The role of binocular disparity and active motion parallax in cybersickness

Abstract

Cybersickness is an enduring problem for users of virtual environments. While it is generally assumed that cybersickness is caused by discrepancies in perceived self-motion between the visual and vestibular systems, little is known about the relative contribution of active motion parallax and binocular disparity to the occurrence of cybersickness. We investigated the role of these two depth cues in cybersickness by simulating a roller-coaster ride using a head-mounted display. Participants could see the tracks via a virtual frame placed at the front of the roller-coaster cart. We manipulated the state of the frame, so it behaved like: (1) a window into the virtual scene, (2) a 2D screen, (3) and (4) a window for one of the two depth cues, and a 2D screen for the other. Participants completed the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire before and after the experiment, and verbally reported their level of discomfort at repeated intervals during the ride. Additionally, participants’ electrodermal activity (EDA) was recorded. The results of the questionnaire and the continuous ratings revealed the largest increase in cybersickness when the frame behaved like a window, and least increase when the frame behaved like a 2D screen. Cybersickness scores were at an intermediate level for the conditions where the frame simulated only one depth cue. This suggests that neither active motion parallax nor binocular disparity had a more prominent effect on the severity of cybersickness. The EDA responses increased at about the same rate in all conditions, suggesting that EDA is not necessarily coupled with subjectively experienced cybersickness.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Availability of data and material

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The virtual “Alberti Frame” makes reference to Leon Battista Alberti, the Italian Renaissance architect, artist, and mathematician who, in the 15th century, worked out the geometry of central projection. One of his techniques involved systematically copying the optic array seen from a fixed viewpoint through an empty frame onto the canvas spanned by a second frame.

References

  1. Bachmann J, Zabicki A, Gradl S, Kurz J, Munzert J, Troje NF, Krueger B (2021) Does co-presence affect the way we perceive and respond to emotional interactions? Exp Brain Res 239(3):923–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823

  3. Boustila S, Bechmann D, Capobianco A (2017) Effects of adding visual cues on distance estimation, presence and simulator sickness during virtual visits using wall screen. In: Proceedings of the computer graphics international conference, pp 1–6

  4. Chen JY, Thropp JE (2007) Review of low frame rate effects on human performance. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A: Syst Hum 37(6):1063–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis S, Nesbitt K, Nalivaiko K (2015) Comparing the onset of cybersickness using the oculus rift and two virtual roller coasters. In: Proceedings of the 11th Australasian conference on interactive entertainment (IE 2015), pp 3–14

  6. Dennison MS, Wisti AZ, Zmura MD (2016) Use of physiological signals to predict cybersickness. Displays 44:42–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dodgson NA (2004) Variation and extrema of human interpupillary distance. In: Stereoscopic displays and virtual reality systems XI, vol 5291, pp 36–46

  8. Duh H-L, Lin J, Kenyon RV, Parker DE, Furness TA (2001) Effects of field of view on balance in an immersive environment. In: Proceedings IEEE virtual reality, pp 235–240

  9. Eftekharifar S, Thaler A, Troje NF (2019) Contribution of motion parallax and stereopsis to the sense of presence in virtual reality. J Percept Imaging 3(2):020502-1–020502-10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Emoto M, Nojiri Y, Okano F (2004) Changes in fusional vergence limit and its hysteresis after viewing stereoscopic TV. Displays 25(2–3):67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Era P, Heikkinen E (1985) Postural sway during standing and unexpected disturbance of balance in random samples of men of different ages. J Gerontol 40(3):287–295

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Harvey C, Howarth PA (2007) The effect of display size on visually-induced motion sickness (vims) and skin temperature. In: Proceedings of the 1st int symp on visually induced motion sickness, fatigue, and photosensitive epileptic seizures, pp 96–103

  13. Howarth P, Finch M (1999) The nauseogenicity of two methods of navigating within a virtual environment. Appl Ergon 30(1):39–45

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu S, Grant WF, Stern RM, Koch KL (1991) Motion sickness severity and physiological correlates during repeated exposures to a rotating optokinetic drum. Aviat Space Environ Med 62(4):308–314

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ijsselsteijn W, Ridder HD, Freeman J, Avons SE, Bouwhuis D (2001) Effects of stereoscopic presentation, image motion, and screen size on subjective and objective corroborative measures of presence. Presence Teleoperat Virtual Environ 10(3):298–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jones MB, Kennedy RS, Stanney KM (2004) Toward systematic control of cybersickness. Presence Teleoperat Virtual Environ 13(5):589–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kavanagh S, Luxton-Reilly A, Wuensche B, Plimmer B (2017) A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes Sci Technol Educ 10(2):85–119

