Abstract
Although virtual reality (VR) usage has become widespread in the last decade, its adoption has been hampered by experiences of user discomfort known as cybersickness. The present study, in line with the “2020 cybersickness R&D agenda”, sought to provide a broad examination of the cybersickness phenomenon, assessing its pervasiveness, latent trajectories, impacts on the VR experience, and predictor variables. The study was composed of 92 participants living in the Dominican Republic with ages ranging from 18 to 52 years (M = 26.22), who experienced a 10-min VR immersion in two environments designed for psychotherapy. The results indicated that cybersickness was pervasive, with 65.2% of the participants experiencing it, and 23.9% severely. Additionally, the latent trajectories of cybersickness were positive and curvilinear, with large heterogeneity across individuals. Cybersickness also had a substantive negative impact on the user experience and the intentions to adopt the VR technology. Finally, motion sickness susceptibility, cognitive stress, and recent headaches uniquely predicted greater severity of cybersickness, while age was negatively related. These combined results highlight the critical role that cybersickness plays on the VR experience and underscore the importance of finding solutions to the problems, such as technological advancements or special usage protocols for the more susceptible individuals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Availability of data and materials
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared at this time as the data also forms part on an ongoing study.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Notes
We chose Cohen’s (1992) effect size guidelines for correlations and mean differences due to their widespread use in the psychological literature and the sensible separation in terms of what are considered small, medium, and large effects. Nevertheless, we should note that recent empirical work in this area has provided somewhat different guidelines (e.g., Funder and Ozer 2019; Gignac and Szodorai 2016). According to this research, correlation values of 0.20 can be considered as ‘typical’ for psychological research, with values of 0.30 considered as large. Additionally, it should be noted that the recommendation of a statistical power of 80% while ubiquitous in the social sciences is still arbitrary. An evaluation of the relative costs of Type I and Type II errors is often complex and may be influenced by the application and the perspective of the decision maker (Di Stefano 2003).
References
Asparouhov T, Muthén B (2010) Multiple imputation with Mplus. MPlus Web Notes, pp 238–246
Balog A, Pribeanu C (2010) The role of perceived enjoyment in the students’ acceptance of an augmented reality teaching platform: a structural equation modelling approach. Stud Inform Control 19(3):319–330. https://doi.org/10.24846/v19i3y201011
Behling O, Law KS (2000) Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions, vol 133. Sage, Los Angeles
Bishara AJ, Hittner JB (2014) Reducing bias and error in the correlation coefficient due to nonnormality. Educ Psychol Meas 75(5):785–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414557639
Bishara AJ, Hittner JB (2017) Confidence intervals for correlations when data are not normal. Behav Res Methods 49(1):294–309. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0702-8
Bockleman P, Lingum D (2017) Factors of cybersickness. In: International conference on human–computer interaction. Institute for Simulation and Training at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA. Springer, Cham, pp 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58753-0_1
Botella C, Fernández-Álvarez J, Guillén V, García-Palacios A, Baños R (2017) Recent progress in virtual reality exposure therapy for phobias: a systematic review. Curr Psychiatry Rep 19(7):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-017-0788-4
Bouchard S, St-Jacques J, Renaud P, Wiederhold BK (2009) Side effects of immersions in virtual reality for people suffering from anxiety disorders. J CyberTher Rehabil 2(2):127–137
Bradley R, Newbutt N (2018) Autism and virtual reality head-mounted displays: a state of the art systematic review. J Enabling Technol 12(3):101–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/JET-01-2018-0004
Brooks JO, Goodenough RR, Crisler MC, Klein ND, Alley RL, Koon BL, Logan WC Jr, Ogle JH, Tyrrell RA, Wills RF (2010) Simulator sickness during driving simulation studies. Accid Anal Prev 42(3):788–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.04.013
Burr H, Berthelsen H, Moncada S, Nübling M, Dupret E, Demiral Y, Oudyk J, Kristensen TS, Llorens C, Navarro A, Lincke HJ (2019) The third version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Saf Health Work 10(4):482–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.10.002
Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, Munafò MR (2013) Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14(5):365–376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
Caserman P, Garcia-Agundez A, Zerban AG, Göbel S (2021) Cybersickness in current-generation virtual reality head-mounted displays: systematic review and outlook. Virtual Real 25:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00513-6
