ReviewBehavior research methods2024
Measuring vection: a review and critical evaluation of different methods for quantifying illusory self-motion.
Review in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individual-difference factors in visually induced motion sickness and vection: Findings from multiple studies on field dependence, age, and biological sex.Journal of vestibular research : equilibrium & orientation · 2026Article
- Cross-modal synchrony between music and visual motion modulates vection, urge to move, and comfort in VR.Virtual reality · 2026Article
- Factors affecting vection and motion sickness in a passive virtual reality driving simulation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A virtual reality study investigating the train illusion.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- How about running on Mars? Influence of sensorimotor coherence on running and spatial perception in simulated reduced gravity.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Enhanced vection in older adults: Evidence for age-related effects in multisensory vection experiences.Perception · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The sensation of self-motion in the absence of physical motion, known as vection, has been scientifically investigated for over a century. As objective measures of, or physiological correlates to, vection have yet to emerge, researchers have typically employed a variety of subjective methods to quantify the phenomenon of vection. These measures can be broadly categorized into the occurrence of vection (e.g., binary choice yes/no), temporal characteristics of vection (e.g., onset time/latency, duration), the quality of the vection experience (e.g., intensity rating scales, magnitude estimation), or indirect (e.g., distance travelled) measures. The present review provides an overview and critical evaluation of the most utilized vection measures to date and assesses their respective merit. Furthermore, recommendations for the selection of the most appropriate vection measures will be provided to assist with the process of vection research and to help improve the comparability of research findings across different vection studies.
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.