Cited by 116Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsAdvanced Optical Imaging TechnologiesVestibular and auditory disorders

A study of cybersickness and sensory conflict theory using a motion-coupled virtual reality system

Ng, Adrian K.T., Chan, Leith K.Y., Lau, Henry Y.K.·2020·Displays

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.displa.2019.08.004

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ng, A. K. T., Chan, L. K. Y., & Lau, H. Y. K.
Affiliations
University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Ng, Adrian K.T.
Venue
Displays
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
61
Pages
101922
ISSN
0141-9382 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2971793399
Cited by
116
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 1
FWCI
11.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Displays (publishedVersion)
Funders
University Grants Committee
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Advanced Optical Imaging Technologies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
Keywords
cybersickness, sensory conflict theory, virtual reality motion sickness, vestibular cues, head-mounted displays, motion platform, user comfort

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review