Chan JJI, Yeam CT, Kee HM, Tan CW, Sultana R, Sia ATH, Sng BL (2020) The use of pre-operative virtual reality to reduce anxiety in women undergoing gynecological surgeries: a prospective cohort study. BMC Anesthesiol 20(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01177-6
Chasson GS, Hamilton CE, Luxon AM, De Leonardis AJ, Bates S, Jagannathan N (2020) Rendering promise: enhancing motivation for change in hoarding disorder using virtual reality. J Obsessive Compuls Relat Disord 25:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2020.100519
Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Culbertson CS, Shulenberger S, De La Garza R, Newton TF, Brody AL (2012) Virtual reality cue exposure therapy for the treatment of tobacco dependence. J Cyberther Rehabil 5(1):57–64
Cummings J, Bailenson J (2015) How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychol 19(2):272–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740
Curran PJ, Obeidat K, Losardo D (2010) Twelve frequently asked questions about growth curve modeling. J Cogn Dev 11(2):121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248371003699969
Davis S, Nesbitt K, Nalivaiko E (2014) A systematic review of cybersickness. In: Conference on interactive entertainment. Association for Computing Machinery, New Castle, pp1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677758.2677780
Davis S, Nesbitt K, Nalivaiko E (2015) Comparing the onset of cybersickness using the Oculus Rift and two virtual roller coasters. In: Proceedings of the 11th Australasian conference on interactive entertainment, vol 27, pp 3–14
de Araújo AVL, Neiva JFDO, Monteiro CBDM, Magalhães FH (2019) Efficacy of virtual reality rehabilitation after spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int 2019:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7106951
Dennison M, D’Zmura M (2017) Cybersickness without the wobble: experimental results speak against postural instability theory. Appl Ergon 58:215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.014
Dennison MS, Wisti AZ, D’Zmura M (2016) Use of physiological signals to predict cybersickness. Displays 44:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2016.07.002
DeSimone JA, Harms PD, DeSimone AJ (2015) Best practice recommendations for data screening. J Organ Behav 36(2):171–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1962
Di Stefano J (2003) How much power is enough? Against the development of an arbitrary convention for statistical power calculations. Funct Ecol 17(5):707–709
Eekhout I, de Vet HC, Twisk JW, Brand JP, de Boer MR, Heymans MW (2014) Missing data in a multi-item instrument were best handled by multiple imputation at the item score level. J Clin Epidemiol 67(3):335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.009
Farmani Y, Teather RJ (2020) Evaluating discrete viewpoint control to reduce cybersickness in virtual reality. Virtual Real 24:645–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00425-x
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39(2):175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Ferguson CJ, Heene M (2012) A vast graveyard of undead theories: publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspect Psychol Sci 7(6):555–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059
Fernandes AS, Feiner SK (2016) Combating VR sickness through subtle dynamic field-of-view modification. In: 2016 IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces (3DUI). IEEE, pp 201–210
Friese M, Frankenbach J (2020) p-Hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates. Psychol Methods 25(4):456–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000246
Funder DC, Ozer DJ (2019) Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci 2(2):156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
García-Batista ZE, Guerra-Peña K, Alsina-Jurnet I, Cano-Vindel A, Martínez SX, Jiménez-Payano D, Moretti LS, Medrano LA (2020) Design of virtual environments for the treatment of agoraphobia: inclusion of culturally relevant elements for the population of the Dominican Republic. Comput Hum Behav 102:97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.015
Gianaros P, Muth E, Mordkoff J, Levine M, Stern R (2001) A questionnaire for the assessment of the multiple dimensions of motion sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med 72(2):115–119
Gignac GE, Szodorai ET (2016) Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personal Individ Differ 102:74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
Glaser N, Schmidt M (2021) Systematic literature review of virtual reality intervention design patterns for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Int J Hum Comput Interact. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1970433
Golding J (2006) Predicting individual differences in motion sickness susceptibility by questionnaire. Personal Individ Differ 41(2):237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.012
Golding JF, Rafiq A, Keshavarz B (2021) Predicting individual susceptibility to Visually Induced Motion Sickness (VIMS) by Questionnaire. Front Virtual Real 2:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.576871
Gottschall AC, West SG, Enders CK (2012) A comparison of item-level and scale-level multiple imputation for questionnaire batteries. Multivar Behav Res 47(1):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.640589
