Authors:
Florent Colombet, Andras Kemeny, Paul George
Keywords:
motion sickness, virtual reality, driving simulation, CAVE, HMD
Abstract:
Driving Simulation and Virtual Reality (VR) share the same technologies for visualization and 3D vision, as well as head movement tracking. They share also the same difficulties when rendering a piloted displacement, i.e. not resulting from an actual displacement of the user in the simulated environment (visuovestibular discrepancies, response lags, extensive 2D texture mapping and other 3D rendering limitations…).
These displacements resulting from controller or driver actions may generate visual-vestibular conflicts or high values of transport delay that could lead to the so-called simulation sickness. More generally, using any type of navigation devices often cause VR-Induced Sickness Effects (VRISE).
In some use-cases of vehicle architecture studies in Renault’s VR rooms, drivers are passive inside a virtual cockpit. Thus the present study focuses on the impact of visual-vestibular conflict on simulation sickness in the case of longitudinal (surge, sway) and rotational (yaw) motions with different acceleration levels. We compared two different display systems: Renault P3I CAVE, a 4-sided virtual reality room, and the well-known Oculus Rift DK2. We have found that relatively high acceleration levels (> 0.2g) are well accepted in case of longitudinal motions, and that increasing yaw acceleration to more than 12 °/s² may cause a significant increase of simulation sickness. Finally, no significant difference has been found between situations using our CAVE or Oculus Rift displayed environments.
Colombet F.; Kemeny A. and George P. Motion sickness comparison between a CAVE and a HMD In: Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference 2016 Europe, Driving Simulation Association, Paris, France, 2016, pp. 201-206
Download .txt file
@inproceedings{Colombet2016,
title = {Motion sickness comparison between a CAVE and a HMD},
author = {Florent Colombet and Andras Kemeny and Paul George},
editor = {Andras Kemeny and Frédéric Merienne and Florent Colombet and Stéphane Espié},
issn = {0769-0266},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-09-07},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference 2016 Europe},
pages = {201-206},
address = {Paris, France},
organization = {Driving Simulation Association},
abstract = {Driving Simulation and Virtual Reality (VR) share the same technologies for visualization and 3D vision, as well as head movement tracking. They share also the same difficulties when rendering a piloted displacement, i.e. not resulting from an actual displacement of the user in the simulated environment (visuovestibular discrepancies, response lags, extensive 2D texture mapping and other 3D rendering limitations…).
These displacements resulting from controller or driver actions may generate visual-vestibular conflicts or high values of transport delay that could lead to the so-called simulation sickness. More generally, using any type of navigation devices often cause VR-Induced Sickness Effects (VRISE).
In some use-cases of vehicle architecture studies in Renault’s VR rooms, drivers are passive inside a virtual cockpit. Thus the present study focuses on the impact of visual-vestibular conflict on simulation sickness in the case of longitudinal (surge, sway) and rotational (yaw) motions with different acceleration levels. We compared two different display systems: Renault P3I CAVE, a 4-sided virtual reality room, and the well-known Oculus Rift DK2. We have found that relatively high acceleration levels (> 0.2g) are well accepted in case of longitudinal motions, and that increasing yaw acceleration to more than 12 °/s² may cause a significant increase of simulation sickness. Finally, no significant difference has been found between situations using our CAVE or Oculus Rift displayed environments.},
keywords = {CAVE, driving simulation, HMD, motion sickness, virtual reality},
}
Download .bib file
TY - CONF
TI - Motion sickness comparison between a CAVE and a HMD
AU - Colombet, Florent
AU - Kemeny, Andras
AU - George, Paul
C1 - Paris, France
C3 - Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference 2016 Europe
DA - 2016/09/07
PY - 2016
SP - 201
EP - 206
LA - en-US
PB - Driving Simulation Association
SN - 0769-0266
L2 - https://proceedings.driving-simulation.org/proceeding/dsc-2016/motion-sickness-comparison-between-a-cave-and-a-hmd
ER -
Download .ris file
Cite this article
Terms and Conditions for Downloading Driving Simulation Proceedings papers:
By downloading a scientific paper from proceedings.driving-simulation.org, you agree to the following terms and conditions:
- Personal Use Only:
The scientific paper provided on this website is solely for personal, educational, and non-commercial use. You may download and use the paper for your own reference and research purposes only.
- No Reproduction or Distribution:
You may not reproduce, distribute, transmit, publish, or otherwise make the paper available to any third party in any form, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes, without the express written consent of the Driving Simulation Association.
- Copyright and Ownership:
The scientific paper is protected by copyright laws and is the intellectual property of the respective authors and publishers. All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
- Citation and Attribution:
If you use the scientific paper for research, presentations, or any other non-commercial purposes, you must provide appropriate citation and attribution to the original authors as per academic standards.
- No Modification:
You may not modify, alter, or adapt the content of the scientific paper in any way.
- Disclaimer:
The Driving Simulation Association makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the scientific paper for any particular purpose. The paper is provided as-is, without any warranties, express or implied. The Driving Simulation Association reserves the right to terminate or restrict access to the scientific paper at any time and without notice.