MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390012735 · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2291613

Effects of Constant and Time-Varying Display Lag on DVP and Cybersickness When Making Head-Movements in Virtual Reality

2023· article· en· W4390012735 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsLagTime lagVirtual realityConstant (computer programming)Phase lagLag timeDynamics (music)Optical head-mounted displayComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)SimulationPsychologyMathematicsControl (management)Artificial intelligenceApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When HMD users move their heads in virtual reality (VR), display lag creates differences between their virtual and physical head pose (DVP). This study examined whether objective estimates of DVP could predict experiences of cybersickness during simulations with three different types of added lag: (1) Constant lag (where the display was always delayed by 250 ms); (2) Predictable time-varying lag (where delays alternated between 0 and 250 ms every 5 s); and (3) Random time-varying lag (where delays alternated between 0 and a randomly determined value, up to 250 ms, every 1–5 s). Constant, Predictable, and Random added lag were found to generate similar levels of cybersickness—with all three conditions producing more severe sickness than the Baseline lag control. Consistent with our DVP hypothesis, the spatial magnitude and temporal dynamics of our participants’ DVP were both found to be reliable predictors of their cybersickness in all display lag conditions tested.

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.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.319 · 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