3.9 Article

Frequency, Not Amplitude, of Latency Affects Subjective Sickness in a Head-Mounted Display

期刊

AEROSPACE MEDICINE AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE
卷 87, 期 7, 页码 604-609

出版社

AEROSPACE MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.3357/AMHP.4351.2016

关键词

frequency of latency; amplitude of latency; simulator sickness; head mounted displays

资金

  1. NASA [NNX10AM76H]
  2. NASA [NNX10AM76H, 128715] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Interactions between frequency and amplitude of latency in head-mounted displays (HMDs) are thought to affect simulator sickness. Many studies have linked system latency to subjective sickness, but recent research has found that at least with the case of inertia-based head tracking technology, latency is not a constant; rather it varies systematically over time due to sensor errors and clock asynchronization.The purpose of this experiment was to further explore the relationship between frequency and amplitude of latency as they relate to subjective sickness experienced in an HMD. METHODS: In a 2 (frequency) X 2 (amplitude) design, 120 subjects were randomly assigned to 4 latency conditions. Frequency of latency was either 0.2 Hz or 1.0 Hz. Amplitude of latency was either 100 ms fixed or 20-100 ms varying. RESULTS: A main effect of frequency of latency was found. Subjects reported greater sickness in the 0.2-Hz frequency conditions (39.0 +/- 27.8) compared to the 1-Hz conditions (30.3 +/- 17.0). Additionally, 18 subjects withdrew their participation early in the 0.2-Hz conditions compared to 7 in the 1.0-Hz conditions. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, frequency of latency appears to play a role in the experience of sickness in HMDs in both subjective reporting of symptoms and subject performance. The current study confirms results of earlier studies, finding that real motion around a frequency of 0.2 Hz is more sickening than other frequencies. Future work should continue to parse the effects of frequency and amplitude of latency in head-tracked HMDs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据