An emetic response (a.k.a. vomiting) is certainly one of the most extreme responses to virtual environment (VE) exposure. This unpleasant response is thankfully quite rare (approximately 1–2%) but when it does occur, the individuals afflicted are generally quite distraught that something that looks akin to watching television can have such adverse consequences. This paper examines the experiences of individuals who have had an emetic response during or after VE exposure. An effort is made to both identify factors that may predict who vomits and characterize the extent of symptoms they experience. Results indicate that VE system designers may be able to reduce emetic response rates by streamlining user movement control and simplifying visual scene content. The results also indicate it may prove difficult with current measures to predict who will experience an emetic response.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BioccaF. (1992). Will simulation sickness slow down the diffusion of virtual environment technology?. Presence, 1(3), 334–343.
2.
BirrenJ.E. (1949). Motion sickness: Its psychophysiological aspects. A Survey Report on Human Factors in Undersea Warfare, Washington, D.C.: Committee on Undersea Warfare, 375–398.
3.
GuignardJ.C.McCauleyM.E. (1990). The accelerative stimulus for motion sickness. In CramptonG.H. (Ed.), Motion and space sickness (pp. 123–152). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
4.
HettingerL.J. (in press). Illusory self-motion in virtual environments. In StanneyK.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
KennedyR. S.FowlkesJ. E. (1992). Simulator sickness is polygenic and polysymptomatic: Implications for research. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2(1), 23–38.
6.
KennedyR. S.GraybielA (1965). The Dial test: A standardized procedure for the experimental production of canal sickness symptomatology in a rotating environment (Rep. No. 113, NSAM 930). Pensacola, FL: Naval School of Aerospace Medicine.
7.
KennedyR.S.JonesM.B.StanneyK.M.RitterAD.DrexlerJ.M. (1996). Human factors safety testing for virtual environment mission-operation training. Final Report, Contract No. NAS9-19482. Houston, TX: NASA Johnson Space Center, 6/96.
8.
KennedyR.S.LaneN.E.BerbaumK.S.LilienthalM.G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5(3), 203–220.
9.
KennedyR. S.LaneN. E.StanneyK. M.KingdonK. S.LanhamS. (2001, August). Use of a motion experience questionnaire to predict simulator sickness. In SmithM.SalvendyG. (Eds.), Proceedings of HCI International 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, August 5–20, New Orleans, LA.
10.
KennedyR.S.StanneyK.M. (1996). Postural instability induced by virtual reality exposure: development of a certification protocol. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 8(1), 25–47.
11.
KennedyR. S.StanneyK.M.ComptonD. E.DrexlerJ. M.JonesM. B. (1999). Virtual environment adaptation assessment test battery. Phase II Final Report, Contract No. NAS9-97022. Houston, TX: NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.
12.
LamptonD.R.KnerrB.W.GoldbergS.L.BlissJ.P.MoshellJ.M.BlauB.S. (1994). The virtual environment performance assessment battery (VEPAB): Development and evaluation. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 3(2), 145–157.
13.
LawsonB.D.GraeberD. AMeadAM.MuthE.R. (in press). Signs and symptoms of human syndromes associated with synthetic experiences. In StanneyK.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications.Mayhaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
McCauleyM. E.SharkeyT. J. (1992). Cybersickness: Perception of self-motion in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 1(3), 311–318.
15.
PauschR.CreaT.ConwayM. (1992). A literature survey for virtual environments: military flight simulator systems and simulator sickness. Presence, 1(3), 344–363.
16.
ReasonJ.T.BrandJ.J. (1975). Motion Sickness.London, UK: Academic Press Inc.
17.
SadowskiW.StanneyK.M. (in press). Presence in virtual environments. In StanneyK.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications.Mayhaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
StanneyK.M.KennedyR.S.DrexlerJ.M.HarmD.L. (1998) Motion sickness and proprioceptive aftereffects following virtual environment exposure. Applied Ergonomics, 30, 27–38.
19.
StanneyK.M.SalvendyG.DeisignerJ.DiZioP.EllisS.EllisonE.FoglemanG.GallimoreJ.HettingerL.KennedyR.LacknerJ.LawsonB.MaidaJ.MeadA.Mon-WilliamsM.NewmanD.PiantanidaT.ReevesL.RiedelO.SingerM.StoffregenT.WannJ.WelchR.WilsonJ.WitmerB. (1998). Aftereffects and sense of presence in virtual environments: Formulation of a research and development agenda. Report sponsored by the Life Sciences Division at NASA Headquarters. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 10(2), 135–187.
20.
WelchR.B. (in press). Chapter 31. Adapting to virtual environments. In StanneyK.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications..
21.
WitmerB.G.SingerM.J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.
