Isayas Berhe Adhanom
Eelke Folmer
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Women are more likely to experience virtual reality (VR) sickness than men, which could pose a major challenge to the mass market success of VR. Because VR sickness often results from a visual-vestibular conflict, an effective strategy to mitigate conflict is to restrict the user’s field-of-view (FOV) during locomotion. Sex differences in spatial cognition have been well researched, with several studies reporting that men exhibit better spatial navigation performance in desktop three-dimensional environments than women. However, additional research suggests that this sex difference can be mitigated by providing a larger FOV as this increases the availability of landmarks, which women tend to rely on more than men. Though FOV restriction is already a widely used strategy for VR headsets to minimize VR sickness, it is currently not well understood if it impedes spatial learning in women due to decreased availability of landmarks. Our study (n=28, 14 men and 14 women) found that a dynamic FOV restrictor was equally effective in reducing VR sickness in both sexes, and no sex differences in VR sickness incidence were found. Our study did find a sex difference in spatial learning ability, but an FOV restrictor did not impede spatial learning in either sex.
- Majed Al Zayer, Isayas B. Adhanom, Paul MacNeilage, and Eelke Folmer. 2019. The effect of field-of-view restriction on sex bias in VR sickness and spatial navigation performance. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--12.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Majed Al Zayer, Paul MacNeilage, and Eelke Folmer. 2020. Virtual locomotion: A survey. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 26, 6 (2020), 2315--2334. DOI:10.1109/TVCG.2018.2887379Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert S. Astur, Maria L. Ortiz, and Robert J. Sutherland. 1998. A characterization of performance by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: A large and reliable sex difference. Behav. Brain Res. 93, 1--2 (1998), 185--190.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: Taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1301--1310.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jiwan Bhandari, Paul MacNeilage, and Eelke Folmer. 2018. Teleportation without spatial disorientation using optical flow cues. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2018 (GI’18). Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society/Société canadienne du dialogue humain-machine, 162--167. DOI:https://doi.org/10.20380/GI2018.22Google Scholar
- Frank Biocca. 1992. Will simulation sickness slow down the diffusion of virtual environment technology? Presence Teleoperat. Virt. Environ. 1, 3 (1992), 334--343.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Bolas, J. Adam Jones, Ian McDowall, and Evan Suma. 2017. Dynamic field of view throttling as a means of improving user experience in head mounted virtual environments. US Patent No. 9,645,395.Google Scholar
- Jelte E Bos, Sjoerd C. de Vries, Martijn L. van Emmerik, and Eric L. Groen. 2010. The effect of internal and external fields of view on visually induced motion sickness. Appl. Ergon. 41, 4 (2010), 516--521.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Doug Bowman, David Koller, and Larry F. Hodges. 1997. Travel in immersive virtual environments: An evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium. IEEE, 45--52.Google Scholar
- Neil Burgess. 2006. Spatial memory: How egocentric and allocentric combine. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 12 (2006), 551--557.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lucia A. Cherep, Alex F. Lim, Jonathan W. Kelly, Devi Acharya, Alfredo Velasco, Emanuel Bustamante, Alec G. Ostrander, and Stephen B. Gilbert. 2020. Spatial cognitive implications of teleporting through virtual environments.J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 26, 3 (2020), 480--492. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000263Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stacy A. Clemes and Peter A. Howarth. 2005. The menstrual cycle and susceptibility to virtual simulation sickness. J. Biol. Rhythms 20, 1 (2005), 71--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacob Cohen. 1992. A power primer.Psychol. Bull. 112, 1 (1992), 155.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mary Czerwinski, Desney S. Tan, and George G. Robertson. 2002. Women take a wider view. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 195--202.Google Scholar
