Comparison of Simulator Sickness Using Static and Dynamic Walking Simulators

Findings from the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) evaluated several factors related to the physiological effects of immersive virtual environments (IVE) exposure. Subjects conducted locomotion activities within a selected IVE by traversing a three-dimensional computer hallway setting using either a mouse-driven static simulator or a treadmill-operated dynamic simulator system. Two levels of rendered visual detail were also compared for their SSQ effects. Simulator Sickness Questionnaire analyses reveal an effect of gender such that the females were significantly more affected by simulator activities than the male subjects. Length of time in the simulator was also found to have a significant physiological effect on the participants in the tested range of 13–23 minutes of exposure. Longer time intervals were associated with significantly greater symptoms of simulator sickness and perceived discomfort. A comparison of scores between distance judgment and movement production activities produced no significant results, leading to the conclusion that the task objectives were not different from one another in simulator effects on the participants. Individuals who used the static simulator were significantly more affected than those with similar exposure times in the dynamic simulator. Analysis of two levels of detail in the IVEs revealed a tendency for more richly textured imagery to yield higher Total Severity SSQ scores with nearly significant differences. In accordance with previously established simulator sickness profiles, the static simulator pattern of symptoms resembled those of visually-dependant IVEs (cybersickness), while the dynamic simulator symptomology was more analogous to that of motion-based IVEs (classic simulator sickness).

[1]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. , 1993 .

[2]  Earl Hunt,et al.  The Transfer of Spatial Knowledge in Virtual Environment Training , 1998, Presence.

[3]  Gary E. Riccio,et al.  Visually Induced Motion Sickness in Virtual Environments , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[4]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Virtual Environments for Dismounted Soldier Training and Performance: Results, Recommendations, and Issues. , 1998 .

[5]  James P. Bliss,et al.  The Virtual Environment Performance Assessment Battery (VEPAB):Development and Evaluation1 , 1994, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[6]  Michael K. McGee.  Using Psychophysics to Measure Negative Side Effects in Immersive Virtual Environments , 1998 .

[7]  Kay M. Stanney,et al.  Aftereffects from Virtual Environment Exposure: How Long do They Last? , 1998 .

[8]  Michael E. McCauley,et al.  Cybersickness: Perception of Self-Motion in Virtual Environments , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[9]  R S Kennedy,et al.  Use of a motion sickness history questionnaire for prediction of simulator sickness. , 1992, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[10]  Ronald R. Mourant,et al.  Simulator Sickness in a Virtual Environments Driving Simulator , 2000 .

[11]  Richard D. Gilson,et al.  Simulator Sickness and Related Findings in a Virtual Environment , 1998 .

[12]  Curt C. Braun,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Control and Sensory Compatibility on Sickness in Virtual Environments , 1996 .

[13]  Julie M. Drexler,et al.  Cybersickness is Not Simulator Sickness , 1997 .

[14]  Frank Biocca,et al.  Will Simulation Sickness Slow Down the Diffusion of Virtual Environment Technology? , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.