How was its effectiveness verified?

  • The study divided the effects of motion sickness by day.

Is there any discussion? What paper should I read next?

Brief Overview of the Paper, its Contributions beyond Previous Work,

What is it about?

  • It alleviates motion sickness by dynamically narrowing the field of view (FOV).

What makes it impressive compared to previous studies?

  • Methods like increasing tracking or frame rate to prevent motion sickness are not applicable when users navigate VR environments using controllers without physically moving.
  • While there were methods to reduce motion sickness by narrowing the FOV, dynamically adjusting it had not been researched.

What is the key technology or methodology?

  • Changing the FOV while rotating in VR is less noticeable.
    • Therefore, the rate of FOV change is determined based on overall speed and angular velocity.

What I like about it (explain why)

  • It successfully balances the trade-off between presence and sickness, which were previously thought to be mutually exclusive.

What I don’t like about it (explain why)

  • The FOV of HMDs at the time was smaller than current ones in 2023. The results might differ if the experiment was conducted using an HMD with a maximum FOV of around 120°.

What I think should have been done differently (explain why)

  • Cases where there are moving objects in the scene should have been tested as well.

What I think should be done next (explain why)

  • It is interesting that many people did not notice the decrease in FOV.
  • Recently, the FOV of commercial VR HMDs has been increasing, but does a wider FOV make motion sickness more likely?
  • Are there any other measures besides blacking out areas outside the FOV? Blurring, removing objects and displaying only the background, or reducing the resolution, for example.