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG (1993) Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 3(3):203–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Keshavarz B, Hecht H (2011) Validating an efficient method to quantify motion sickness. Hum Factors 53(4):415–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Keshavarz B, Hecht H (2012) Stereoscopic viewing enhances visually induced motion sickness but sound does not. Presence Teleoperat Virtual Environ 21(2):213–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Keshavarz B, Hecht H, Zschutschke L (2011) Intra-visual conflict in visually induced motion sickness. Displays 32(4):181–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Keshavarz B, Riecke BE, Hettinger LJ, Campos JL (2015) Vection and visually induced motion sickness: how are they related? Front Psychol 6:472

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim YY, Kim HJ, Kim EN, Ko HD, Kim HT (2005) Characteristic changes in the physiological components of cybersickness. Psychophysiology 42(5):616–625

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Koenderink J, van Doorn A (2008) The structure of visual spaces. J Math Imaging Vis 31(2–3):171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Koenderink J, van Doorn A (2012) Gauge fields in pictorial space. SIAM J Imaging Sci 5(4):1213–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lambooij M, Ijsselsteijn W, Bouwhuis DG, Heynderickx I (2011) Evaluation of stereoscopic images: beyond 2d quality. IEEE Trans Broadcast 57(2):432–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. LaViola JJ Jr (2000) A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM Sigchi Bull 32(1):47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ling Y, Nefs HT, Brinkman W-P, Qu C, Heynderickx W-P (2013) The relationship between individual characteristics and experienced presence. Comp Hum Behav 29(4):1519–1530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin J-W, Duh HB-L, Parker DE, Abi-Rached H, Furness TA (2002) Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. In: Proceedings IEEE virtual reality, pp 164–171

  30. Lombard M, Ditton T (1997) At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J Comp Mediat Commun 3(2):JCM321

    Google Scholar 

  31. Merians AS, Jack D, Boian R, Tremaine M, Burdea GC, Adamovich SV, Recce M, Poizner H (2002) Virtual reality-augmented rehabilitation for patients following stroke. Phys Ther 82(9):898–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Naqvi SAA, Badruddin N, Malik AS, Hazabbah W, Abdullah B (2013) Does 3D produce more symptoms of visually induced motion sickness? Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2013:6405–6408. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2013.6611020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nichols S, Haldane C, Wilson JR (2000) Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments. Int J Hum Comp Stud 52(3):471–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Reason JT (1978) Motion sickness adaptation: a neural mismatch model. J R Soc Med 71(11):819–829

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Reason JT, Brand JJ (1975) Motion sickness. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rebenitsch L, Owen C (2016) Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Real 20(2):101–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rose FD (1996) Virtual reality in rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury. In: Proceedings of the Euro Conf on Disability, Virtual Reality and Assoc Tech, pp 5–12

  38. Seay AF, Krum DM, Hodges L, Ribarsky W (2002) Simulator sickness and presence in a high field-of-view virtual environment. In: CHI’02 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 784–785

  39. Slater M (2009) Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 364(1535):3549–3557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Slater M, Usoh M, Steed A (1995) Taking steps: the influence of a walking technique on presence in virtual reality. ACM Trans Comp Hum Interact (TOCHI) 2(3):201–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Treisman M (1977) Motion sickness: an evolutionary hypothesis. Science 197(4302):493–495

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Troje NF (2019) Reality check. Perception 48(11):1033–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Weech S, Kenny S, Barnett-Cowan M (2019) Presence and cybersickness in virtual reality are negatively related: a review. Front Psychol 10:158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wilkinson G, Rogers C (1973) Symbolic description of factorial models for analysis of variance. J R Stat Soc: Ser C (Appl Stat) 22(3):392–399

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Xiaoye Michael Wang for useful suggestions and discussions. This research was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant and contributions from Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF) VISTA to NFT, and a CFREF VISTA fellowship to AT.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siavash Eftekharifar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Communicated by Bill J. Yates.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eftekharifar, S., Thaler, A., Bebko, A.O. et al. The role of binocular disparity and active motion parallax in cybersickness. Exp Brain Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-021-06124-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cybersickness
  • Active motion parallax
  • Binocular disparity
  • Virtual reality
  • Roller-coaster