Technological Competence Is a Pre-condition for Effective Implementation of Virtual Reality Head Mounted Displays in Human Neuroscience: A Technological Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Immersive virtual reality (VR) emerges as a promising research and clinical tool. However, several studies suggest that VR induced adverse symptoms and effects (VRISE) may undermine the health and safety standards, and the reliability of the scientific results. In the current literature review, the technical reasons for the adverse symptomatology are investigated to provide suggestions and technological knowledge for the implementation of VR head-mounted display (HMD) systems in cognitive neuroscience. The technological systematic literature indicated features pertinent to display, sound, motion tracking, navigation, ergonomic interactions, user experience, and computer hardware that should be considered by the researchers. Subsequently, a meta-analysis of 44 neuroscientific or neuropsychological studies involving VR HMD systems was performed. The meta-analysis of the VR studies demonstrated that new generation HMDs induced significantly less VRISE and marginally fewer dropouts. Importantly, the commercial versions of the new generation HMDs with ergonomic interactions had zero incidents of adverse symptomatology and dropouts. HMDs equivalent to or greater than the commercial versions of contemporary HMDs accompanied with ergonomic interactions are suitable for implementation in cognitive neuroscience. In conclusion, researchers' technological competency, along with meticulous methods and reports pertinent to software, hardware, and VRISE, are paramount to ensure the health and safety standards and the reliability of neuroscientific results.

Factors Associated With Virtual Reality Sickness in Head-Mounted Displays: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Our findings show that content significantly influences VR sickness symptoms. Recent HMD technology can provide a better experience (Kourtesis et al, 2019) and if this is combined with careful selection of content the risk of VR sickness can be reduced and those symptoms that do occur can be easily managed. In this review, we compared our total SSQ scores with the cut-off scores suggested by Kennedy et al (2003), what these scores mean in relation to HMDs and how these scores relate to the general population remains unclear.…”

“…HMDs can differ in terms of field of view, use of stereo, resolution, framerate, availability of inter-pupillary distance controls/adjustment, and other technical display factors. Modern HMDs from the last 5 years differ fundamentally from the more limited display technology that was available before these recent advances (Kourtesis et al, 2019), and since 35% of papers included in this analysis used these older HMDs, it is difficult to predict how those findings would predict the occurrence of symptoms with use of currently available HMDs. Moving forward, there is an obvious need for more controlled laboratory research with standard reference VR environments that are adjustable in terms of content, movement, user interaction, etc.…”

“…Recent advances in HMD technology (field of view, resolution, framerate, and ergonomic factors) have increased the levels of immersion and realism that may have an influence on the occurrence of VR sickness (Nichols, 1999;Lee et al, 2017;Kourtesis et al, 2019). For example, if an image is clear and tracking of movement is accurate, there may be fewer sensory conflicts, and that could lead to a reduction in VR sickness symptoms (White et al, 2015;Shin et al, 2016;Ray et al, 2018).…”

“…Despite the improvements in HMD technology, a recent review suggests that the prevalence of VR sickness is still problematic (Rebenitsch and Owen, 2016). In addition to this, Kourtesis et al (2019), in their review found that although recent hardware features have been an important factor in reducing VR sickness, software features also need to be taken into consideration.…”

“…Previous reviews (Rebenitsch and Owen, 2016;Duzmanska et al, 2018;Kourtesis et al, 2019) have focused on temporal or technological aspects of VR sickness. To date, none of the reviews on VR sickness have systematically evaluated VR content and user characteristics in a meta-analysis.…”