Graham JW, Olchowski AE, Gilreath TD (2007) How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prev Sci 8(3):206–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9
Grassini S, Laumann K (2020a) Questionnaire measures and physiological correlates of presence: a systematic review. Front Psychol 11:1–21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00349
Grassini S, Laumann K (2020b) Are modern head-mounted displays sexist? A systematic review on gender differences in HMD-mediated virtual reality. Front Psychol 11:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01604
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2014) Pearson new international edition. In: Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Pearson Education Limited Harlow, Essex, p 123
Hayes AF, Coutts JJ (2020) Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Commun Methods Meas 14(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Hildebrandt J, Schmitz P, Calero A, Kobbelt L, Ziefle M (2018) Get well soon! Human factors 'influence on cybersickness after redirected walking exposure in virtual reality. In: International conference on virtual, augmented and mixed reality, Las Vegas, NV, USA, pp 82–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91581-4_7
Howard MC, Van Zandt EC (2021) A meta-analysis of the virtual reality problem: unequal effects of virtual reality sickness across individual differences. Virtual Real 25:1221–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00524-3
Hutton C, Ziccardi S, Medina J, Rosenbarg ES (2018) Please don't puke: early detection of severe motion sickness in VR. In: 2018 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). IEEE, pp 579–580
igroup (n.d.) igroup presence questionnaire (IPQ) factor analysis. igroup presence questionnaire (IPQ) overview. http://www.igroup.org/pq/ipq/factor.php
Inozu M, Celikcan U, Akin B, Cicek NM (2020) The use of virtual reality (VR) exposure for reducing contamination fear and disgust: Can VR be an effective alternative exposure technique to in vivo? J Obsessive Compuls Relat Disord 25:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2020.100518
Karjaluoto H, Leppaniemi M (2013) Social identity for teenagers: understanding behavioral intention to participate in virtual world environment. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 8(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762013000100002
Kennedy R, Lane N, Berbaum K, Lilienthal M (1993) Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 3(3):203–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3
Keshavarz B, Hecht H (2011) Validating an efficient method to quantify motion sickness. Hum Factors 53(4):415–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811403736
Kim H, Park J, Choi Y, Choe M (2018) Virtual reality sickness questionnaire (VRSQ): motion sickness measurement index in a virtual reality environment. Appl Ergon 69:66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.12.016
Kim J, Luu W, Palmisano S (2020) Multisensory integration and the experience of scene instability, presence and cybersickness in virtual environments. Comput Hum Behav 113:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106484
Kim J, Charbel-Salloum A, Perry S, Palmisano S (2021) Effects of display lag on vection and presence in the Oculus Rift HMD. Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00570-x
Kober SE, Neuper C (2013) Personality and presence in virtual reality: does their relationship depend on the used presence measure? Int J Hum Comput Interact 29(1):13–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2012.668131
Kousoulis P, Pantes A, Alevetsovitis G, Fydanaki O (2016) Psychometric properties of the Greek version of the Gianaros Motion Sickness Assessment Questionnaire. Aerosp Med Hum Perform 87(11):954–957. https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.4540.2016
Kung FY, Kwok N, Brown DJ (2018) Are attention check questions a threat to scale validity? Appl Psychol 67(2):264–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12108
Laforest M, Bouchard S, Crétu AM, Mesly O (2016) Inducing an anxiety response using a contaminated virtual environment: validation of a therapeutic tool for obsessive–compulsive disorder. Front ICT 3:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2016.00018
Lang KM, Little TD (2018) Principled missing data treatments. Prev Sci 19(3):284–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0644-5
Lanier M, Waddell TF, Elson M, Tamul DJ, Ivory JD, Przybylski A (2019) Virtual reality check: Statistical power, reported results, and the validity of research on the psychology of virtual reality and immersive environments. Comput Hum Behav 100:70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.015
LaViola J (2000) A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM Sigchi Bull 32(1):47–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/333329.333344
Lee D, Chang BH, Park J (2020) Evaluating the comfort experience of a head-mounted display with the Delphi methodology. J Internet Comput Serv 21(6):81–94. https://doi.org/10.7472/jksii.2020.21.6.81
Leite WL, Stapleton LM (2011) Detecting growth shape misspecifications in latent growth models: an evaluation of fit indexes. J Exp Educ 79(4):361–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2010.509369
