Advertisement

Sense of Presence and Cybersickness While Cycling in Virtual Environments: Their Contribution to Subjective Experience

  • Marta Mondellini
  • Sara Arlati
  • Luca Greci
  • Giancarlo Ferrigno
  • Marco Sacco
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10850)

Abstract

Head mounted displays (HMDs) are visualization devices that provide high levels of immersion in virtual environments (VEs), which have been recently used to enhance the experience of subjects performing a physical exercise. However, the use of these devices in rehabilitation is discussed as it could cause cybersickness and other physical drawbacks. In this context, we conducted a preliminary study investigating the experiences of navigating in the same VEs using a cycle-ergometer and either a projected screen (PS) or a HMD, considering whether the “the Sense of Presence” influenced the device’s preference. Thirty-three healthy young adults were enrolled and randomized in four groups to counterbalance the two conditions and to investigate the effects of 5-days washout. Most of the subjects (n = 26) preferred the HMD with respect to PS; sense of presence was higher using HMD than using projector (t = −11.47, p < 0.001), but the difference between conditions was higher for those who preferred the HMD (t = −14.64, p < 0.001), compared to those who chose projector (t = −2.70, p < 0.05). The correlation of presence with cybersickness revealed that, despite higher levels of sickness, sense of presence probably counts more in choosing the HMD as the preferred device.

