Virtual Reality Sickness and Challenges Behind Different Technology and Content Settings
VR sickness (Cybersickness) presents an important challenge in virtual reality environments. We present the results of a study on the effects of VR technology and VR video content type on VR sickness and on autonomous nervous system of the user. The participants watched two omnidirectional (360°) videos of different content types (neutral and action) on five distinct video display types (2D TV screen, three generations of Oculus Rift VR HMDs and on the mobile Samsung GearVR HMD). The Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) in combination with the measurement of the physiological parameters (skin conductance and skin temperature, respiratory frequency and heart rate) were used to monitor the participants’ physiology. The results show that video content significantly affects the SSQ grading and the skin conductance level. VR sickness effects were significantly reported less often with TV display type than with other VR HMDs.
KeywordsVirtual reality VR sickness SSQ Cybersickness Psychophysiology Skin conductance
We would like to thank all the participants for their time and effort. The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding No. P2-0246 and No. P2-0225).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- 1.Earnshaw RA (1993) Virtual reality systems. Academic pressGoogle Scholar
- 3.Fajfar I et al (2009) A top down approach to teaching embedded systems programming. Informacije midem-journal of microelectronics electronic components and materials 39(1):53–60Google Scholar
- 6.Gartner's (2016) Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies. 2016. Retrieved August 22th, 2018 from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3412017
- 7.Oculus Rift CV1 (2018) Retrieved August 22th, 2018 from https://www.oculus.com/
- 8.HTC VIVE (2018) Retrieved August 22th , 2018 from https://www.vive.com/eu/
- 9.OSVR (2018) Retrieved August 22th , 2018 from http://www.osvr.org
- 10.Oculus Go (2018) Retrieved August 22th , 2018 from https://www.oculus.com/go/
- 11.Google DaydreamVR (2018) Retrieved August 22th, 2018 from https://vr.google.com/
- 12.Samsung GearVR (2018) Retrieved August 22th, 2018 from http://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/gear-vr/
- 13.Sony PSVR (2018) Retrieved August 22th, 2018 from https://www.playstation.com/enus/explore/playstation-vr/
- 14.Jerald J (2015) The VR book: human-centered design for virtual reality. Morgan & ClaypoolGoogle Scholar
- 21.Steinicke F, Bruder G (2014) A self-experimentation report about long-term use of fully-immersive technology. Proc 2nd ACM Symp Spatial User Interact. https://doi.org/10.1145/2659766.2659767
- 23.Singla A et al (2017) Measuring and comparing QoE and simulator sickness of omnidirectional videos in different head mounted displays. Ninth Int Conf Quality Multimed Experience. https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2017.7965658
- 24.Davis S, Nesbitt K, Nalivaiko E (2015) Comparing the onset of cybersickness using the oculus rift and two virtual rollercoasters. Proceedings of the 11th Australasian conference on interactive entertainment 27Google Scholar
- 25.Tong X et al (2016) Usability comparisons of head-mounted vs. stereoscopic desktop displays in a virtual reality environment with pain patients. Stud Health Technol Inform 220:424–431Google Scholar
- 28.Lin JJW et al (2002) Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. Proceedings IEEE Virtual RealityGoogle Scholar
- 29.Carvalho P et al (2017) VR Rio 360: the challenges of motion sickness in VR environments. International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed RealityGoogle Scholar