Cited by 47Technology Use by Older AdultsVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

VR usability from elderly cohorts: Preparatory challenges in overcoming technology rejection

Coldham, George, Cook, David M.·2017·2017 National Information Technology Conference (NITC)

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) usability is an emerging area that has made rapid progress among early adopters, but has so far failed to address the concerns of late adopters. In particular, elderly cohorts stand to benefit greatly from VR technologies as they enter areas of assistive technology, gerontechnology, and authentic modes of training. This study examined technology rejection criteria from a sample of 19 retired persons by comparing normative and VR practices for the fundamental learning of navigation using Google Earth mapping. This research discovered that three dimensional fear was a major factor in determining the acceptance and rejection of VR as a usable instrument for training elderly people in the use of navigation by means of enhanced mapping. This study examines the hypothesis that in combination, physical and pseudo physical realities require a range of preparatory exercises to acclimatize older users towards a stress-free approach to VR adoption. This study aimed to reveal new understanding about technology rejection in older populations, in particular where the physical presence of the wearing of VR equipment, in combination with the psychological and mental fear of the 3D experience, brought about high levels of technology rejection. Hesitation to accept VR equipment across both physical and perceptual boundaries is problematic for elderly users where rich 3D experiences are a requirement for successful, purposeful, and authentic tasking.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/nitc.2017.8285645

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The number of buttons caused problems, with participants forgetting the function of each of them over time.

    “The number of buttons also caused problems, with participants forgetting the function of each of them over time [45].”
  • Issues with the handheld controllers were reported in 5/13 of the studies, including poor ergonomics, awkward feeling and positioning, and smoothness of the buttons.

    “Issues with the handheld controllers were reported in 5/13 of the studies and included poor ergonomics of the controllers [15,45] and the awkward feeling and positioning [15,45] and smoothness of the buttons [45].”
  • Participants in 11/13 of the studies reported issues with the HMD, including that it was too heavy, caused general discomfort, caused disorientation and imbalance, and caused feelings of being trapped, confined, afraid, or anxious.

    “Participants in 11/13 of the studies reported issues with the HMD, including that it was too heavy [9,44,45,48,50]; caused general discomfort [9,15,16,44,50]; caused disorientation and imbalance [44,46]; and caused feelings of being trapped, confined [45], afraid, or anxious [16,45].”
  • Perceptions of the audiovisual quality of IVR hardware varied across studies, with 5/13 of the studies reporting some form of audiovisual issue such as volume not being at the right level or not clear enough, or sound from the physical environment negatively affecting the IVR experience.

    “Perceptions of the audiovisual quality of IVR hardware varied across studies [14,16,45,48-52]. A total of 5/13 of the studies reported some form of audiovisual issue [14,45,49-51], with feedback that the volume was not at the right level or was not clear enough [45,49-51] or that sound coming from the physical environment could negatively affect the IVR experience [45].”
  • Self-awareness of HMDs that were tethered to a computer caused concerns that participants would damage the cable or be electrocuted if they stood on it.

    “Self-awareness of HMDs that were tethered to a computer also caused concerns as participants were worried that they would damage the cable or be electrocuted if they stood on it [45].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coldham, G., & Cook, D. M.
Affiliations
Edith Cowan University (AU)
Venue
2017 National Information Technology Conference (NITC)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-09
Pages
131-135
OpenAlex
W2784766352
Cited by
47
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
8.94
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • National Information Technology Conference (NITC) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (Edith Cowan University) (submittedVersion)
  • Edith Cowan University Research Online (Edith Cowan University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
resistance to technology, older adults, gerontechnology, assistive technology, navigation training, Google Earth, late adopters

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