Cybersickness and desktop simulations: field of view effects and user experience

Abstract

We used a desktop computer game environment to study the effect Field-of-View (FOV) on cybersickness. In particular, we examined the effect of differences between the internal FOV (iFOV, the FOV which the graphics generator is using to render its images) and the external FOV (eFOV, the FOV of the presented images as seen from the physical viewpoint of the observer). Somewhat counter-intuitively, we find that congruent iFOVs and eFOVs lead to a higher incidence of cybersickness. A possible explanation is that the incongruent conditions were too extreme, thereby reducing the experience of vection. We also studied the user experience (appraisal) of this virtual environment as a function of the degree of cybersickness. We find that cybersick participants experience the simulated environment as less pleasant and more arousing, and possibly also as more distressing. Our present findings have serious implications for desktop simulations used both in military and in civilian training, instruction and planning applications..

Virtual Reality Sickness: A Review of Causes and Measurements

“…Participants experienced all three types of VR and reported that the level of discomfort was lowest under the neutral condition. However, subsequent studies showed opposite results (Bos et al, 2010;Toet et al, 2008;Van Emmerik et al, 2011). That is, participants showed greater VR sickness when the FOV of the hardware and content were matched.…”

Desktop VR Is Better Than Non-ambulatory HMD VR for Spatial Learning

“…Studies evaluating HMD VR sickness showed that it is a multifactorial problem and could be caused by any of the VR technical features related to the field of view, optical distortion, flicker, refresh rate, resolution, latency and poor tracking of visuo-motor feedback, slow update rate, etc. (Sharples et al, 2008;Toet et al, 2008;Jerald, 2016;Lu, 2016). The high compared to low realism graphics causes more visual flow and stronger sensory conflict, especially in case of mismatch between visual and vestibular ego-centric feedbacks, which leads to visually induced motion sickness (Toet et al, 2008;Keshavarz et al, 2015;Jerald, 2016;Lu, 2016;Yim et al, 2017;Ng et al, 2018).…”

“…(Sharples et al, 2008 ; Toet et al, 2008 ; Jerald, 2016 ; Lu, 2016 ). The high compared to low realism graphics causes more visual flow and stronger sensory conflict, especially in case of mismatch between visual and vestibular ego-centric feedbacks, which leads to visually induced motion sickness (Toet et al, 2008 ; Keshavarz et al, 2015 ; Jerald, 2016 ; Lu, 2016 ; Yim et al, 2017 ; Ng et al, 2018 ). This could indirectly support our result that participants spent more navigation time in DT than HMD display as they experienced less VRISE and task effort in DT than HMD condition.…”

“…Studies evaluating VR sickness show that it is a multifactorial problem that could be caused by any of the VR technical features, such as those related with FOV, optical distortion, flicker, refresh rate, resolution, latency and poor tracking of visual and interaction feedback, slow update rate, etc. (Sharples et al, 2008;Toet et al, 2008;Wilson and Soranzo, 2015;Jerald, 2016). A higher realism graphics causes more visual flow and stronger sensory conflict that could cause VR sickness (Jerald, 2016).…”

“…Processing of spatial information during acquisition of spatial knowledge, and especially during navigational tasks involving wayfinding, depends on a variety of factors, such as the scale of the environment (Waller and Nadel, 2013 ), spatial cues (Wolbers and Hegarty, 2010 ; Waller and Nadel, 2013 ), self-motion or idiothetic cues (Chrastil and Warren, 2013 , 2014 , 2015 ; Murcia-López and Steed, 2016 ), cognitive abilities (Chrastil and Warren, 2012 , 2013 , 2015 ; Waller and Nadel, 2013 ), mental representation (Gillner and Mallot, 1998 ; Klatzky, 1998 ; Wolbers and Hegarty, 2010 ; Waller and Nadel, 2013 ), self-sense of direction (Davies et al, 2017 ), and previous experiences (Dabbs et al, 1998 ; Feng et al, 2007 ; Green and Bavelier, 2007 ; Boot et al, 2008 ; Spence and Feng, 2010 ; Adamo et al, 2012 ). Recent proliferation of virtual reality (VR) technology has suggested new factors or re-evaluated the importance of already known factors that might influence spatial learning in a virtual environment (VE), such as display modalities (e.g., desktop or DT, Head Mounted Display or HMD, CAVE), optical distortion, field of view (FOV), visual and interaction realism, and visual and motion latency (Loomis and Knapp, 2003 ; Knapp and Loomis, 2004 ; Interrante et al, 2006 ; Toet et al, 2008 ; Boonsuk et al, 2012 ; van der Ham et al, 2015 ; Wilson and Soranzo, 2015 ; Jerald, 2016 ; Sahu et al, 2017 ; Roettl and Terlutter, 2018 ). In the present study, we investigated how two different forms of display, desktop (DT) and head mounted display (HMD), affect spatial knowledge learned during a navigational task in a VR setting.…”