Automatic Prediction of Cybersickness for Virtual Reality Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cybersickness, which is also called Virtual Reality (VR) sickness, poses a significant challenge to the VR user experience. Previous work demonstrated the viability of predicting cybersickness for VR 360°videos. Is it possible to automatically predict the level of cybersickness for interactive VR games? In this paper, we present a machine learning approach to automatically predict the level of cybersickness for VR games. First, we proposed a novel ranking-rating (RR) score to measure the ground-truth annotations for cybersickness. We then verified the RR scores by comparing them with the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) scores. Next, we extracted features from heterogeneous data sources including the VR visual input, the head movement, and the individual characteristics. Finally, we built three machine learning models and evaluated their performances: the Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) trained from scratch, the Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Networks (LSTM-RNN) trained from scratch, and the Support Vector Regression (SVR). The results indicated that the best performance of predicting cybersickness was obtained by the LSTM-RNN, providing a viable solution for automatically cybersickness prediction for interactive VR games.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".