Skip to main content

Effect of VR technology matureness on VR sickness


In this paper relationship of perceived virtual reality (VR) sickness phenomenon with different generations of virtual reality head mounted displays (VR HMD) is presented. Action content type omnidirectional video clip was watched by means of four HMDs of different levels of technological matureness, with a 2D monitor used as a reference point. In addition to subjective estimation of VR sickness effects by means of the SSQ questionnaire, psychophysiology of the participants was monitored. Participant’s electrodermal activity, heart rate, skin temperature and respiration rate were measured. Results of the study indicate differences between HMDs in both SSQ score and changes of physiology. Skin conductance was found to be significantly correlated with VR sickness. Mobile HMD did not induce significantly higher levels of VR sickness. Disorientation SSQ was proven to be a useful tool for assessing the VR sickness effects.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7


  1. Anthes C et al (2016) State of the art of virtual reality technology. Aerospace Conference, 2016 IEEE.

  2. Aram K, Darakjian N, Finley JM (2017) Walking in fully immersive virtual environments: an evaluation of potential adverse effects in older adults and individuals with Parkinson’s disease. J Neuroeng Rehab 14.1:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bojko A (2013) Eye tracking the user experience: a practical guide to research. Rosenfeld Media, USA

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boucsein W (2012) Electrodermal activity, second edn. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Castelvecchi D (2016) Low-cost headsets boost virtual reality's lab appeal. Nature 533(7602).

  6. Castelvecchi D (2016) Gartner's 2016 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies. Gartner Inc. Accessed 16 August 2017

  7. Chen M, Hao Y (2018) Task offloading for mobile edge computing in software defined ultra-dense network. IEEE J Select Areas Commun 36(3):587–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chessa M, Maiello G, Borsari A, Bex PJ (2016) The perceptual quality of the oculus rift for immersive virtual reality. Human–Computer Interaction, 1–32.

  9. Chirico A et al (2017) Effectiveness of immersive videos in inducing awe: an experimental study. Sci Rep.

  10. Darragh E et al (2016) An evaluation of Heart Rate and ElectroDermal Activity as an objective QoE evaluation method for immersive virtual reality environments. Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), 2016 Eighth International Conference on. IEEE.

  11. Davis S, Nesbitt K, Nalivaiko E (2014) A systematic review of cybersickness. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on interactive entertainment. ACM.

  12. Davis S et al (2015) Comparing the onset of cybersickness using the oculus rift and two virtual roller coasters. Proc 11th Aus Conf Int Entertain (IE) 27:2015

    Google Scholar 

  13. Earnshaw RA (2014) Virtual reality systems. Academic press

  14. Earnshaw RA (2017) Oculus Rift CV1. Accessed 16 August 2017

  15. Earnshaw RA (2017) HTC VIVE. Accessed 16 August 2017

  16. Earnshaw RA (2017) Sony PSVR. Accessed 16 August 2017

  17. Earnshaw RA (2017) OSVR. Accessed 16 August 2017

  18. Earnshaw RA (2017) Google VR. Accessed 16 August 2017

  19. Earnshaw RA (2017) Samsung Galaxy GearVR. Accessed 16 August 2017

  20. Gavgani AM, Hodgson DM, Nalivaiko E (2017) Effects of visual flow direction on signs and symptoms of cybersickness. PLoS One 12(8).

  21. Gržinič Frelih N, Podlesek A, Babič J et al (2016) Evaluation of psychological effects on human postural stability. Measurement 98(2017):186–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Häkkinen J et al (2006) Simulator sickness in virtual display gaming: a comparison of stereoscopic and non-stereoscopic situations. Proceedings of the 8th conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. ACM.

  23. Ishihara S (1960) Tests for colour-blindness. Kanehara Shuppan Company, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jerald J (2015) The VR book: human-centered design for virtual reality. Morgan & Claypool

  25. Johnson DM (2005) Introduction to and review of simulator sickness research. Army Research Inst Field Unit Fort Rucker Al

  26. Kennedy RS, Norman EL, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG (1993) Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 3.3(b):203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim YY, Kim HJ, Kim EN et al (2005) Characteristic changes in the physiological components of cybersickness. Psychophysiology 42(5):616–625

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kim K et al (2014) Effects of virtual environment platforms on emotional responses. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 113(3):882–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kren M, Kos A, Zhang Y et al (2017) Public interest analysis based on implicit feedback of IPTV users. IEEE Trans Indust Inform 13(4):2077–2086

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lawson BD (2014) Motion sickness symptomatology and origins. In: Handbook of virtual environment: design, implementation, and applications, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 532–587.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Lu H et al (2017) Wound intensity correction and segmentation with convolutional neural networks. Concurren Comput: Pract Exp 29(6):e3927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lu H et al (2017) FDCNet: filtering deep convolutional network for marine organism classification. Multimed Tools Appl 77(17):21847–21860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Macedonio MF et al (2007) Immersiveness and physiological arousal within panoramic video-based virtual reality. Cyberpsychol Behav 10.4:508–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. MacQuarrie A, Steed A (2017) Cinematic virtual reality: evaluating the effect of display type on the viewing experience for panoramic video. Virtual reality (VR). IEEE.

  36. McGill M, Ng A, Brewster S (2017) I Am The Passenger: How Visual Motion Cues Can Influence Sickness For In-Car VR. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.

  37. Nalivaiko E, Davis SL, al BKL (2015) Cybersickness provoked by head-mounted display affects cutaneous vascular tone, heart rate and reaction time. Physiol Behav 1(151):583–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ogorevc J, Geršak G, Novak D et al (2013) Metrological evaluation of skin conductance measurements. Measurement 46(9):2993–3782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Petry B, Huber J (2015) Towards effective interaction with omnidirectional videos using immersive virtual reality headsets. Proceedings of the 6th augmented human international conference. ACM.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rosa PJ et al (2016) The immersive virtual reality experience: a typology of users revealed through multiple correspondence analysis combined with cluster analysis technique. Cyberpsychol, Behav, Soc Network 19.3:209–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Settgast V, Pirker J, Lontschar S et al (2016) Evaluating experiences in different virtual reality setups. In: Wallner G et al (eds) Entertainment computing - ICEC 2016. ICEC 2016. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 9926. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sharples S et al (2008) Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Displays 29.2:58–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Singla A et al (2017) Measuring and comparing QoE and simulator sickness of omnidirectional videos in different head mounted displays. Quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), 2017 ninth international conference on. IEEE.

  45. Steinicke F, Bruder G (2014) A self-experimentation report about long-term use of fully-immersive technology. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM symposium on spatial user interaction. ACM.

  46. Suznjevic M, Mandurov M, Matijasevic M (2017) Performance and QoE assessment of HTC Vive and oculus rift for pick-and-place tasks in VR. Quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX), 2017 ninth international conference on. IEEE.

  47. Tong X et al (2016) Usability comparisons of head-mounted vs. stereoscopic desktop displays in a virtual reality environment with pain patients. MMVR

  48. Treleaven J et al (2015) Simulator sickness incidence and susceptibility during neck motion-controlled virtual reality tasks. Virtual Reality 19(3-4):267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Webb CM et al (2009) Simulator sickness in a helicopter flight training school. Aviat Space Environ Med 80(6):541–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jože Guna.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Geršak, G., Lu, H. & Guna, J. Effect of VR technology matureness on VR sickness. Multimed Tools Appl 79, 14491–14507 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Virtual reality
  • VR sickness
  • SSQ
  • Physiology
  • Psychophysiology