Cybersickness, or sickness caused by virtual reality (VR), represents a significant threat to the usability of VR applications. Repeated exposure to the same VR stimulus causes a reduction in cybersickness, referred to as Cybersickness Abatement from Repeated Exposure (CARE). This study examined whether the benefits of CARE generalize across distinct VR contexts, which was operationalized as three distinct games (a climbing game, a puzzle game, and a stealth survival game). Participants played a VR game for up to 20 minutes. Those in the Repeated Exposure condition played one VR game (either a puzzle game or a climbing game) on three separate days followed by a different VR game (a survival game) on the fourth day. Those in the Single Exposure condition played the survival game once. The three games all differed in several ways, including environment and task, whereas the puzzle and survival games shared a similar joystick locomotion interface that differed from the locomotion interface in the climbing game. Results indicate that cybersickness on Day 4 of the Repeated Exposure condition was significantly lower than that in the Single Exposure condition, regardless of which game was experienced on Days 1-3. The practical implication of this finding is that CARE that occurs in one VR context can generalize to a novel context with a distinct environment, task, and locomotion interface. Results are considered in the context of multiple theoretical explanations for CARE, including sensory rearrangement and habituation. These results support systematic exposure as an approach to reducing cybersickness.

Cybersickness, or sickness induced by virtual reality (VR), negatively impacts the enjoyment and adoption of the technology. One method that has been used to reduce sickness is repeated exposure to VR, herein Cybersickness Abatement from Repeated Exposure (CARE). However, high sickness levels during repeated exposure may discourage some users from returning. Field of view (FOV) restriction reduces cybersickness by minimizing visual motion in the periphery, but also negatively affects the user's visual experience. This study explored whether CARE that occurs with FOV restriction generalizes to a full FOV experience. Participants played a VR game for up to 20 minutes. Those in the Repeated Exposure Condition played the same VR game on four separate days, experiencing FOV restriction during the first three days and no FOV restriction on the fourth day. Results indicated significant CARE with FOV restriction (Days 1--3). Further, cybersickness on Day 4, without FOV restriction, was significantly lower than that of participants in the Single Exposure Condition, who experienced the game without FOV restriction only on one day. The current findings show that significant CARE can occur while experiencing minimal cybersickness. Results are considered in the context of multiple theoretical explanations for CARE, including sensory rearrangement, adaptation, habituation, and postural control.

Multiple tools are available to reduce cybersickness (sickness caused by virtual reality), but past research has not investigated the combined effects of multiple mitigation tools. Field of view (FOV) restriction limits peripheral vision during self-motion, and ample evidence supports its effectiveness for reducing cybersickness. Snap turning involves discrete rotations of the user's perspective without presenting intermediate views, although reports on its effectiveness at reducing cybersickness are limited and equivocal. Both mitigation tools reduce the visual motion that can cause cybersickness. The current study (N = 201) investigated the individual and combined effects of FOV restriction and snap turning on cybersickness when playing a consumer virtual reality game. FOV restriction and snap turning in isolation reduced cybersickness compared to a control condition without mitigation tools. Yet, the combination of FOV restriction and snap turning did not further reduce cybersickness beyond the individual tools in isolation, and in some cases the combination of tools led to cybersickness similar to that in the no mitigation control. These results indicate that caution is warranted when combining multiple cybersickness mitigation tools, which can interact in unexpected ways.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has led to a drastic increase in the frequency of videoconferencing used for work, school, and socialization. To date, the user experience impact of this increased screen time is unknown. We surveyed 489 participants (Mage = 24.19, Range = 18–72) to determine which factors best predict visual and body discomfort. Along with gender, screen time, and level of subjective meeting fatigue, meeting duration significantly predicted visual discomfort. In contrast, meeting frequency (along with the level of meeting engagement, subjective meeting fatigue, and other covariates) significantly predicted bodily discomfort. These results highlight the need for greater ergonomic evaluation of work-from-home setups, as well as point to a need for shorter, fewer, and more engaging video meetings for the average worker from home.

The wide availability of consumer-oriented virtual reality (VR) equipment has enabled researchers to recruit existing VR owners to participate remotely using their own equipment. Yet, there are many differences between lab environments and home environments, as well as differences between participant samples recruited for lab studies and remote studies. This paper replicates a lab-based experiment on VR locomotion interfaces using a remote sample. Participants completed a triangle-completion task (travel two path legs, then point to the path origin) using their own VR equipment in a remote, unsupervised setting. Locomotion was accomplished using two versions of the teleporting interface varying in availability of rotational self-motion cues. The size of the traveled path and the size of the surrounding virtual environment were also manipulated. Results from remote participants largely mirrored lab results, with overall better performance when rotational self-motion cues were available. Some differences also occurred, including a tendency for remote participants to rely less on nearby landmarks, perhaps due to increased competence with using the teleporting interface to update self-location. This replication study provides insight for VR researchers on aspects of lab studies that may or may not replicate remotely.

The number of people who own a virtual reality (VR) head-mounted display (HMD) has reached a point where researchers can readily recruit HMD owners to participate remotely using their own equipment. However, HMD owners recruited online may differ from the university community members who typically participate in VR research. HMD owners (n=220) and non-owners (n=282) were recruited through two online work sites-Amazon's Mechanical Turk and Prolific-and an undergraduate participant pool. Participants completed a survey in which they provided demographic information and completed measures of HMD use, video game use, spatial ability, and motion sickness susceptibility. In the context of the populations sampled, the results provide 1) a characterization of HMD owners, 2) a snapshot of the most commonly owned HMDs, 3) a comparison between HMD owners and non-owners, and 4) a comparison among online workers and undergraduates. Significant gender differences were found: men reported lower motion sickness susceptibility and more video game hours than women, and men outperformed women on spatial tasks. Men comprised a greater proportion of HMD owners than non-owners, but after accounting for this imbalance, HMD owners did not differ appreciably from non-owners. Comparing across recruitment platform, male undergraduates outperformed male online workers on spatial tests, and female undergraduates played fewer video game hours than female online workers. The data removal rate was higher from Amazon compared to Prolific, possibly reflecting greater dishonesty. These results provide a description of HMD users that can inform researchers recruiting remote participants through online work sites. These results also signal a need for caution when comparing in-person VR research that primarily enrolls undergraduates to online VR research that enrolls online workers.