- James M. Dabbs, E.-Lee Chang, Rebecca A. Strong, and Rhonda Milun. 1998. Spatial ability, navigation strategy, and geographic knowledge among men and women. Evol. Hum. Behav. 19, 2 (1998), 89--98.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rudolph P. Darken, William R. Cockayne, and David Carmein. 1997. The omni-directional treadmill: A locomotion device for virtual worlds. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’97). ACM, 213--221.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ira Driscoll, Derek A. Hamilton, Ronald A. Yeo, William M. Brooks, and Robert J. Sutherland. 2005. Virtual navigation in humans: The impact of age, sex, and hormones on place learning. Hormones Behav. 47, 3 (2005), 326--335.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Henry Been-Lirn Duh, Donald E. Parker, and Thomas A. Furness. 2004. An independent visual background reduced simulator sickness in a driving simulator. Presence Teleoperat. Virt. Environ. 13, 5 (2004), 578--588.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sheldon M. Ebenholtz. 1992. Motion sickness and oculomotor systems in virtual environments. Presence Teleoperat. Virt. Environ. 1, 3 (1992), 302--305.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-Georg Lang, and Axel Buchner. 2007. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 2 (2007), 175--191.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas D. Ferguson, Sharon A. Livingstone-Lee, and Ronald W. Skelton. 2019. Incidental learning of allocentric and egocentric strategies by both men and women in a dual-strategy virtual Morris Water Maze. Behav. Brain Res. 364 (2019), 281--295.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ajoy S. Fernandes and Steven K. Feiner. 2016. Combating VR sickness through subtle dynamic field-of-view modification. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI’16). IEEE, 201--210.Google Scholar
- Kiran J. Fernandes, Vinesh Raja, and Julian Eyre. 2003. Cybersphere: The fully immersive spherical projection system. Commun. ACM 46, 9 (2003), 141--146.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Moira B. Flanagan, James G. May, and Thomas G. Dobie. 2005. Sex differences in tolerance to visually-induced motion sickness. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 76, 7 (2005), 642--646.Google Scholar
- Andre Garcia, Carryl Baldwin, and Matt Dworsky. 2010. Gender differences in simulator sickness in fixed-versus rotating-base driving simulator. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 54. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 1551--1555.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John F. Golding. 2006. Motion sickness susceptibility. Auton. Neurosci. Basic Clin. 129, 1 (2006), 67--76.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Claire C. Gordon, Cynthia L. Blackwell, Bruce Bradtmiller, Joseph L. Parham, Patricia Barrientos, Stephen P. Paquette, Brian D. Corner, Jeremy M. Carson, Joseph C. Venezia, Belva M. Rockwell, Michael Mucher, and Shirley Kristensen. 2014. 2012 Anthropometric survey of U.S. Army personnel: Methods and summary statistics. U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research Development & Engineering Center (2014).Google Scholar
- David A. Graeber and Kay M. Stanney. 2002. Gender differences in visually induced motion sickness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 46. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 2109--2113.Google Scholar
- Nathan Navarro Griffin and Eelke Folmer. 2019. Out-of-body locomotion: Vectionless navigation with a continuous avatar representation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST’19). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359996.3364243Google ScholarDigital Library
- David B. Henson. 2000. Visual Fields. Butterworth-Heinemann Medical (2nd Ed.).Google Scholar
- Valen E. Johnson. 2013. Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 48 (2013), 19313--19317.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jonathan W. Kelly, Alec G. Ostrander, Alex F. Lim, Lucia A. Cherep, and Stephen B. Gilbert. 2020. Teleporting through virtual environments: Effects of path scale and environment scale on spatial updating. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 26, 5 (2020), 1841--1850.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andras Kemeny, Paul George, Frédéric Mérienne, and Florent Colombet. 2017. New VR navigation techniques to reduce cybersickness. Electr. Imag. 2017, 3 (2017), 48--53.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert S. Kennedy, Norman E. Lane, Kevin S. Berbaum, and Michael G. Lilienthal. 1993. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3, 3 (1993), 203--220.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Keshavarz, H. Hecht, and B. D. Lawson. 2014. Visually induced motion sickness: Characteristics, causes, and countermeasures. In Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications (2014), 648--697.Google Scholar
- Behrang Keshavarz, Heiko Hecht, and Lisa Zschutschke. 2011. Intra-visual conflict in visually induced motion sickness. Displays 32, 4 (2011), 181--188.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Behrang Keshavarz, Bernhard E. Riecke, Lawrence J. Hettinger, and Jennifer L. Campos. 2015. Vection and visually induced motion sickness: How are they related?Front. Psychol. 6 (2015), 472.Google Scholar
- Eugenia M. Kolasinski. 1995. Simulator Sickness in Virtual Environments. Technical Report. DTIC Document.Google Scholar
- J.-F. Lapointe and Norman G. Vinson. 2002. Effects of joystick mapping and field-of-view on human performance in virtual walkthroughs. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on 3D Data Processing Visualization and Transmission. IEEE, 490--493.Google Scholar
- Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 2000. A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bull. 32, 1 (2000), 47--56.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. J.-W. Lin, Henry Been-Lirn Duh, Donald E. Parker, Habib Abi-Rached, and Thomas A. Furness. 2002. Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Conference. IEEE, 164--171.Google Scholar
