Virtual Reality Sickness and Challenges Behind Different Technology and Content Settings

  • Jože GunaEmail author
  • Gregor Geršak
  • Iztok Humar
  • Maja Krebl
  • Marko Orel
  • Huimin Lu
  • Matevž Pogačnik


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.


Virtual 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. 1.
    Earnshaw RA (1993) Virtual reality systems. Academic pressGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castelvecchi D (2016) Low-cost headsets boost virtual reality's lab appeal. Nature 533:153–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Chen M, Hao Y (2018) Task offloading for mobile edge computing in software defined ultra-dense network. IEEE J Sel Areas in Comm 36:587–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li P, Wang D, Wang L, Lu H (2018) Deep visual tracking: review and experimental comparison. Pattern Recogn 76:323–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gartner's (2016) Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies. 2016. Retrieved August 22th, 2018 from
  7. 7.
    Oculus Rift CV1 (2018) Retrieved August 22th, 2018 from
  8. 8.
    HTC VIVE (2018) Retrieved August 22th , 2018 from
  9. 9.
    OSVR (2018) Retrieved August 22th , 2018 from
  10. 10.
    Oculus Go (2018) Retrieved August 22th , 2018 from
  11. 11.
    Google DaydreamVR (2018) Retrieved August 22th, 2018 from
  12. 12.
    Samsung GearVR (2018) Retrieved August 22th, 2018 from
  13. 13.
    Sony PSVR (2018) Retrieved August 22th, 2018 from
  14. 14.
    Jerald J (2015) The VR book: human-centered design for virtual reality. Morgan & ClaypoolGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawson BD (2014) Motion sickness symptomatology and origins. Handbook Virt Environ. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    LaViola JJ Jr (2000) A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bull 32:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pausch R, Crea T, Conway M (1992) A literature survey for virtual environments: military flight simulator visual systems and simulator sickness. Presence: Teleoperators Virt Environ 1:344–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG (1993) Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 3:203–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chessa M, Maiello G, Borsari A, Bex PJ (2016) The perceptual quality of the oculus rift for immersive virtual reality. Human–Computer Interaction, Published online:1–32. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rebenitsch L, Owen C (2016) Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Reality 20:101–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. 22.
    Higuera-Trujillo JL, López-Tarruella Maldonado J, Llinares Millán C (2017) Psychological and physiological human responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison between photographs, 360 panoramas, and virtual reality. Appl Ergon 65:398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. 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. 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
  26. 26.
    Webb CM et al (2009) Simulator sickness in a helicopter flight training school. Aviat Space Environ Med 80:541–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park WD et al (2017) A study on cyber sickness reduction by oculo-motor exercise performed immediately prior to viewing virtual reality (VR) content on head mounted display (HMD). Vibroengineering PROCEDIA 14:260–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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
  30. 30.
    Stoffregen TA et al (2000) Postural instability and motion sickness in a fixed-base flight simulator. Hum Factors 42:458–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nishiike S et al (2013) The effect of visual-vestibulosomatosensory conflict induced by virtual reality on postural stability in humans. J Med Investig 60:236–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Graeber DA, Stanney KM (2002) Gender differences in visually induced motion sickness. Proc Human Factors Ergonomics Soc Ann Meeting. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gržinič Frelih N, Podlesek A, Babič J et al (2016) Evaluation of psychological effects on human postural stability. Measurement 98(February 2017):186–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.University of EconomicsPraha 3Czech Republic
  3. 3.Faculty of Arts, Department of PsychologyLjubljanaSlovenia
  4. 4.Kyushu Institute of TechnologyFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations