The presence of an avatar can reduce cybersickness in Virtual Reality
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual Reality (VR) applications are increasingly being utilized for research, healthcare, and education. Despite their benefits, many VR users report motion sickness-like sensations (cybersickness), such as headache, disorientation, or nausea. Previous studies suggest that the sense of presence (“being there”) in the virtual world may contribute to the severity of cybersickness; however, results have been contradictory, with some studies reporting a negative and some reporting a positive relationship between the two. The goal of the current study was to further investigate how presence and cybersickness are related. Participants ( N = 54) were exposed to a VR scene presented on a head-mounted display showing a 15-minute-long passive movement through space. The level of presence was manipulated by including an avatar (astronaut suit with hand-tracking) or no avatar in the virtual environment. Results showed that the avatar group reported significantly less severe cybersickness compared to the no-avatar group. We also found significant, negative correlations between some of the presence metrics (immersion, sensory fidelity) and cybersickness, indicating that cybersickness severity decreased as the level of presence increased. These findings suggest that more immersive VR experiences using an avatar may potentially reduce the risk of experiencing cybersickness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it