- Gerard Llorach, Alun Evans, and Josep Blat. 2014. Simulator sickness and presence using HMDs: Comparing use of a game controller and a position estimation system. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. ACM, 137--140.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. M. Loomis, R. L. Klatzky, and R. G. Golledge. 2001. Navigating without vision: Basic and applied research. Optometr. Vis. Sci. 78, 5 (May 2001), 282--289.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jack M. Loomis, Roberta L. Klatzky, Reginald G. Golledge, Joseph G. Cicinelli, James W. Pellegrino, and Phyllis A. Fry. 1993. Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: Assessment of path integration ability.J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 122, 1 (1993), 73.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael E. McCauley and Thomas J. Sharkey. 1992. Cybersickness: Perception of self-motion in virtual environments. Presence Teleoperat. Virt. Environ. 1, 3 (1992), 311--318.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Morgan McCullough, Hong Xu, Joel Michelson, Matthew Jackoski, Wyatt Pease, William Cobb, William Kalescky, Joshua Ladd, and Betsy Williams. 2015. Myo arm: Swinging to explore a VE. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied Perception. 107--113.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Omar Merhi, Elise Faugloire, Moira Flanagan, and Thomas A. Stoffregen. 2007. Motion sickness, console video games, and head-mounted displays. Hum. Fact. 49, 5 (2007), 920--934.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard G. M. Morris. 1981. Spatial localization does not require the presence of local cues. Learn. Motivat. 12, 2 (1981), 239--260.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Justin Munafo, Meg Diedrick, and Thomas A. Stoffregen. 2016. The virtual reality head-mounted display Oculus Rift induces motion sickness and is sexist in its effects. Exp. Brain Res. (2016), 1--13.Google Scholar
- Tao Ni, Doug A. Bowman, and Jian Chen. 2006. Increased display size and resolution improve task performance in information-rich virtual environments. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2006. Canadian Information Processing Society, 139--146.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guangyu Nie, Yue Liu, and Yongtian Wang. 2017. Prevention of visually induced motion sickness based on dynamic real-time content-aware non-salient area blurring. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct’17). IEEE, 75--78.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Raffaella Nori, Laura Piccardi, Andrea Maialetti, Mirco Goro, Andrea Rossetti, Ornella Argento, and Cecilia Guariglia. 2018. No gender differences in egocentric and allocentric environmental transformation after compensating for male advantage by manipulating familiarity. Front. Neurosci. 12 (2018), 204.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Oculus. 2017. Oculus Best Practices: Motion. Retrieved from https://developer.oculus.com/design/latest/concepts/bp-locomotion/.Google Scholar
- George D. Park, R. Wade Allen, Dary Fiorentino, Theodore J. Rosenthal, and Marcia L. Cook. 2006. Simulator sickness scores according to symptom susceptibility, age, and gender for an older driver assessment study. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 50. SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, 2702--2706.Google Scholar
- Dominique Piber, Jan Nowacki, Sven C. Mueller, Katja Wingenfeld, and Christian Otte. 2018. Sex effects on spatial learning but not on spatial memory retrieval in healthy young adults. Behav. Brain Res. 336 (2018), 44--50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jérémy Plouzeau, Damien Paillot, Jean-Rémy Chardonnet, and Frédéric Merienne. 2015. Effect of proprioceptive vibrations on simulator sickness during navigation task in virtual environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence and the Eurographics Symposium on Virtual Environments. 1--6.Google Scholar
- Nicholas F. Polys, Seonho Kim, and Doug A. Bowman. 2007. Effects of information layout, screen size, and field of view on user performance in information-rich virtual environments. Comput. Anim. Virt. Worlds 18, 1 (2007), 19--38.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jerrold D. Prothero, Mark H. Draper, D. E. Parker, M. J. Wells, et al. 1999. The use of an independent visual background to reduce simulator side-effects.Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 70, 3 Pt 1 (1999), 277--283.Google Scholar
- James T. Reason and Joseph John Brand. 1975. Motion Sickness. Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Lisa Rebenitsch and Charles Owen. 2016. Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virt. Real. 20, 2 (2016), 101--125.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gary E. Riccio and Thomas A. Stoffregen. 1991. An ecological theory of motion sickness and postural instability. Ecol. Psychol. 3, 3 (1991), 195--240.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John J. Rieser, D. Guth, and E. Hill. 1982. Mental processes mediating independent travel: Implications for orientation and mobility. J. Vis. Impair. Blind. (1982).Google Scholar