Li L, Yu F, Shi D, Shi J, Tian Z, Yang J, Wang X, Jiang Q (2017) Application of virtual reality technology in clinical medicine. Am J Transl Res 9(9):3867–3880
Lin J, Duh H, Parker D, Abi-Rached H, Furness T (2002) Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. Proc IEEE Virtual Real 2002:164–171
Loureiro SMC, Guerreiro J, Ali F (2020) 20 years of research on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism context: a text-mining approach. Tour Manag 77:104028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104028
Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, Chen L (2002) The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annu Rev Public Health 23(1):151–169. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publheath.23.100901.140546
Makransky G, Lilleholt L, Aaby A (2017) Development and validation of the Multimodal Presence Scale for virtual reality environments: a confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory approach. Comput Hum Behav 72:276–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.066
Martirosov S, Bureš M, Zítka T (2021) Cyber sickness in low-immersive, semi-immersive, and fully immersive virtual reality. Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00507-4
Mazloumi Gavgani A, Walker F, Hodgson D, Nalivaiko E (2018) A comparative study of cybersickness during exposure to virtual reality and “classic” motion sickness: are they different? J Appl Physiol 125(6):1670–1680. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00338.2018
McDonald RP (1999) Test theory: a unified approach. Erlbaum, Mahwah
McHugh N (2019) Measuring and minimizing cybersickness in virtual reality [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Canterbury
McNeish D (2018) Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol Methods 23(3):412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
Melo M, Vasconcelos-Raposo J, Bessa M (2017) Presence and cybersickness in immersive content: effects of content type, exposure time and gender. Comput Graph 71:159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2017.11.007
Moncada i Lluís SM, Llorens Serrano CL, Salas Nicás SS, Moriña Soler DM, Navarro Giné A (2021) La tercera version de COPSOQ-ISTAS21. Un instrumento internacional actualizado para la prevención de riesgos psicosociales en el trabajo. Rev Esp Salud Pública 95(28):1–16
Mousavi M, Jen Y, Musa S (2013) A review on cybersickness and usability in virtual environments. Adv Eng Forum 10:34–39. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AEF.10.34
Nesbitt K, Davis S, Blackmore K, Nalivaiko E (2017) Correlating reaction time and nausea measures with traditional measures of cybersickness. Displays 48:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2017.01.002
Newbutt N, Sung C, Kuo HJ, Leahy MJ, Lin CC, Tong B (2016) Brief report: A pilot study of the use of a virtual reality headset in autism populations. J Autism Dev Disord 46(9):3166–3176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2830-5
Norazah M, Norbayah M (2011) Exploring the relationship between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived enjoyment, attitude and subscribers’ intention towards using 3G mobile services. J Inf Technol Manag XXII(1):1–7
Owens ME, Beidel DC (2015) Can virtual reality effectively elicit distress associated with social anxiety disorder? J Psychopathol Behav Assess 37(2):296–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9454-x
Palmisano S, Mursic R, Kim J (2017) Vection and cybersickness generated by head-and-display motion in the Oculus Rift. Displays 46:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2016.11.001
Park GD, Allen RW, Fiorentino D, Rosenthal TJ, Cook ML (2006) Simulator sickness scores according to symptom susceptibility, age, and gender for an older driver assessment study. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 50, No. 26. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, pp 2702–2706
Pot-Kolder R, Veling W, Counotte J, Van Der Gaag M (2018) Anxiety partially mediates cybersickness symptoms in immersive virtual reality environments. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 21(3):187–193. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0082
Rebenitsch L, Owen C (2016) Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Real 20(2):101–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0285-9
Rebenitsch L, Owen C (2021) Estimating cybersickness from virtual reality applications. Virtual Real 25:165–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00446-6
Riva G, Baños RM, Botella C, Mantovani F, Gaggioli A (2016) Transforming experience: the potential of augmented reality and virtual reality for enhancing personal and clinical change. Front Psychiatry 7:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00164
Riva G, Wiederhold BK, Mantovani F (2019) Neuroscience of virtual reality: from virtual exposure to embodied medicine. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 22(1):82–96. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.29099.gri
Sagnier C, Loup-Escande E, Lourdeaux D, Thouvenin I, Valléry G (2020) User acceptance of virtual reality: an extended technology acceptance model. Int J Hum Comput Interaction 36(11):993–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1708612
