MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894311373 · doi:10.1177/1541931218621461

Discussion Panel: Motion Sickness in Virtual Environments

2018· article· en· W2894311373 on OpenAlexaff
Eric R. Muth, Behrang Keshavarz, L. James Smart, Richard H. Y. So, Sarah Beadle

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion sicknessVirtual realitySimulator sicknessFidelityMotion (physics)Psychological interventionComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this panel is to provide information on motion sickness in virtual environments and discuss human factors issues associated with visually induced motion sickness. With the continued growth of virtual reality devices comes challenges, one of which is the pervasiveness of motion sickness. A panel of experts on motion sickness will join to discuss how they incite and study sickness in their research, providing lessons on how it can impact other research topics and be avoided in future studies. Panelists use methods such as postural sway, psychophysiological measures, and subjective measures to study different aspects of motion sickness. Technology used by these experts ranges from rotating chairs to high fidelity driving simulators. This panel is oriented for those with simulators who want to know what interventions they can employ to alleviate sickness in their research, those who create virtual environments, and those who use virtual reality devices in their research. Considerations for the design of virtual and augmented reality devices and content will be discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207