The Effect of a Foveated Field-of-view Restrictor on VR Sickness

Adhanom, Isayas Berhe; Griffin, Nathan Navarro; MacNeilage, Paul R.; Folmer, Eelke

doi:10.1109/vr46266.2020.00087

Cited by 24 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, larger FOVs are also related or often cause a stronger sensation of VR sickness (e.g. Adhanom et al 2020;Fernandes and Feiner 2016;Al Zayer et al 2019). AVGPs in this study, however, experienced less discomfort compared to NVGPs, which would in turn contradict the notion of AVGPs obtaining larger FOV due to excessive video game play.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 62%

Action Video Game Players Do Not Differ in the Perception of Contrast-Based Motion Illusions but Experience More Vection and Less Discomfort in a Virtual Environment Compared to Non-Action Video Game Players

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Action video game players (AVGPs) show enhanced visual perceptual functions compared to their non-video game playing peers (NVGPs). Whether AVGPs are more susceptible towards static contrast motion illusions, such as Fraser Wilcox illusions, has not been addressed so far. Based on their improved perceptual skills, AVGPs are expected to be more susceptible to the illusions and perceive more motion in them. The experience of illusory self-motion (vection) is believed to be dependent on top-down attentional processes; AVGPs should therefore experience stronger vection compared to NVGPs based on their improved attentional skills. Lastly, due to their extensive prior experience with virtual environments, AVGPs should experience less discomfort in VR compared to NVGPs. We presented rotating and expanding motion illusions in a virtual environment and asked 22 AVGPs and 21 NVGPs to indicate the strength of illusory motion, as well as the level of discomfort and vection experienced when exposed to these motion illusions. Results indicated that AVGPs and NVGPs perceived the same amount of motion when viewing these illusions. However, AVGPs perceived more vection and less discomfort compared to NVGPs, possibly due to factors such as enhanced top-down attentional control and adaptation. No differences in the perception of expanding and rotating illusions were found. Discomfort experienced by AVGPs was related to illusion strength, suggesting that contrast illusions might evoke the perceived discomfort rather than the virtual environment. Further studies are required to investigate the relationship between contrast sensitivity, migraine and the perception of illusion in AVGPs which should include illusory motion onset and duration measures.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 62%

Action Video Game Players Do Not Differ in the Perception of Contrast-Based Motion Illusions but Experience More Vection and Less Discomfort in a Virtual Environment Compared to Non-Action Video Game Players

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In larger virtual environments this form of 1 locomotion is not possible anymore due to limited available positional tracking space. Here, users can navigate through the environment either using the controllers to teleport from one 3 point to another or by moving the entire visual scene around the observer using optic flow 4 cues (Adhanom et al, 2020). Teleportation invokes less VR sickness but can lead to spatial disorientation (Bhandari, MacNeilage and Folmer, 2018) and a loss of presence (Bowman, 6…”

Section: Implications 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using optic flow stimuli to simulate navigation through a large virtual environment rather 17 than other methods, such as teleportation, enhances vection and presence and reduces 18 disorientation, but can also cause VR sickness (Adhanom et al, 2020; Bhandari, MacNeilage 19 and Folmer, 2018). To reduce the VR sickness caused by optic flow the FOV is often 20 narrowed, which also reduces the observer's sense of vection (Duh et al, 2001) and presence 21 (Cummings and Bailenson, 2016;Fernandes and Feiner, 2016;Youngblut, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Motion Direction and Eccentricity on Vection, VR Sickness and Head Movements in Virtual Reality

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual Reality (VR) experienced through head-mounted displays often leads to vection, discomfort and sway in the user. This study investigated the effect of motion direction and eccentricity on these three phenomena using optic flow patterns displayed using the Valve Index. Visual motion stimuli were presented in the centre, periphery or far periphery and moved either in depth (back and forth) or laterally (left and right). Overall vection was stronger for motion in depth compared to lateral motion. Additionally, eccentricity primarily affected stimuli moving in depth with stronger vection for more peripherally presented motion patterns compared to more central ones. Motion direction affected the various aspects of VR sickness differently and modulated the effect of eccentricity on VR sickness. For stimuli moving in depth far peripheral presentation caused more discomfort, whereas for lateral motion the central stimuli caused more discomfort. Stimuli moving in depth led to more head movements in the anterior–posterior direction when the entire visual field was stimulated. Observers demonstrated more head movements in the anterior–posterior direction compared to the medio-lateral direction throughout the entire experiment independent of motion direction or eccentricity of the presented moving stimulus. Head movements were elicited on the same plane as the moving stimulus only for stimuli moving in depth covering the entire visual field. A correlation showed a positive relationship between dizziness and vection duration and between general discomfort and sway. Identifying where in the visual field motion presented to an individual causes the least amount of VR sickness without losing vection and presence can guide development for Virtual Reality games, training and treatment programmes.

show abstract

“…Hence, it gradually reduces the users FoV by applying mostly a black color or some blur effects in the peripheral vision [12,24]. Several vignetting models have been designed, either using a constant restriction [22], based on controller-based inputs [15,50], head movements [38] or ocular activity [1].…”

Section: Field Of View and Vignetting In Vrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Dynamic Field of View Restrictions on Rotation Gain Perception in Virtual Environments

Brument

Marchal

Olivier

et al. 2020

Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perception of rotation gain, defined as a modification of the virtual rotation with respect to the real rotation, has been widely studied to determine detection thresholds and widely applied to redirected navigation techniques. In contrast, Field of View (FoV) restrictions have been explored in virtual reality as a mitigation strategy for motion sickness, although they can alter user's perception and navigation performance in virtual environments. This paper explores whether the use of dynamic FoV manipulations, referred also as vignetting, could alter the perception of rotation gains during virtual rotations in virtual environments (VEs). We conducted a study to estimate and compare perceptual thresholds of rotation gains while varying the vignetting type (no vignetting, horizontal and global vignetting) and the vignetting effect (luminance or blur). 24 Participants performed 60 or 90 degrees virtual rotations in a virtual forest, with different rotation gains applied. Participants have to choose whether or not the virtual rotation was greater than the physical one. Results showed that the point of subjective equality was different across the vignetting types, but not across the vignetting effect or the turns. Subjective questionnaires indicated that vignetting seems less comfortable than the baseline condition to perform the task. We discuss the applications of such results to improve the design of vignetting for redirection techniques.

show abstract

The Effect of a Foveated Field-of-view Restrictor on VR Sickness

Cited by 24 publications

References 35 publications

Action Video Game Players Do Not Differ in the Perception of Contrast-Based Motion Illusions but Experience More Vection and Less Discomfort in a Virtual Environment Compared to Non-Action Video Game Players

Action Video Game Players Do Not Differ in the Perception of Contrast-Based Motion Illusions but Experience More Vection and Less Discomfort in a Virtual Environment Compared to Non-Action Video Game Players

The Effect of Motion Direction and Eccentricity on Vection, VR Sickness and Head Movements in Virtual Reality

Influence of Dynamic Field of View Restrictions on Rotation Gain Perception in Virtual Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About