Oliveira, Péricles S. B. Mattos, Marcelo Sacks
Institutions: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), Petrobras Research Center (CENPES)
- Published in: TEM Journal
- Focus Area: VR Firefighter Training
An Introduction:
A peer-reviewed Brazilian study just dropped some surprising findings. Here’s what 96 industrial firefighters and 30 volunteer recruits taught us about who succeeds in VR training, and what it means for fire departments deciding whether to invest.
A new peer-reviewed study out of Brazil just landed in TEM Journal (May 2026), and it’s worth a real read for anyone evaluating VR for fire training. Researchers from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, the Federal Fluminense University, and the Petrobras Research Center put 126 firefighters through VR simulators and measured what actually predicts success.
The headline finding: years of experience as a firefighter and previous gaming experience both had almost no effect on VR training performance.
That single result challenges 2 of the most common objections we hear from chiefs evaluating VR.
"But my older guys won't get it"
This is the objection we hear most. The assumption that VR works better for the younger crew because they grew up gaming.
The study tested this directly. Participants self-reported their gaming experience from “very low” to “very high.” Researchers then correlated that against VR performance scores on 14 specific firefighting tasks.
Result: Pearson’s correlation = 0.16. R-squared = 0.026.
Translation: only 2.6% of the variation in performance scores could be explained by prior gaming experience. The other 97.4% came from somewhere else.
Older participants who said they weren’t gamers performed about the same as younger participants who lived on a console.
The researchers were honest about how surprising they found this. The common assumption is that familiarity with game mechanics gives gamers an advantage in VR locomotion, controllers, and navigation. The data didn’t back it up.
"Doesn't real experience translate to better VR results?"
The second test was years on the job. Same approach. Researchers correlated total years of firefighting experience (the range went from new recruits to people with 19+ years) against the same VR performance scores.
Result: Pearson’s correlation = 0.038. R-squared = 0.001.
Translation: tenure explained essentially nothing about who performed well in the VR scenarios. New recruits, mid-career, and veterans all spread across the performance distribution.
In their own words, the research team observed that “some participants with decades of experience underperformed in scenarios requiring quick decision-making, while others with relatively few years of experience demonstrated strong tactical skills and adaptability.”
This is the part that should make chiefs lean in. VR training rewards the people who can think clearly under pressure and adapt to new information. That’s exactly the skill set fire training is supposed to build.
“Some participants with decades of experience underperformed in scenarios requiring quick decision-making, while others with relatively few years of experience demonstrated strong tactical skills and adaptability.”
What actually predicts performance
The researchers point at two things.
Domain-specific knowledge. Not “have you been to a lot of fires.” Specific knowledge of fire dynamics, extinguishing agents, risk assessment, and proper procedure. The participants who knew their craft did well. The ones who didn’t, didn’t, regardless of seniority.
Cognitive flexibility and openness to the tool. Less-experienced firefighters who were open to learning often outperformed their more senior counterparts. The willingness to try the technology and adapt to it mattered more than years of practice in the old method.
The performance gap that actually counts
Group I (Petrobras) measured what people did inside VR. Group II asked the harder question: does VR training translate to better real-world performance?
The team split 30 incoming volunteer brigade recruits into 2 groups:
- Control group (15 people): classroom theory only
- Experimental group (15 people): same classroom theory plus a single 15-minute VR session
Both groups then went through the same live-fire training. At one point, each recruit was thrown a real fire (oil pan, paper fire, or electrical panel) and had to pick the right extinguisher under pressure.
The results:
- VR-trained group: 63.3% chose the correct extinguisher and put out the fire
- Classroom-only group: 36.6%
That’s a 27 percentage-point gap from a single 15-minute VR session.
The honest caveat: the sample size was too small (n=30) for the result to reach statistical significance (p=0.43). The researchers were upfront about that, and they’re right to flag it. But the effect size, even with the small sample, is large enough to justify the bigger studies they’re calling for.
This kind of finding doesn’t decide the debate on its own. It adds another data point pointing in the same direction as everything else in the recent VR training literature.