Saredakis D, Szpak A, Birckhead B, Keage HA, Rizzo A, Loetscher T (2020) Factors associated with virtual reality sickness in head-mounted displays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Hum Neurosci 14:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00096
Satorra A, Bentler PM (2010) Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika 75(2):243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y
Sauerbrei W, Royston P, Binder H (2007) Selection of important variables and determination of functional form for continuous predictors in multivariable model building. Stat Med 26(30):5512–5528. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3148
Schmidt M, Newbutt N, Schmidt C, Glaser N (2021) A process-model for minimizing adverse effects when using head mounted display-based virtual reality for individuals with autism. Front Virtual Real 2:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.611740
Schubert T, Friedmann F, Regenbrecht H (2001) The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 10(3):266–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603
Schuemie M, Van Der Straaten P, Krijn M, Van Der Mast C (2001) Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey. Cyberpsychol Behav 4(2):183–201. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493101300117884
Servotte J, Goosse M, Hetzell S, Dardenne N, Pilote B, Simoneau I, Guillaume M, Bragard I, Ghuysen A (2020) Virtual reality experience: immersion, sense of presence, and cybersickness. Clin Simul Nurs 38(1):35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2019.09.006
Sharples S, Cobb S, Moody A, Wilson JR (2008) Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Displays 29(2):58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2007.09.005
Sheeran P (2002) Intention—behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 12(1):1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003
Shen J, Eder LB (2009) Exploring intentions to use virtual worlds for business. J Electron Commer Res 10(2):94–103
Stanney K, Lawson BD, Rokers B, Dennison M, Fidopiastis C, Stoffregen T, Weech S, Fulvio JM (2020) Identifying causes of and solutions for cybersickness in immersive technology: reformulation of a research and development agenda. Int J Hum Comput Interact 36(19):1783–1803. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1828535
Sylaiou S, Mania K, Karoulis A, White M (2010) Exploring the relationship between presence and enjoyment in a virtual museum. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(5):243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.11.002
Teixeira J, Palmisano S (2020) Effects of dynamic field-of-view restriction on cybersickness and presence in HMD-based virtual reality. Virtual Real 25:433–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00466-2
Tussyadiah I, Wang D, Jung T, tom Dieck M (2018) Virtual reality, presence, and attitude change: Empirical evidence from tourism. Tour Manag 66:140–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.003
Venkatesh V, Bala H (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci 39(2):273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Vrieze SI (2012) Model selection and psychological theory: a discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). Psychol Methods 17(2):228. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027127
Wang P, Wu P, Wang J, Chi HL, Wang X (2018) A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(6):1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061204
Warshaw P, Davis F (1985) Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. J Exp Soc Psychol 21:213–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4
Weech S, Kenny S, Barnett-Cowan M (2019) Presence and cybersickness in virtual reality are negatively related: a review. Front Psychol 10(158):1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00158
Wu J, Liu D (2007) The effects of trust and enjoyment on intention to play online games. J Electron Commer Res 8(2):128–140
Yildirim C (2019) Cybersickness during VR gaming undermines game enjoyment: a mediation model. Displays 59:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2019.07.002
Yildirim C (2020) Don’t make me sick: investigating the incidence of cybersickness in commercial virtual reality headsets. Virtual Real 24:231–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00401-0
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Erik Ruzek for providing feedback and advice on the latent growth curve modeling analyses. The authors also wish to thank Paola Montás and Laura Pacheco for their support on this project.
Funding
This research was supported by the National Fund for Innovation and Scientific and Technological Development (FONDOCYT 009-2014) of the Dominican Republic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical standard
The present study was approved by the National Council of Bioethics (CONABIOS) of the Dominican Republic (No. 032-2015). The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garrido, L.E., Frías-Hiciano, M., Moreno-Jiménez, M. et al. Focusing on cybersickness: pervasiveness, latent trajectories, susceptibility, and effects on the virtual reality experience. Virtual Reality 26, 1347–1371 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00636-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00636-4