Quantifying Visually Induced Motion Sickness (VIMS) During Stereoscopic 3D Viewing Using Temporal VIMS Rating

Hwang, Alex D.; Deng, Hongwei; Gao, Zhongpai; Peli, Eli

doi:10.2352/j.imagingsci.technol.2017.61.6.060405

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In all psychophysical tests, stimuli were displayed on two 42-inch VO42L FHDTV10A monitors (VIZIO Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) facing each other at a distance of 125 cm for viewing through a mirror stereoscope placed between them (for a full description of the device, see Hwang, Deng, Gao, & Peli, 2017). The frame rate was 60 Hz, and the monitors were gamma corrected.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

García‐Pérez

Peli

2019

i-Perception

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. Several psychophysical tests were recently proposed to quantify the magnitude of dominance but whether their results agree was never investigated. We addressed this question for the two most common psychophysical tests: The perceived-phase test , which measures the cyclopean appearance of dichoptically presented sinusoids of different phase, and the coherence-threshold test , which measures interocular differences in motion perception when signal and noise stimuli are presented dichoptically. We also checked for agreement with three classical tests (Worth 4-dot, Randot suppression, and Bagolini lenses). Psychophysical tests were administered in their conventional form and also using more dependable psychophysical methods. The results showed weak correlations between psychophysical measures of strength of dominance with inconsistent identification of the dominant eye across tests: Agreement on left-eye dominance, right-eye dominance, or nondominance by both tests occurred only for 11 of 40 observers (27.5%); the remaining 29 observers were classified differently by each test, including 14 cases (35%) of opposite classification (left-eye dominance by one test and right-eye dominance by the other). Classical tests also yielded conflicting results that did not agree well with classification based on psychophysical tests. The results are discussed in the context of determination of ocular dominance for clinical decisions.

show abstract

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

García‐Pérez

Peli

2019

i-Perception

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The configuration of scores was suggested by Kennedy et al (2003) with thresholds like negligible symptoms (<5), minimal symptoms (5-10), significant symptoms (10-15), symptoms that are a concern (15-20) and problematic simulator (> 20). Alternative questionnaires like motion sickness assessment questionnaires (MSAQ) and motion sickness susceptibility/history questionnaires (MSSQ) (Hwang et al 2018) were proposed recently. However, it is still inconclusive whether these questionnaires designed for motion sickness or simulator sickness are suitable to assess cybersickness.…”

Section: Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of cybersickness in head-mounted displays: raising attention to individual susceptibility

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cybersickness still poses a significant challenge to the widespread usage of virtual reality, leading to different levels of discomfort and potentially breaking the immersive experience. Researchers have attempted to discover the possible fundamental causes of cybersickness for years. Despite the longstanding interest in the research field, inconsistent results have been drawn on the contributing factors and solutions to combating cybersickness. Moreover, little attention has been paid to individual susceptibility. A consolidated explanation remains under development, requiring more empirical studies with robust and reproducible methodologies. This review presents an integrated survey connecting the findings from previous review papers and the state of the art involving empirical studies and participants. A literature review is then presented, focusing on the practical studies of different contributing factors, the pros and cons of measurements, profiles of cybersickness, and solutions to reduce this phenomenon. Our findings suggest a lack of considerations regarding user susceptibility and gender balance in between groups studies. In addition, incongruities among empirical findings raised concerns. We conclude by suggesting points of insights for future empirical investigations.

show abstract

“…The subjective evaluation methodologies used in the experiment are Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) (7) and VISM level rating (9). There are 16 symptoms in SSQ with each symptom four rating levels: none, slight, moderate and severe.…”

Section: Perception Experiments Set Upmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrigendum: 9‐2e: The effect of spatial dynamic distortions on visually induced motion sickness: a pilot study on the head‐mounted displays

2023

Symp Digest of Tech Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incomplete optical distortion correction in VR HMDs may lead to the dynamic spatial distortions, which is a potential factor affecting the symptom of VIMS. 3D videos with three spatial distortion levels are simulated for the perception experiment. The subjective SSQ, five-scale VIMS level rating and objective standing body sway are adopted as the evaluation metrics. The results show that the factor spatial distortion level has significant effect on all three metrics increasement (p<0.05). As the spatial distortion level drops off, the symptom level of VIMS related evaluation metrics are all decreased. Besides, the linear correlations are very high between different evaluation metrics. The study highlights the importance of perfect spatial distortion correction in VR HMDs for eliminating the potential VIMS aggravation effect.

show abstract

Quantifying Visually Induced Motion Sickness (VIMS) During Stereoscopic 3D Viewing Using Temporal VIMS Rating

Cited by 13 publications

References 16 publications

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

A review of cybersickness in head-mounted displays: raising attention to individual susceptibility

Corrigendum: 9‐2e: The effect of spatial dynamic distortions on visually induced motion sickness: a pilot study on the head‐mounted displays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About