Presence and Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Are Negatively Related: A Review

Abstract

In order to take advantage of the potential offered by the medium of virtual reality (VR), it will be essential to develop an understanding of how to maximize the desirable experience of “presence” in a virtual space (“being there”), and how to minimize the undesirable feeling of “cybersickness” (a constellation of discomfort symptoms experienced in VR). Although there have been frequent reports of a possible link between the observer’s sense of presence and the experience of bodily discomfort in VR, the amount of literature that discusses the nature of the relationship is limited. Recent research has underlined the possibility that these variables have shared causes, and that both factors may be manipulated with a single approach. This review paper summarizes the concepts of presence and cybersickness and highlights the strengths and gaps in our understanding about their relationship. We review studies that have measured the association between presence and cybersickness, and conclude that the balance of evidence favors a negative relationship between the two factors which is driven principally by sensory integration processes. We also discuss how system immersiveness might play a role in modulating both presence and cybersickness. However, we identify a serious absence of high-powered studies that aim to reveal the nature of this relationship. Based on this evidence we propose recommendations for future studies investigating presence, cybersickness, and other related factors.

Gamified, Automated Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy for Fear of Spiders: A Single-Subject Trial Under Simulated Real-World Conditions

“…The lack of association between fear reaction and in-session habituation is consistent with the extant literature on the mechanisms of exposure therapy in general, which suggest that factors such as inhibitory learning processes (not measured in the current study) are a stronger predictor of treatment outcomes than simple emotional evocation and processing (2,41). Although the extant VR literature (not limited to VRET) is somewhat inconsistent, the balance of evidence suggests a negative association between cybersickness and sense of presence (42). Congruently, neither of these measures were associated with treatment outcomes in the current study.…”

Reduction of cybersickness during and immediately following noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation

“…In a similar manner, it is conceivable that noisy GVS reduced cybersickness by 391 increasing the level of presence experienced by participants in the VR environment. Presence 392 and CS share an inverse correlation, whereby high presence seems to impart a protective effect 393 on VR users (Weech et al, 2019). This explanation of our results would also be consistent with 394 empirical evidence showing that vection is facilitated by noisy GVS (Weech & Troje, 2017 here might be attributable to changes in velocity storage following galvanic stimulation.…”

Narrative and Gaming Experience Interact to Affect Presence and Cybersickness in Virtual Reality

“…While some groups have reported that the sense of presence in VR can increase cybersickness (e.g., Lin et al, 2002;Ling et al, 2013;Liu & Uang, 2011), we recently argued (Weech et al, 2019) that the balance of evidence suggests an inverse relationship between presence and cybersickness (e.g., Busscher et al, 2011;Cooper et al, 2016;Kim et al, 2005;Knight & Arns, 2006;Milleville-Pennel & Charron, 2014;Witmer & Singer, 1998). Several groups have claimed that this association results from a disruptive effect of cybersickness symptoms on presence, such that nausea and discomfort reorient attention away from a simulated environment (Bahit et al, 2016;Cobb et al, 1999;Nichols et al, 2000;Stróżak et al, 2018;Wilson et al, 1997;Witmer & Singer, 1998).…”