The use of a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) head-mounted display (HMD) and its effects on simulator sickness (SS) was investigated in this preliminary study. Participants performed a navigation task and an observational task. Both of the tasks allowed participants to freely view the 360 degree dynamic three-dimensional (3D) virtual reality environment (VRE). We hypothesized that SS would increase over time participating in the VRE and that SS would be greater in the observational task as compared to the navigation task. SS ratings did increase over time; however, SS did not differ between the observational and navigation task. These findings suggested that SS is still a relevant factor to consider with COTS 3D HMD use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BruderG.PuschA.SteinickeF. (2012). Analyzing effects of the geometrics rendering parameters on size and distance estimation in on-axis stereographics. Proceedings of the AMC Symposium on Applied Perception, (2012), 111-118. New York, NY: AMC. doi: 10.1145/2338676.2338699
2.
ChenZ.ShiJ.YunL.TaiY. (2010). A design of near-eye 3D display based on dual-OLED. 2010 International Conference on Displays and Photonics. Nanjing, China. doi:10.1117/12.869977
3.
DiZioP.LacknerJ. R. (1997). Circumventing side effects of immersive virtual environments. In SalvendyG. (Series Ed.), SmithM. J.SalvendyG.KoubekR. J. (Vol. Eds.), Advances in human factors/ergonomics: Vol. 21b. Design of computing systems: Social and ergonomic considerations (pp. 893–896). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
4.
KennedyR. S.LilienthalM. G.BerbaumK. S.BaltzleyD. R.McCauleyM. E. (1989). Simulator sickness in U.S. navy flight simulators. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 60, 10–16.
5.
KennedyR. S.StanneyK. M.DunlapW. P. (2000). Duration and exposure to virtual environments: Sickness curves during and across sessions. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9, 463–472.
6.
KimD.H.ParkerD.E.ParkM.Y. (2004). A New Procedure for Measuring Simulator Sickness – The RSSQ (University of Washinton, Human Interface Technology Laboratory Tech. Rep. R-2004-52.
7.
LinJ. W.DuhB. L.Abi-RachedH.ParkerD. E.FurnessT. A.III. (2002). Effects of field of view on presence,enjoyment, memory and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality 2002 (pp. 164–171). New York, NY: IEEE.
8.
MossJ. D.AustinJ.SalleyJ.CoatsJ.WilliamsK.MuthE. R. (2011). The effects of display delay on simulator sickness. Displays, 32. 159-168. doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2011.05.010
9.
MossJ. D.MuthE. R. (2011). Characteristics of head-mounted displays and their effects on simulator sickness. Human Factors, 53 (3), 308-319. doi: 10.1177/0018720811405196
10.
MossJ. D.SciscoJ. L.MuthE. R. (2008). Simulator sickness during head mounted display (HMD) of real world video captured scenes. In Proceeding of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1631–1634). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
11.
NelsonT. W.RoeM. M.BoliaR. S.MorleyR. M. (2000,July). Assessing simulator sickness in a see-through HMD: Effects of time delay, time on task, and task complexity. Paper presented at the IMAGE 2000 Conference, Scottsdale, AR.
12.
ReasonJ. T.BrandJ. J. (1975). Motion sickness. London, UK:Academic.
13.
ReganE. C.PriceK. R. (1994). The frequency of occurrence and severity of side-effects of immersion virtual reality. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 65, 527–530.
14.
WilsonJ. R. (1996). Effects of participating in virtual environments: A review of current knowledge. Safety Science, 23, 39–51.
