ArticleScientific reports2025
Virtual reality locomotion methods differentially affect spatial orientation and cybersickness during maze navigation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Virtual reality skinner box: A step-by-step guide with Unity and Spatial.io.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) is widely used in training, simulations, and industrial applications, yet effective locomotion remains challenging due to its impact on spatial orientation and cybersickness. This study investigates the effects of three locomotion methods-hand-tracking (HTR) with teleportation, traditional VR controllers (CTR), and the mechanical interface Cybershoes (CBS)-on navigation performance, perceived usability, and cybersickness during navigation tasks in virtual mazes of three increasing difficulty levels. The experiment involved 15 participants (M = 22.6 years, SD = 1.64), performing a total of 9 trials each (3 methods × 3 mazes), resulting in 135 exposures overall. The HTR method had the longest average maze completion time (127 ± 54 s for the simplest maze), significantly longer compared to both CTR (52 ± 25 s, p < 0.01) and CBS (52 ± 22 s, p < 0.01). CBS showed comparable navigation performance to CTR, slightly outperforming CTR only in the most difficult mazes (108 ± 51 s vs. 115 ± 42 s, p < 0.05). Regarding usability, CTR received the highest ratings (SUS: 74.67 ± 18.52), followed by CBS (67.83 ± 24.07) and HTR (65.83 ± 22.22). However, CBS induced the highest cybersickness (2.9 ± 1.2), significantly higher than HTR (1.8 ± 0.9; p = 0.006), while CTR scored intermediate (2.3 ± 1.1). Results confirm that teleportation (HTR) minimizes cybersickness but negatively impacts spatial orientation. CBS support more efficient navigation in complex tasks but considerably increases cybersickness. Joystick locomotion (CTR) provides the best balance among navigation efficiency, usability, and user comfort. These findings contribute to optimizing locomotion strategies in VR applications.
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.