Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Dynamic Field of View Reduction Related to Subjective Sickness Measures in an HMD-based Data Analysis Task

Daniel Zielasko, Alexander Meißner, Sebastian Freitag, Benjamin Weyers, Torsten W. Kuhlen

TL;DR

A first experiment was conducted, where the field of view was decreased when people feel uncomfortable, to evaluate the possible positive impact on sickness and negative influence on presence and found no significant evidence for any of these possible effects.

Abstract

Various factors influence the degree of cybersickness a user can suffer in an immersive virtual environment, some of which can be controlled without adapting the virtual environment itself. When using HMDs, one example is the size of the field of view. However, the degree to which factors like this can be manipulated without affecting the user negatively in other ways is limited. Another prominent characteristic of cybersickness is that it affects individuals very differently. Therefore, to account for both the possible disruptive nature of alleviating factors and the high interpersonal variance, a promising approach may be to intervene only in cases where users experience discomfort symptoms, and only as much as necessary. Thus, we conducted a first experiment, where the field of view was decreased when people feel uncomfortable, to evaluate the possible positive impact on sickness and negative influence on presence. While we found no significant evidence for any of these possible effects, interesting further results and observations were made.

Dynamic Field of View Reduction Related to Subjective Sickness Measures in an HMD-based Data Analysis Task

TL;DR

A first experiment was conducted, where the field of view was decreased when people feel uncomfortable, to evaluate the possible positive impact on sickness and negative influence on presence and found no significant evidence for any of these possible effects.

Abstract

Various factors influence the degree of cybersickness a user can suffer in an immersive virtual environment, some of which can be controlled without adapting the virtual environment itself. When using HMDs, one example is the size of the field of view. However, the degree to which factors like this can be manipulated without affecting the user negatively in other ways is limited. Another prominent characteristic of cybersickness is that it affects individuals very differently. Therefore, to account for both the possible disruptive nature of alleviating factors and the high interpersonal variance, a promising approach may be to intervene only in cases where users experience discomfort symptoms, and only as much as necessary. Thus, we conducted a first experiment, where the field of view was decreased when people feel uncomfortable, to evaluate the possible positive impact on sickness and negative influence on presence. While we found no significant evidence for any of these possible effects, interesting further results and observations were made.
Paper Structure (19 sections, 1 equation, 4 figures, 1 table)

This paper contains 19 sections, 1 equation, 4 figures, 1 table.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Sickness, Countermeasures and Measures
  3. Field of View Reduction
  4. User Study
  5. Apparatus
  6. Task
  7. Field of View Settings
  8. Procedure
  9. Participants
  10. Hypotheses
  11. Results
  12. Core Measures
  13. Subjective Measures
  14. Correlation Analysis
  15. Discussion
  16. ...and 4 more sections

Figures (4)

  • Figure 1: A screenshot of the stereo image sent to the HMD: Depicted are the graph and the slightly larger and red colored pair of spheres, which the participant has to find the shortest path between. The right half is annotated with indicators for the inner and outer radii of the FoV limitation. Additionally, the screenshot is overlayed with a photo of the experimental setup for the user study on the bottom.
  • Figure 2: Box plots of the SSQ scores for the study and control condition.
  • Figure 3: History of the health score (ranging from 1 (good) to 10 (bad)) updated by the participants during the experiments for the study group (limited FoV) and the control group. The series is given starting with minute 3, excluding the training. Error bars show the 95% confidence intervals.
  • Figure 4: The answers to the Likert-scale items (1-5) for the study condition (FoV) and the control condition. An asterisk marks a statistically significant difference ($p<.05$) and a star in brackets an statistical trend ($p<.1$).