Presence and Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Are Negatively Related: A Review

In order to take advantage of the potential offered by the medium of virtual reality (VR), it will be essential to develop an understanding of how to maximize the desirable experience of “presence” in a virtual space (“being there”), and how to minimize the undesirable feeling of “cybersickness” (a constellation of discomfort symptoms experienced in VR). Although there have been frequent reports of a possible link between the observer’s sense of presence and the experience of bodily discomfort in VR, the amount of literature that discusses the nature of the relationship is limited. Recent research has underlined the possibility that these variables have shared causes, and that both factors may be manipulated with a single approach. This review paper summarizes the concepts of presence and cybersickness and highlights the strengths and gaps in our understanding about their relationship. We review studies that have measured the association between presence and cybersickness, and conclude that the balance of evidence favors a negative relationship between the two factors which is driven principally by sensory integration processes. We also discuss how system immersiveness might play a role in modulating both presence and cybersickness. However, we identify a serious absence of high-powered studies that aim to reveal the nature of this relationship. Based on this evidence we propose recommendations for future studies investigating presence, cybersickness, and other related factors

Experiment 2, total SSQ scores over trials for each stimulation condition.

<p>Error bars represent standard error of the mean.</p

Depiction of one of the authors observing the visual environment in Experiment 1.

<p>Depiction of one of the authors observing the visual environment in Experiment 1.</p

Virtual environment in Experiment 1.

<p>A) Detail of the virtual environment seen by participants. B) Top-down view of the initial section of the path. Participants started each trial at the X. (Targets are scaled up 10 times in size to aid visibility).</p

Experiment 2, number of participants classified as ‘sick’ in each condition.

<p>‘Sickness’ corresponds to average SSQ scores ≥ 20 [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0194137#pone.0194137.ref055" target="_blank">55</a>].</p

Experiment 2, square-root transformed SSQ for participants in different movement control and stimulation conditions.

<p>Error bars represent standard error of the mean. * <i>p</i> < .05.</p

Experiment 1, number of participants classified as ‘sick’ in each condition.

<p>‘Sickness’ corresponds to average SSQ scores ≥ 20 [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0194137#pone.0194137.ref055" target="_blank">55</a>].</p