MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cybersickness Marker Prediction Using a Biosensors-Instrumented VR Headset: A Pilot Study

2024· article· en· W4399801067 on OpenAlexaff
Marc-Antoine Moinnereau, Tiago H. Falk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadsetComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cybersickness is a major concern in virtual reality (VR) experiences. Understanding and quantifying this phenomenon is essential to improve user comfort and enhance the overall VR experience. In this study, we explore the use of a custom-built por table VR headset equipped with multimodal biosensors to develop markers of cybersickness. The headset can record/stream electroencephalography (EEG), electrooculography (EOG), electrocardiography (ECG), and head movement data in real-time. A pilot experiment with eight participants was conducted where, at the end of a VR session at the gamers’ homes, participants rated their cybersickness symptoms across eight dimensions: headache, eyestrain, increased salivation and sweat, nausea, fullness of the head, dizziness with eyes open, and vertigo. From the collected biosignals, a series of features were extracted, ranked and explored as uni-or multi-modal markers for the different cybersickness ratings. Overall, it was found that EEG features were useful as correlates of vertigo, dizziness, and increased sweat, while head movements for nausea and headache. When multimodal markers were explored, improved cybersickness characterization was achieved for seven of the eight ratings. It is hoped that these findings will help researchers to better understand cybersickness and offers ways to improve the VR experience for users.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207