Keywords

Presence Virtual reality Immersive environments 

References

  1. 1.
    Serino, S., Pedroli, E., Tuena, C., De Leo, G., Stramba-Badiale, M., Goulene, K., Mariotti, N.G., Riva, G.: A novel virtual reality-based training protocol for the enhancement of the “Mental Frame Syncing” in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease: a development-of-concept trial. Front. Aging Neurosci. 9, 240 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Migo, E., O’Daly, O., Mitterschiffthaler, M., Antonova, E., Dawson, G., Dourish, C., Craig, K., Simmons, A., Wilcock, G., McCulloch, E., et al.: Investigating virtual reality navigation in amnestic mild cognitive impairment using fMRI. Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 23(2), 196–217 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ekelund, U., Steene-Johannessen, J., Brown, W.J., Fagerland, M.W., Owen, N., Powell, K.E., Bauman, A., Lee, I.-M., Lancet Physical Activity Series 2 Executive Committe, Lancet Sedentary Behaviour Working Group, et al.: Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. Lancet 388(10051), 1302–1310 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lok, N., Lok, S., Canbaz, M.: The effect of physical activity on depressive symptoms and quality of life among elderly nursing home residents: randomized controlled trial. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 70, 92–98 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holden, M.K., Todorov, E.: Use of virtual environments in motor learning and rehabilitation. In: Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, pp. 999–1026 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bystrom, K.-E., Barfield, W., Hendrix, C.: A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleop. Virtual Environ. 8(2), 241–244 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., Davidoff, J.: A cross-media presence questionnaire: the ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory. Presence Teleop. Virtual Environ. 10(3), 282–297 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jordan, J., Slater, M.: An analysis of eye scanpath entropy in a progressively forming virtual environment. Presence Teleop. Virtual Environ. 18(3), 185–199 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arlati, S., et al.: Virtual environments for cognitive and physical training in elderly with mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study. In: De Paolis, L.T., Bourdot, P., Mongelli, A. (eds.) AVR 2017. LNCS, vol. 10325, pp. 86–106. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60928-7_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greci, L.: GOJI an advanced virtual environment for supporting training of physical and cognitive activities for preventing the occurrence of dementia in normally living elderly with minor cognitive disorders. In: 12th EuroVR Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bamidis, P.D., Fissler, P., Papageorgiou, S.G., Zilidou, V., Konstantinidis, E.I., Billis, A.S., Romanopoulou, E., Karagianni, M., Beratis, I., Tsapanou, A., et al.: Gains in cognition through combined cognitive and physical training: the role of training dosage and severity of neurocognitive disorder. Front. Aging Neurosci. 7, 152 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng, S.-T., Chow, P.K., Song, Y.-Q., Edwin, C., Chan, A.C., Lee, T.M., Lam, J.H.: Mental and physical activities delay cognitive decline in older persons with dementia. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatr. 22(1), 63–74 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nichols, S., Patel, H.: Health and safety implications of virtual reality: a review of empirical evidence. Appl. Ergon. 33(3), 251–271 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zimmerli, L., Jacky, M., Lünenburger, L., Riener, R., Bolliger, M.: Increasing patient engagement during virtual reality-based motor rehabilitation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 94(9), 1737–1746 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hakkinen, J., Vuori, T., Paakka, M.: Postural stability and sickness symptoms after HMD use. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 147–152 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kiryu, T., So, R.H.: Sensation of presence and cybersickness in applications of virtual reality for advanced rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 4(1), 34 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nigg, C.R.: Technology’s influence on physical activity and exercise science: the present and the future. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 4(1), 57–65 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maculewicz, J., Serafin, S., Kofoed, L.B.: A stationary bike in virtual reality. In: Biostec Doctoral Consortium, Lisbon (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donath, L., Rössler, R., Faude, O.: Effects of virtual reality training (exergaming) compared to alternative exercise training and passive control on standing balance and functional mobility in healthy community-dwelling seniors: a meta-analytical review. Sports Med. 46(9), 1293–1309 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson-Hanley, C., Arciero, P.J., Brickman, A.M., Nimon, J.P., Okuma, N., Westen, S.C., Merz, M.E., Pence, B.D., Woods, J.A., Kramer, A.F., et al.: Exergaming and older adult cognition: a cluster randomized clinical trial. Am. J. Prev. Med. 42(2), 109–119 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ijsselsteijn, W., Nap, H.H., de Kort, Y., Poels, K.: Digital game design for elderly users. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play, pp. 17–22. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bruun-Pedersen, J.R., Serafin, S., Kofoed, L.B.: Augmented exercise biking with virtual environments for elderly users: considerations on the use of auditory feedback. In: ICMC-SMC Conference 2014, pp. 1665–1668. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bruun-Pedersen, J.R., Serafin, S., Kofoed, L.B.: Motivating elderly to exercise-recreational virtual environment for indoor biking. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH), pp. 1–9. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bruun-Pedersen, J.R., Serafin, S., Kofoed, L.B.: Going outside while staying inside—exercise motivation with immersive vs. non–immersive recreational virtual environment augmentation for older adult nursing home residents. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), pp. 216–226. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Slater, M.: Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364(1535), 3549–3557 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McAuley, E., Duncan, T., Tammen, V.V.: Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 60(1), 48–58 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sutcliffe, A., Gault, B., Shin, J.-E.: Presence, memory and interaction in virtual environments. Int. J. Hum. Comput Stud. 62(3), 307–327 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., Regenbrecht, H.: The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence Teleop. Virtual Environ. 10(3), 266–281 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kennedy, R.S., Lane, N.E., Berbaum, K.S., Lilienthal, M.G.: Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3(3), 203–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pallant, J.: SPSS Survival Manual. McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sharples, S., Cobb, S., Moody, A., Wilson, J.R.: Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Displays 29(2), 58–69 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ling, Y., Nefs, H.T., Brinkman, W.-P., Qu, C., Heynderickx, I.: The relationship between individual characteristics and experienced presence. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(4), 1519–1530 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Leo, G., Diggs, L.A., Radici, E., Mastaglio, T.W.: Measuring sense of presence and user characteristics to predict effective training in an online simulated virtual environment. Simul. Healthc. 9(1), 1–6 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gamito, P., Oliveira, J., Morais, D., Baptista, A., Santos, N., Soares, F., Saraiva, T., Rosa, P.: Training presence: the importance of virtual reality experience on the ‘sense of being there. Annu. Rev. Cyberther. Telemed. 2010, 128–133 (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleop. Virtual Environ. 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Slater, M., Steed, A.: A virtual presence counter. Presence Teleop. Virtual Environ. 9(5), 413–434 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lourenco, C.B., Azeff, L., Sveistrup, H., Levin, M.F.: Effect of environment on motivation and sense of presence in healthy subjects performing reaching tasks. In: Virtual Rehabilitation, pp. 93–98. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Porcino, T.M., Clua, E., Trevisan, D., Vasconcelos, C.N., Valente, L.: Minimizing cyber sickness in head mounted display systems: design guidelines and applications. In: 2017 IEEE 5th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    LaViola Jr., J.J.: A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bull. 32(1), 47–56 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brade, J., Lorenz, M., Busch, M., Hammer, N., Tscheligi, M., Klimant, P.: Being there again–presence in real and virtual environments and its relation to usability and user experience using a mobile navigation task. Int. J. Hum. Comput Stud. 101, 76–87 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kennedy, R.S., Stanney, K.M., Dunlap, W.P.: Duration and exposure to virtual environments: sickness curves during and across sessions. Presence Teleop. Virtual Environ. 9(5), 463–472 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Insko, B.E.: Measuring presence: subjective, behavioral and physiological methods. In: Riva, G., IJsselsteijn, W.A., Davide, F. (eds.) Being There: Concepts, Effects and Measurement of User Presence in Synthetic Environments, pp. 109–119. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Meehan, M., Insko, B., Whitton, M., Brooks Jr., F.P.: Physiological measures of presence in stressful virtual environments. ACM Trans. Graph. (TOG) 21(3), 645–652 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Biocca, F.: Will simulation sickness slow down the diffusion of virtual environment technology? Presence Teleop. Virtual Environ. 1(3), 334–343 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Mondellini
    • 1
  • Sara Arlati
    • 1
    • 2
  • Luca Greci
    • 1
  • Giancarlo Ferrigno
    • 2
  • Marco Sacco
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Industrial Technologies and Automation, National Research CouncilMilanItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e BioingegneriaPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations