Examining Motion Sickness in Virtual Reality
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Masaryk University Faculty of Informatics Examining Motion Sickness in Virtual Reality Master’s Thesis Roman Lukš Brno, Fall 2017 Masaryk University Faculty of Informatics Examining Motion Sickness in Virtual Reality Master’s Thesis Roman Lukš Brno, Fall 2017 This is where a copy of the official signed thesis assignment and a copy ofthe Statement of an Author is located in the printed version of the document. Declaration Hereby I declare that this paper is my original authorial work, which I have worked out on my own. All sources, references, and literature used or excerpted during elaboration of this work are properly cited and listed in complete reference to the due source. Roman Lukš Advisor: doc. Fotis Liarokapis, PhD. i Acknowledgement I want to thank the following people who helped me: ∙ Fotis Liarokapis - for guidance ∙ Milan Doležal - for providing discount vouchers ∙ Roman Gluszny & Michal Sedlák - for advice ∙ Adam Qureshi - for advice ∙ Jakub Stejskal - for sharing ∙ people from Škool - for sharing ∙ various VR developers - for sharing their insights with me ∙ all participants - for participation in the experiment ∙ my parents - for supporting me during my studies iii Abstract Thesis is evaluating two visual methods and whether they help to alleviate motion sickness. The first method is the presence of a frame of reference (in form of a cockpit and a radial) and the second method is the visible path (in form of waypoints in the virtual environment). Four testing groups were formed. Two for each individual method, one combining both methods and one control group. Each group consisting of 15 subjects. It was a passive seated experience and Oculus Rift CV1 was used. Results are inconclusive due to several factors such as high variance between groups, however there is a pattern in the data favoring visual path as a better method against motion sickness compared to the frame of reference. Recommendation is to employ this method if possible in virtual reality experiences. iv Keywords virtual reality, VR, motion sickness, simulation sickness, frame of reference, visible path, Oculus Rift, head-mounted display, virtual environments v Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Aims and objectives ......................1 1.2 Structure of the thesis .....................2 2 Background 5 2.1 Virtual Reality ........................5 2.2 Motion Sickness ........................5 2.3 Methods against motion sickness ...............6 2.3.1 Frame of reference . .6 2.3.2 Visible path . .7 2.3.3 Field of view . .7 2.3.4 Speed . .8 2.3.5 Locomotion . .8 2.3.6 Pharmaceutics . 10 2.3.7 Habituation/Adaptation . 10 2.3.8 Galvanic vestibular stimulation . 12 2.3.9 Cognitive load . 13 2.3.10 Posture . 13 2.3.11 Breaks . 15 2.3.12 User in control . 15 3 Design & Implementation 17 3.1 Scene design .......................... 17 3.2 Implementation ........................ 20 3.3 Setting up VR in Unity engine ................ 20 3.4 Scene hierarchy ........................ 21 3.5 Cockpit and the clipping plane ................ 22 3.6 Cockpit controller ....................... 22 3.7 UI in VR ........................... 22 3.8 Keyboard shortcuts ...................... 23 3.9 View recentering ....................... 24 3.10 Size of the scene ........................ 24 3.11 Terrain and textures ...................... 25 3.12 Rail System .......................... 26 3.12.1 Waypoints . 28 vii 3.13 Terrain and vehicle ...................... 29 3.13.1 Rotation and leaning . 29 3.13.2 Speed . 30 3.13.3 Movement stuttering issue . 30 3.14 Implementation of the methods against motion sickness ... 31 3.14.1 Frame of reference . 31 3.14.2 Visible path . 31 3.14.3 Mechanism . 33 3.15 Scaling 3D models ...................... 34 3.16 Draw distance and billboard issue in VR ........... 34 3.17 OVRService .......................... 35 3.18 Performance optimizations .................. 35 3.18.1 Regular runs with Profiler . 35 3.18.2 Hardware specifications . 36 3.18.3 Occlusion culling and level design . 36 3.18.4 Other optimizations . 37 3.19 Note on development process ................. 38 3.19.1 Health and Safety Warnings . 39 4 Methodology 41 4.1 The experiment ........................ 41 4.2 Experiment process ...................... 42 4.2.1 Pilot . 43 4.2.2 Preparation . 43 4.2.3 Before the VR scene . 43 4.2.4 VR scene . 44 4.2.5 Body posture differences . 45 4.2.6 After the VR scene . 45 4.3 Gathering participants .................... 47 4.3.1 Promotion . 47 4.3.2 Registration for experiments . 51 4.3.3 Participant assignment to a testing group . 54 5 Results 57 5.1 Quantitative .......................... 57 5.1.1 SSQ results . 57 5.1.2 Further analysis of SSQ results . 66 5.1.3 Personal Information Questionnaire . 69 viii 5.1.4 Presence questionnaire . 92 5.1.5 Task Load Index (TLX) . 102 5.2 Qualitative .......................... 105 5.2.1 Blurry text . 106 5.2.2 Experience - curiosity . 107 5.2.3 Experience - first time . 107 5.2.4 Expectations . 108 5.2.5 Immersion and virtual body . 109 5.2.6 Experiment process . 110 5.2.7 Technical issues . 112 5.2.8 Headset adjustment . 113 5.2.9 Laboratory . 113 5.2.10 Movement . 113 5.2.11 Involuntary body movement . 113 5.2.12 Oculus device . 114 5.2.13 Questionnaires . 115 5.2.14 Graphics . 117 5.2.15 Sound . 120 5.2.16 FoR, VP group specific feedback . 121 5.2.17 FoR group specific feedback . 124 5.2.18 VP group specific feedback . 126 5.2.19 Control group specific feedback . 128 6 Conclusion 131 6.1 Discussion .......................... 131 6.1.1 Summary . 138 6.2 Future work .......................... 139 7 Bibliography 143 Bibliography 145 8 Index 153 Index 155 A Facebook groups 157 B Consent form 161 ix C Feedback form 165 D Presence Questionnaire 167 E Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) 171 F Personal Information Questionnaire 175 G Presence Questionnaire - results 189 H SSQ descriptives 197 I Task Load Index (TLX) 201 J Task Load Index - CSV file 203 K Promotion 205 L Used assets 209 x List of Tables 4.1 4 groups of participants and methods (Frame of reference, Visible path) 41 5.1 Mean, median and std. for each method (SSQ) 61 5.2 Mean values and examples of extremely high and low values for each method (SSQ) 66 5.3 Lower and upper bounds (SSQ scores) 67 5.4 Mean and trimmed mean values for each method (SSQ scores) 67 xi List of Figures 2.1 Mean SSQ scores of two conditions (Rest frame and Non-rest frame) in the effective group. N = Nausea; O = Oculomotor; D = Disorientation; *p < .05. [10] 7 2.2 Navigation speeds (m/s r.m.s. in fore-and-aft axis) [14] 8 2.3 Geometry Conditions: Stairs and Ramp Modes [15] 9 2.4 User is reoriented into the center of the CAVE by walking through a portal. [20] 10 2.5 Mean total reported sickness score, with standard error bars, as a function of number of successive flights in a single helicopter flight simulator. [18] 11 2.6 Comparison of mean group response with participant who reported increased symptoms. [33] 12 2.7 Mean and standard error of post drive SSQ scores (GVS). [19] 13 2.8 Nauseogenicity increases towards the top. [22] 14 2.9 Mean total reported sickness score, with standard error bars, as a function of flight duration in a variety of helicopter flight simulators. [18] 15 2.10 Comparison between active and passive participants [25] 16 3.1 Early draft of the scene 20 3.2 Enabling VR in Unity 21 3.3 Early version of the crosshair (reticle) clipping inside geometry of the cockpit 23 3.4 Screenshot of the Scene View in Unity engine illustrating size of the terrain 25 3.5 Scene View in Unity showing waypoints 27 3.6 Using Gizmos lines to visualize track in the editor 28 3.7 None (screenshot of the scene) 32 3.8 VP (screenshot of the scene) 32 3.9 FoR (screenshot of the scene) 33 3.10 FoR, VP (screenshot of the scene) 33 3.11 Screenshot of the Scene View in Unity with occlusion culling in action 38 xiii 4.1 Various body postures 46 4.2 Participant fills in the registration (example) 51 4.3 Participant session marked green (example) 52 4.4 Cell protection feature in Google Sheets 53 5.1 SSQ scores 58 5.2 Histogram for the 1st group: FoR,VP 59 5.3 Histogram for the 2nd group: FoR 59 5.4 Histogram for the 3rd group: VP 60 5.5 Histogram for the 4th group: none 61 5.6 Independent samples test (FoR method) 62 5.7 Independent samples test (VP method) 63 5.8 Independent samples test (both methods) 64 5.9 Independent samples test comparing FoR and VP 65 5.10 SSQ percentiles 67 5.11 Scatter plot for each group (y-axis: Total SSQ score, x-axis: Nausea score 68 5.12 Scatter plot for all groups (y-axis: Total SSQ score, x-axis: Nausea score) 69 5.13 Age groups summary 70 5.14 SSQ scores for 3 distinct age groups 71 5.15 Scatter plot for 3 distinct age groups 72 5.16 T-test for 2 age groups 72 5.17 Gender and the SSQ score (box chart) 73 5.18 Gender and the SSQ score (scatter plot) 74 5.19 Gender (T-test) 75 5.20 Histogram (Gender) 76 5.21 76 5.22 Weekdays (summary) 77 5.23 Weekdays (box chart) 78 5.24 Weekdays (scatter plot) 78 5.25 Weekdays (t-test) 79 5.26 Histogram for the morning sessions, shows frequency of the SSQ scores 80 5.27 Histogram for the afternoon sessions, shows frequency of the SSQ scores 80 5.28 Morning and afternoon sessions (box chart) 81 5.29 Morning and afternoon sessions (scatter plot) 81 xiv 5.30 Morning and afternoon sessions (T-test) 82 5.31 Computer usage (summary) 83 5.32 Computer usage (box chart) 83 5.33 Computer usage (scatter plot) 84 5.34 Videogames (summary) 85 5.35 Videogames (box chart) 85 5.36 Videogames (scatter plot) 86 5.37 Videogames (T-test)