Cited by 913Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFlow Experience in Various FieldsAdvanced Optical Imaging Technologies

Presence and Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Are Negatively Related: A Review

Open access
Weech, Séamas, Kenny, Sophie, Barnett-Cowan, Michael·2019·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

In order to take advantage of the potential offered by the medium of virtual reality (VR), it will be essential to develop an understanding of how to maximize the desirable experience of "presence" in a virtual space ("being there"), and how to minimize the undesirable feeling of "cybersickness" (a constellation of discomfort symptoms experienced in VR). Although there have been frequent reports of a possible link between the observer's sense of presence and the experience of bodily discomfort in VR, the amount of literature that discusses the nature of the relationship is limited. Recent research has underlined the possibility that these variables have shared causes, and that both factors may be manipulated with a single approach. This review paper summarizes the concepts of presence and cybersickness and highlights the strengths and gaps in our understanding about their relationship. We review studies that have measured the association between presence and cybersickness, and conclude that the balance of evidence favors a negative relationship between the two factors which is driven principally by sensory integration processes. We also discuss how system immersiveness might play a role in modulating both presence and cybersickness. However, we identify a serious absence of high-powered studies that aim to reveal the nature of this relationship. Based on this evidence we propose recommendations for future studies investigating presence, cybersickness, and other related factors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00158

Cites

187 of 187 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Chertoff D. B. Schatz S. L. (2014). “Beyond presence: how holistic experience drives training and education,” in Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications eds Hale K. S. Stanney K. M. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press) 857– 872.
  2. Cobb S. V. Nichols S. Wilson J. R. (1995). “Health and safety implications of virtual reality: in search of an experimental methodology,” in Proceedings of the FIVEi95 (Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments) (London: University of London) 227– 242.
  3. DiZio P. Lackner J. R. (1997). “August. Circumventing side effects of immersive virtual environments,” in Design of Computing Systems: Social and Ergonomic Considerations eds Smith M. Salvendy G. Koubek R. (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science) 893– 896.
  4. Felnhofer A. Kothgassner O. D. Beutl L. Hlavacs H. Kryspin-Exner I. (2012). “Is virtual reality made for men only? Exploring gender differences in the sense of presence,” in Proceedings of the International Society on Presence Research Philadelphia, PA 103– 112.
  5. Glover J. C. (2009). “Vestibular system,” in Encyclopedia of Neuroscience eds Squire L. R. Dronkers N. F. Baldo J. V. (Amsterdam: Elsevier) 127– 132.
  6. IJsselsteijn W. A. de Ridder H. Freeman J. Avons S. E. (2000). “June. Presence: concept, determinants, and measurement,” in Human Vision and Electronic Imaging Vol. 3959 (Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optics and Photonics) 520– 530.
  7. Krueger M. (1992). Artificial Reality 2nd Edn. Rexling, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  8. Prothero J. D. Parker D. E. (2003). “A unitied approach to presence and motion sickness,” in Virtual and Adaptive Environments: Applications, Implications, and Human Performance Issues eds Hettinger L. J. Haas L. W. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press) 61– 80.
  9. Reason J. T. Brand J. J. (1975). Motion Sickness. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
  10. Sadowski W. Stanney K. (2002). “Presence in virtual environments,” in Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications ed. Stanney K. M. (Boca Raton: FL: CRC Press) 791– 807.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weech, S., Kenny, S., & Barnett-Cowan, M.
Affiliations
University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
Weech, Séamas
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2019-02-04
Volume
10
Pages
158-158
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2912830318
Cited by
913
References
187
Citations by year
2026: 142 · 2025: 138 · 2024: 120 · 2023: 136 · 2022: 135 · 2021: 138 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 18 · 2013: 1
FWCI
8.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (#RGPIN-05435-2014, -05435-2014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Flow Experience in Various Fields
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Advanced Optical Imaging Technologies
Keywords
virtual reality, presence, cybersickness, sensory integration

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