The relationship between vection, cybersickness and head movements elicited by illusory motion in virtual reality

Pöhlmann, Katharina Margareta Theresa; Föcker, Julia; Dickinson, Patrick; Parke, Adrian; O’Hare, Louise

doi:10.1016/j.displa.2021.102111

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, based on the scalp topographies, we observed that regardless of the VRMS-resistant and -susceptible participant, their theta activities in the front midline (represented by Fz) were not enhanced during the whole procedure of VRMS induction. This is a good sign as it suggests that the differences in VRMS resistance were indeed attributed to parietal cortex regions rather than a volume conduction phenomenon produced by theta activities in other regions, for example, enhanced frontal cognitive processing also could reduce VRMS symptoms [11], and the theta activity in the front midline happens to be a wellestablished EEG-based indicator of cognitive processing [31].…”

Section: Correlates Of Fms Ratings and Eeg Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Particularly, Matthias et al for the first time found a direct association between increasing mismatch levels and subjective VRMS ratings [6], which provided partial supporting evidence for the proposed VRMS etiology. Thus, identifying VRMS-related neural responses using brain imaging techniques like electroencephalogram (EEG) [6]- [10] or functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) [11] is also an active research area in VRMS studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring Neural Biomarkers in Young Adults Resistant to VR Motion Sickness: A Pilot Study of EEG

Pöhlmann

McGill

et al. 2023

2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

VR (Virtual Reality) Motion Sickness (VRMS) refers to purely visually-induced motion sickness. Not everyone is susceptible to VRMS, but if experienced, nausea will often lead users to withdraw from the ongoing VR applications. VRMS represents a serious challenge in the field of VR ergonomics and human factors. Like other neuro-ergonomics researchers did before, this paper considers VRMS as a brain state problem as various etiologies of VRMS support the claim that VRMS is caused by disagreement between the vestibular and visual sensory inputs. However, what sets this work apart from the existing literature is that it explores anti-VRMS brain patterns via electroencephalogram (EEG) in VRMS-resistant individuals.Based on existing datasets of a previous study, we found enhanced theta activity in the left parietal cortex in VRMSresistant individuals (N=10) compared to VRMS-susceptible individuals (N=10). Even though the sample size per se is not large, this finding achieved medium effect size. This finding offers new hypotheses regarding how to reduce VRMS by the enhancement of brain functions per se (e.g., via non-invasive transcranial electrostimulation techniques) without the need to redesign the existing VR content.

show abstract

Section: Correlates Of Fms Ratings and Eeg Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Neural Biomarkers in Young Adults Resistant to VR Motion Sickness: A Pilot Study of EEG

Pöhlmann

McGill

et al. 2023

2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This, in turn, may result in physiological stress and subsequent distress and discomfort [134]. These symptoms are often referred to as "cybersickness" or "simulator sickness" [135][136][137].…”

Section: Multisensory Integration and The Unisensory Nature Of Virtua...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Health Implications of Virtual Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Transferability of Findings from Neuroarchitecture

Valentine

2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual architecture has been increasingly relied on to evaluate the health impacts of physical architecture. In this health research, exposure to virtual architecture has been used as a proxy for exposure to physical architecture. Despite the growing body of research on the health implications of physical architecture, there is a paucity of research examining the long-term health impacts of prolonged exposure to virtual architecture. In response, this paper considers: what can proxy studies, which use virtual architecture to assess the physiological response to physical architecture, tell us about the impact of extended exposure to virtual architecture on human health? The paper goes on to suggest that the applicability of these findings to virtual architecture may be limited by certain confounding variables when virtual architecture is experienced for a prolonged period of time. This paper explores the potential impact of two of these confounding variables: multisensory integration and gravitational perception. This paper advises that these confounding variables are unique to extended virtual architecture exposure and may not be captured by proxy studies that aim to capture the impact of physical architecture on human health through acute exposure to virtual architecture. While proxy studies may be suitable for measuring some aspects of the impact of both physical and virtual architecture on human health, this paper argues that they may be insufficient to fully capture the unintended consequences of extended exposure to virtual architecture on human health. Therefore, in the face of the increasing use of virtual architectural environments, the author calls for the establishment of a subfield of neuroarchitectural health research that empirically examines the physiological impacts of extended exposure to virtual architecture in its own right.

show abstract

“…To provide high-fidelity experiences, contemporary HMDs tend to offer a wide field-of-view; however, this may expose users to a greater amount of optic flow in the peripheral vision, which often causes stronger discomfort (Lin et al, 2002; Pöhlmann et al, 2021; Rebenitsch & Owen, 2016). The visual characteristics of the scene content (e.g., optic flow, rotation, content field-of-view, and motion illusion) may also significantly contribute to cybersickness (Chang et al, 2020; Dennison & D'Zmura, 2017; Pöhlmann et al, 2022; Teixeira & Palmisano, 2021; Tian et al, 2022). Among them, the issue of manipulating the content field-of-view presented in the HMDs has been receiving more attention lately (Chang et al, 2020; Palmisano et al, 2017; Tian et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have identified differences in the preexposure postural sway between individuals who later experienced cybersickness and those who did not (Arcioni et al, 2019; Curry et al, 2020; Munafo et al, 2017; Teixeira & Palmisano, 2021; Villard et al, 2008). Nevertheless, conflicting results have also been reported (Dennison & D'Zmura, 2017; Pöhlmann et al, 2022). It could be argued that these theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive; rather, each explains a portion of the problems associated with the multisensory integration processes for self-motion perception during VE exposure (Tian et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Navigation Controls and Field-of-View Modes Affect Cybersickness Severity and Spatiotemporal Gait Patterns After Exposure to Virtual Environments

Lin

Cheng

2023

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To examine the effects of navigation controls and field-of-view modes on cybersickness severity and gait dynamics after cessation of exposure to a virtual environment (VE). Background The applications of virtual reality are increasing in various fields; however, whether changes in interaction techniques and visual contents could mitigate the potential gait disturbance following VE exposure remains unclear. Method Thirty healthy adults wore a head-mounted display to complete six sessions of 12-min run-and-gun tasks using different navigation controls (gamepad, head, natural) and field-of-view modes (full, restricted). Forward and backward walking tasks were performed before and after VE exposure. The degrees of cybersickness and presence were evaluated using questionnaires, along with the in-session task performance. Spatiotemporal gait measures and their variabilities were calculated for each walking task. Results The participants experienced less cybersickness with the head and natural controls than with the gamepad. Natural control, based on matching body movements, was associated with the highest degree of presence and best performance. VE navigation using the gamepad showed reduced cadences and increased stride times during postexposure forward-walking tasks. When the VE was presented via the restricted field-of-view mode, increased gait variabilities were observed from backward-walking tasks after VE exposure. Conclusion Body movement-based navigation controls may alleviate cybersickness. We observed gait adaptation during both ambulation tasks, which was influenced by the navigation control method and field-of-view mode. Application This study provides the first evidence for gait adaptation during balance-demanding tasks after VE exposure, which is valuable for designing guidelines for virtual reality interactions.

show abstract

The relationship between vection, cybersickness and head movements elicited by illusory motion in virtual reality

Cited by 17 publications

References 101 publications

Exploring Neural Biomarkers in Young Adults Resistant to VR Motion Sickness: A Pilot Study of EEG

Exploring Neural Biomarkers in Young Adults Resistant to VR Motion Sickness: A Pilot Study of EEG

Health Implications of Virtual Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Transferability of Findings from Neuroarchitecture

Changes in Navigation Controls and Field-of-View Modes Affect Cybersickness Severity and Spatiotemporal Gait Patterns After Exposure to Virtual Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About