ArticleExperimental brain research2024
Potential factors contributing to observed sex differences in virtual-reality-induced sickness.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Neurorehabilitation technologies and functional recovery after brain injury: influence of sex, an integrative review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Examining and Comparing the Energy Expenditure of Two Modes of a Virtual Reality Fitness Game (Supernatural): Indirect Calorimetry Study.JMIR serious games · 2024Article
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
Virtual reality (VR) technology has been widely adopted for several professional and recreational applications. Despite rapid innovation in hardware and software, one of the long prevailing issues for end users of VR is the experience of VR sickness. Females experience stronger VR sickness compared to males, and previous research has linked susceptibility to VR sickness to the menstrual cycle (Munafo et al., Exp Brain Res 235(3):889-901). Here we investigated the female versus male experience in VR sickness while playing an immersive VR game, comparing days of the menstrual cycle when hormones peak: day 15 (ovulation-peak estrogen) and day 22 (mid-luteal phase-peak progesterone). We found that immersion duration was greater in the second session than the first, and discomfort was lessened, suggesting a powerful adaptation with repeated exposure. Due to the estrogen levels changing along with the exposure, there was no clear independent impact of that; note, though, that there was a significant difference between self-report and physiological measures implying that GSR is potentially an unreliable measure of motion sickness. Although prior work found a delay over 2 days between session would not allow adaptation and habituation to reduce VR sickness susceptibility, we found that a week delay has potential success.
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.