Trial reportMedical & biological engineering & computing2020
Effects of virtual reality technology locomotive multi-sensory motion stimuli on a user simulator sickness and controller intuitiveness during a navigation task.
Trial report in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- CyPVICS: A framework to prevent or minimise cybersickness in immersive virtual clinical simulation.Heliyon · 2024Article
- iVR-fNIRS: studying brain functions in a fully immersive virtual environment.Neurophotonics · 2024Review
- Egocentric spatial orientation differences between Alzheimer's disease at early stages and mild cognitive impairment: a diagnostic aid.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022Article
- Gaze During Locomotion in Virtual Reality and the Real World.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Does Practicing with a Virtual Reality Driving Simulator Improve Spatial Cognition in Older Adults? A Pilot Study.Neuroscience insights · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Simulator sickness of users and intuitiveness of controllers contribute to a user's acceptance or rejection of a virtual reality (VR) experiment. However, few studies investigated the effects of different VR locomotive controllers and potential gender effects. Hence, we investigated the effects of different motion stimuli combinations and a user's range of neck motion via two experiments in a gender balanced group. Thus, through separate sessions, young adult participants utilized four common VR locomotive controllers (TiltChair, omni-directional treadmill, VRNChair and joystick) with a head-mounted display to execute the same VR navigation task as we measured simulator sickness by the simulator sickness questionnaire and postural sway. Also, we measured intuitiveness through total traversed distance and execution times. As expected, simulator sickness severity increased with VR exposure time. However, participants had significantly shorter traversed distances and execution times when they utilized the TiltChair and joystick respectively; while, participants had significantly longer execution times when they utilized the omni-directional treadmill. Additionally, female participants easily utilized the TiltChair and omni-directional treadmill because they traversed shorter distances than male participants. Therefore, a VR locomotive controller selection should be based on a target population's characteristics to reduce user simulator sickness and to increase controller intuitiveness. Graphical Abstract The current study investigates the use different virtual reality locomotive controllers to minimize user simulator sickness and maximize controller intuitiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.