ArticleEnvironmental health and preventive medicine2026
The effect of differences in viewing environment and method on physiological responses and perceptual stability while viewing three-dimensional images.
Article in Environmental health and preventive medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStereoscopic (3D) viewing can induce motion sickness and visual discomfort under specific environmental conditions. Light adaptation is not always linear; preceding light exposure influences subsequent physiological responses (hysteresis). However, hysteresis in 3D viewing has rarely been studied.
objectiveThis exploratory study examined whether physiological responses exhibit hysteresis-history-dependent asymmetries between increasing and decreasing illuminance phases-under combinations of low illuminance, color temperature, and viewing mode.
methodsEight healthy adults (age 21.75 ± 0.97 yr) were exposed to stereoscopic video under eight conditions (2 color temperatures × 2 illuminance-change directions × 2 viewing modes). Illuminance was varied in stepwise fashion (10-260 lx). Electroencephalogram (EEG; Fp1/Fp2), electrocardiogram (ECG), and Stabilometry were recorded. Repeated-measures ANOVAs with Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction and paired Hedges' g effect sizes were computed.
resultsLarge hysteresis effects were observed for postural sway (Hedges' g = 0.66-1.01) and moderate effects for theta-band EEG (|g| ≈ 0.5-0.65), particularly in peripheral vision under low illuminance. Stabilometry was significantly greater at 10 lx compared to higher illuminances (p < 0.05). The interaction between illuminance and illuminance-change direction was significant for total locus length per unit area (L/A) in peripheral vision under daylight color.
conclusionsPostural control, but not autonomic function, exhibited strong history dependence in response to illuminance changes during 3D viewing. Findings suggest minimum illuminance guidelines (∼80-100 lx) and consideration of illuminance-ramp rates for VR safety and 3D content design.
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.