Different Head-Sway Responses to Optic Flow in Sitting and Standing With a Head-Mounted Display

Design guidelines for limiting and eliminating virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects at work: a comprehensive, factor-oriented review

Virtual reality (VR) can induce side effects known as virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects (VRISE). To address this concern, we identify a literature-based listing of these factors thought to influence VRISE with a focus on office work use. Using those, we recommend guidelines for VRISE amelioration intended for virtual environment creators and users. We identify five VRISE risks, focusing on short-term symptoms with their short-term effects. Three overall factor categories are considered: individual, hardware, and software. Over 90 factors may influence VRISE frequency and severity. We identify guidelines for each factor to help reduce VR side effects. To better reflect our confidence in those guidelines, we graded each with a level of evidence rating. Common factors occasionally influence different forms of VRISE. This can lead to confusion in the literature. General guidelines for using VR at work involve worker adaptation, such as limiting immersion times to between 20 and 30 min. These regimens involve taking regular breaks. Extra care is required for workers with special needs, neurodiversity, and gerontechnological concerns. In addition to following our guidelines, stakeholders should be aware that current head-mounted displays and virtual environments can continue to induce VRISE. While no single existing method fully alleviates VRISE, workers' health and safety must be monitored and safeguarded when VR is used at work.

Visual feedback in the lower visual field affects postural control during static standing

BACKGROUND

The dorsal parietal visual system plays an important role in self-motion perception and spatial cognition. It also strongly responds to visual inputs from the lower visual field. Postural control is modified in a process called sensory reweighting based on the reliability of available sensory sources. The question of whether visual stimuli presented to either the lower or upper visual field affect postural control and sensory reweighting has not been resolved.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do visual stimuli presented to the lower and upper visual fields affect postural control and sensory reweighting?

METHODS

Twenty-nine healthy young adults participated in the study. Four conditions (full visual field, upper visual field, lower visual field, and no optic flow condition) were simulated in a VR environment using a head-mounted display. The optic flow stimuli used were swarms of small white spheres originating from the central point of the visual field, moving radially towards the periphery, and expanding across the scene. Participants were instructed to stand quietly for 50 s under each visual condition. Using force plate signals, we measured the center of pressure (COP) signal in the horizontal plane and calculated its 95 % ellipse area, root mean square (RMS) deviations, the mean velocity, and power spectral density (PSD).

RESULTS

Optic flow in the full and lower visual fields produced significantly smaller 95 % ellipse area and RMS of COP in the anterior-posterior direction compared to optic flow in the upper visual field. Furthermore, the PSD of the lower frequency band (0-0.3 Hz) was decreased and that of higher frequency bands (0.3-1 Hz and 1-3 Hz) was increased for the lower compared to the upper visual field.

SIGNIFICANCE

Visual feedback affects static postural control more when presented in the lower visual field compared to the upper visual field.

Postural sway in the moving room scenario: New evidence for functional dissociation between self-motion perception and postural control

Postural control in quiet standing is often explained by a reflexive response to optical flow, the apparent motion of environmental objects in a visual scene. However, moving room experiments show that even small-amplitude body sway can evoke odd sensations or motion sickness, indicating that a consciousness factor may also be involved. Studies targeting perception of self-motion, vection, typically use rapid visual stimuli moving in a single direction to maintain a constant feeling of vection, and there are few studies of vection using low-speed sinusoidal visual stimuli similar to human pendular movement. In the present study we searched for changes in postural control during periods of vection during quiet standing. Participants (N = 19, age = 20.4 ±1.1 years) were shown dynamic visual stimuli in the form of sinusoidally expanding and contracting random dots, and the stimuli speed and visual field were manipulated. Posture was continually evaluated using Center of Pressure (CoP) measurements. Participants were also asked to report feelings of vection, both by pressing a button during the trial and through an overall rating at the end of each trial. Using repeated-measures ANOVA, we assessed changes in the CoP and vection variables between experimental conditions, as well as possible interactions between the variables. The results show that postural reaction and vection were both affected by the visual stimuli and varied with speed. The peripheral visual field was found to couple to stronger feeling of vection and better quality of postural control. However, no significant relationship between postural control and vection, nor evidence of vection interaction to the relationship between optical flow and postural control, was found. Based on our results we conclude that for postural stability during quiet standing, visual cues dominate over any potential consciousness factor arising due to vection.