Why this matters:
Skepticism breaks down fast
One of my favourite findings in this study, and something we see at every conference and demo.
Before using the simulator, 95% of participants expected VR to have a “high” or “very high” positive impact on firefighter training programs.
After the session, the number answering “very high” jumped from 48 to 71 out of 96. The hands-on experience actively shifted opinion upward, even for the participants who came in already positive.
The researchers’ framing: “Part of the mistrust or skepticism regarding training in virtual reality can be broken after the practical use of the tool.”
We saw this play out in real-time at FDIC 2026 a few weeks ago. Most of the conversations weren’t about whether VR works anymore. They were about which simulation to pick and what’s coming next. This study quantifies what those conversations were already telling us.
A few more useful data points
A handful of other findings worth knowing for any department building out a VR program:
- 88 of 96 participants rated the realism of the VR scenarios as “high” or “very high”
- 92 of 96 rated the immersion level as “high” or “very high”
- 65 of 96 reported only “acceptable, low, or very low” fatigue after the session. 5% reported maximum fatigue. Short sessions (20 minutes in this study) handle that well.
- The 20-minute session length was a sweet spot. The lesson for departments: VR isn’t an all-day training format. Short, focused sessions, repeated often, beat one long session.
Hands-on VR experience changes opinions
88 of 96 participants rated VR realism "high" or "very high"
92 of 96 firefighters rated immersion level's "high" or "very high"
20-minute session length was the sweet spot
What this means for fire training right now
A few things we take from this study, both as a VR vendor and as someone watching the research base mature.
VR training is a great equalizer. If years on the job don’t predict who succeeds, VR meets people where they are. New recruits can build real decision-making skill without first putting in years on the job to earn the chance. Veterans can sharpen the same decision-making without their experience handing them an easy pass.
The “VR is for the younger crew” objection doesn’t hold up. This study found no meaningful age or gaming effect. Chiefs who’ve held off rolling out VR because they’re worried about adoption from senior firefighters can probably move forward. The participants here were mostly in the 32-52 age range, and they performed across the full spectrum.
Get the kit in front of people. The single biggest opinion shift in the study came from one session in a headset. If your department is on the fence, the cheapest way to find out if VR works for your crew is to run a demo, ideally with the full range of ages and roles in the same room.
A note on the platform
The study used the FLAIM Trainer and FLAIM Extinguisher simulators. Flaim builds tethered VR with strong physical feedback (heated vest, force-feedback hose, real nozzle), and it’s a serious tool for fire suppression training.
The findings here apply to VR fire training broadly, not just one platform. Domain skill matters more than tenure. Gaming history doesn’t matter much. Hands-on VR exposure shifts opinion. Short sessions work. None of that is brand-specific.
At XpertVR we play in a different part of the training stack. Standalone wireless headsets, multi-user crew scenarios, decision-making under pressure, team communication, search/rescue, RIT, and incident command. Different VR platforms fill different gaps in the training plan, and the departments we work with often end up running more than one tool over time. The research base is what helps all of us figure out which tool fits which use case.
Where the research still needs to go
The authors are honest about the limits, and they should be:
- Sample size for the live-fire arm was small (n=30)
- The live-fire test focused on a single drill (extinguisher selection)
- No cost-benefit analysis
- No long-term retention measurement
- The Petrobras sample was 94% male
All of that is open ground for the next round of research. If your department is thinking about a research partnership with a university or college, this is the moment for it.
The bigger conclusion the authors land on, and I agree with it: VR works best as a complement to live-fire training, used alongside the traditional methods rather than in place of them. The chiefs who treat it that way will get the most out of it.
Source credits:
Let's chat
If you’re evaluating VR for your department and you want to talk through what this study (and the broader research base) means for your specific training plan, book a 30-minute call. We’ll walk you through how XpertFire’s decision-making and crew communication scenarios fit alongside live-fire drills and other VR tools, and we’ll give you an honest read on what the research does and doesn’t tell us yet.
And if your team has been told “VR is great for the younger guys but not for us,” send a couple of your most skeptical senior firefighters to a demo. The study above predicts they’ll do just as well as anyone else. Our money’s on the same outcome.