- Rose Marie Rine, Michael C. Schubert, and Thomas J. Balkany. 1999. Visual-vestibular habituation and balance training for motion sickness. Phys. Therapy 79, 10 (1999), 949--957.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Noah J. Sandstrom, Jordy Kaufman, and Scott A. Huettel. 1998. Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. Cogn. Brain Res. 6, 4 (1998), 351--360.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Fleming Seay, David M. Krum, Larry Hodges, and William Ribarsky. 2001. Simulator sickness and presence in a high FOV virtual environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Conference. IEEE, 299--300.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kay Stanney, Cali Fidopiastis, and Linda Foster. 2020. Virtual reality is sexist: But it does not have to be. Front. Robot. AI 7, 4 (2020).Google Scholar
- Kay M. Stanney, Kelly S. Hale, Isabelina Nahmens, and Robert S. Kennedy. 2003. What to expect from immersive virtual environment exposure: Influences of gender, body mass index, and past experience. Hum. Fact. 45, 3 (2003), 504--520.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kay M. Stanney and Phillip Hash. 1998. Locus of user-initiated control in virtual environments: Influences on cybersickness. Presence 7, 5 (1998), 447--459.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael J. Starrett and Arne D. Ekstrom. 2018. Perspective: Assessing the flexible acquisition, integration, and deployment of human spatial representations and information. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12 (2018).Google Scholar
- David Swapp, Julian Williams, and Anthony Steed. 2010. The implementation of a novel walking interface within an immersive display. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI’10). IEEE, 71--74.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Desney S. Tan, Mary P. Czerwinski, and George G. Robertson. 2006. Large displays enhance optical flow cues and narrow the gender gap in 3-D virtual navigation. Hum. Fact. 48, 2 (2006), 318--333.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nobuhisa Tanaka and Hideyuki Takagi. 2004. Virtual reality environment design of managing both presence and virtual reality sickness. J. Physiol. Anthropol. Appl. Hum. Sci. 23, 6 (2004), 313--317.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Luke Thompson. [n.d.]. Unity VR Tunneling. Retrieved from https://github.com/SixWays/UnityVrTunnelling.Google Scholar
- Sam Tregillus and Eelke Folmer. 2016. VR-STEP: Walking-in-place using inertial sensing for hands free navigation in mobile VR environments. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1250--1255.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michel Treisman. 1977. Motion sickness: An evolutionary hypothesis. Science 197, 4302 (1977), 493--495.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roshan Venkatakrishnan, Rohith Venkatakrishnan, Ayush Bhargava, Kathryn Lucaites, Hannah Solini, Matias Volonte, Andrew Robb, Sabarish V. Babu, Wen-Chieh Lin, and Yun-Xuan Lin. 2020. Comparative evaluation of the effects of motion control on cybersickness in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR’20). IEEE, 672--681.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Isabelle Viaud-Delmon, Yuri P. Ivanenko, Alain Berthoz, and Roland Jouvent. 1998. Sex, lies and virtual reality. Nature Neurosci. 1, 1 (May 1998), 15--16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/215Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vive. 2017. HTC Vive Survey. Retrieved from http://u3915321.viewer.maka.im/pcviewer/R1HEHKCZ.Google Scholar
- Daniel Voyer, Susan Voyer, and M. Philip Bryden. 1995. Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin 117, 2 (1995), 250.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nicholas A. Webb and Michael J. Griffin. 2003. Eye movement, vection, and motion sickness with foveal and peripheral vision. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 74, 6 (2003), 622--625.Google Scholar
- Maxwell J. Wells and Michael Venturino. 1990. Performance and head movements using a helmet-mounted display with different sized fields-of-view. Opt. Eng. 29, 8 (1990), 870--878.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel G. Woolley, Ben Vermaercke, Hans Op de Beeck, Johan Wagemans, Ilse Gantois, Rudi D’Hooge, Stephan P. Swinnen, and Nicole Wenderoth. 2010. Sex differences in human virtual water maze performance: Novel measures reveal the relative contribution of directional responding and spatial knowledge. Behav. Brain Res. 208, 2 (2010), 408--414.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Field-of-View Restriction to Reduce VR Sickness Does Not Impede Spatial Learning in Women
Recommendations
The Effect of Field-of-View Restriction on Sex Bias in VR Sickness and Spatial Navigation Performance
CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsRecent studies show that women are more susceptible to visually-induced VR sickness, which might explain the low adoption rate of VR technology among women. Reducing field-of-view (FOV) during locomotion is already a widely used strategy to reduce VR ...
Assessing vignetting as a means to reduce VR sickness during amplified head rotations
SAP '18: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Applied PerceptionRedirected and amplified head movements have the potential to provide more natural interaction with virtual environments (VEs) than using controller-based input, which causes large discrepancies between visual and vestibular self-motion cues and leads ...
Effect of VR technology matureness on VR sickness
AbstractIn 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 ...
Comments