The Presence of an Avatar Can Reduce Cybersickness in Virtual Reality

Overview

Journal Virtual Real

Publisher Springer

Date 2024 Nov 1

PMID 39483719

Authors

Aalim Makani

Raheleh Saryazdi

Sonja Givetash

Behrang Keshavarz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) applications are increasingly being utilized for research, healthcare, and education. Despite their benefits, many VR users report motion sickness-like sensations (cybersickness), such as headache, disorientation, or nausea. Previous studies suggest that the sense of presence ("being there") in the virtual world may contribute to the severity of cybersickness; however, results have been contradictory, with some studies reporting a negative and some reporting a positive relationship between the two. The goal of the current study was to further investigate how presence and cybersickness are related. Participants ( = 54) were exposed to a VR scene presented on a head-mounted display showing a 15-minute-long passive movement through space. The level of presence was manipulated by including an avatar (astronaut suit with hand-tracking) or no avatar in the virtual environment. Results showed that the avatar group reported significantly less severe cybersickness compared to the no-avatar group. We also found significant, negative correlations between some of the presence metrics (immersion, sensory fidelity) and cybersickness, indicating that cybersickness severity decreased as the level of presence increased. These findings suggest that more immersive VR experiences using an avatar may potentially reduce the risk of experiencing cybersickness.

References

Keshavarz B, Riecke B, Hettinger L, Campos J . Vection and visually induced motion sickness: how are they related?. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:472. PMC: 4403286. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00472. View

Cian C, Ohlmann T, Ceyte H, Gresty M, Golding J . Off vertical axis rotation motion sickness and field dependence. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2011; 82(10):959-63. DOI: 10.3357/asem.3049.2011. View

Weech S, Kenny S, Barnett-Cowan M . Presence and Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Are Negatively Related: A Review. Front Psychol. 2019; 10:158. PMC: 6369189. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00158. View

Slater M . Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. Br J Psychol. 2018; 109(3):431-433. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12305. View

Malone S, Brunken R . Hazard Perception, Presence, and Simulation Sickness-A Comparison of Desktop and Head-Mounted Display for Driving Simulation. Front Psychol. 2021; 12:647723. PMC: 8100057. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647723. View

Kennedy R, Drexler J, Kennedy R . Research in visually induced motion sickness. Appl Ergon. 2010; 41(4):494-503. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2009.11.006. View

Palmisano S, Allison R, Schira M, Barry R . Future challenges for vection research: definitions, functional significance, measures, and neural bases. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:193. PMC: 4342884. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00193. View

Weber S, Weibel D, Mast F . How to Get There When You Are There Already? Defining Presence in Virtual Reality and the Importance of Perceived Realism. Front Psychol. 2021; 12:628298. PMC: 8136250. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.628298. View

Munafo J, Diedrick M, Stoffregen T . The virtual reality head-mounted display Oculus Rift induces motion sickness and is sexist in its effects. Exp Brain Res. 2016; 235(3):889-901. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-016-4846-7. View

10.

Berti S, Keshavarz B . Neuropsychological Approaches to Visually-Induced Vection: an Overview and Evaluation of Neuroimaging and Neurophysiological Studies. Multisens Res. 2021; 34(2):153-186. DOI: 10.1163/22134808-bja10035. View

11.

Oman C . Motion sickness: a synthesis and evaluation of the sensory conflict theory. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 1990; 68(2):294-303. DOI: 10.1139/y90-044. View

12.

Slater M, Perez-Marcos D, Ehrsson H, Sanchez-Vives M . Inducing illusory ownership of a virtual body. Front Neurosci. 2009; 3(2):214-20. PMC: 2751618. DOI: 10.3389/neuro.01.029.2009. View

13.

Golding J, Arun S, Wortley E, Wotton-Hamrioui K, Cousins S, Gresty M . Off-vertical axis rotation of the visual field and nauseogenicity. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2009; 80(6):516-21. DOI: 10.3357/asem.2433.2009. View

14.

Bagust J . Assessment of verticality perception by a rod-and-frame test: preliminary observations on the use of a computer monitor and video eye glasses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86(5):1062-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.05.022. View

15.

Stanney K, Fidopiastis C, Foster L . Virtual Reality Is Sexist: But It Does Not Have to Be. Front Robot AI. 2021; 7:4. PMC: 7805626. DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2020.00004. View

16.

WITKIN H, GOODENOUGH D . Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychol Bull. 1977; 84(4):661-89. View

17.

DRAPER M, Viire E, Furness T, Gawron V . Effects of image scale and system time delay on simulator sickness within head-coupled virtual environments. Hum Factors. 2001; 43(1):129-46. DOI: 10.1518/001872001775992552. View

18.

Keshavarz B, Golding J . Motion sickness: current concepts and management. Curr Opin Neurol. 2021; 35(1):107-112. DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000001018. View

19.

REASON J . Motion sickness adaptation: a neural mismatch model. J R Soc Med. 1978; 71(11):819-29. PMC: 1436193. DOI: 10.1177/014107687807101109. View

20.

Mirabile Jr C, GLUECK B, STROEBEL C . Susceptibility to motion sickness and field dependence-independence as measured with the rod and frame test. Neuropsychobiology. 1976; 2(1):45-51. DOI: 10.1159/000117528. View