Skip to Main Content
Table 1.
Overview of Simulation Sickness Evaluation in VR HMD Driving Applications
ObjectiveHMDN (f/m)MeasurementFindingsReference
Investigation of the sense of presence and physiological response induced by an immersive virtual environment. Oculus Rift CV1 5 (all male)M= 31.2SD= 4.6 - Heart rate- EDA- A customized presence and cybersickness questionnaire HMD increased the sense of presence. None of the participants reported cybersickness symptoms. The emergency maneuvering increased the response of heart rate and electrodermal activity. Eudave & Valencia (2017) 
Comparison of VR and non-VR driving simulations influence physiological responses, simulation sickness, and driving performance. Oculus Rift Development Kit 2 (DK2) 94 (24/70)M= 24.8SD= 4.7 - SSQ HMD induced significantly more discomfort than the stereoscopic 3D simulation. Weidner et al. (2017) 
Evaluation of VR driving simulation in relation to user's immersion in low-cost setup. HTC Vive 20 (5/14; one-not reported)M= 25.1SD= 3.2 - SSQ No significant difference between HMD and flat screen conditions regarding simulation sickness was reported. Walch et al. (2017) 
Evaluation of additional visual assets on simulation sickness outbreak in HMD driving simulation. Oculus Rift DK2 72 (18/54)M= 25.3SD= 5.2 - SSQ- A customized questionnaire Significantly reduced simulation sickness onset in a city VR environment with additional assets (e.g., pedestrians and other cars). No relation found between motion sickness history and simulation sickness. Ihemedu-Steinke et al. (2017) 
HMDs for human-cockpit interactions validation while driving in an immersive environment. Oculus Rift DK 1 20 (3/17)M= 28.3SD= 3.6 - SSQ Simulation sickness was significantly lower with PC setup than with HMD. Reported awkwardness when the users did not see their own hands. Reich, Buchholz, & Stark (2017) 
Motion sickness comparison between a CAVE environment and an HMD. Oculus Rift DK 2 24 (6/18)M= 36SD=- SSQ Simulation sickness might be increased with yaw acceleration increasing. Colombet, Kemeny, & George (2016) 
An investigation of galvanic cutaneous stimulation and auditory stimulation in mitigation simulation sickness. VR-based visual system 15 (6/9)M= 23.2 - SSQ- Head sway Simulation sickness is 47% less with galvanic cutaneous stimulation and audio stimulation in a static driver simulator. Galvez-Garcıa (2015) 
Development and evaluation of a VR driving simulator with HMD. Oculus Rift DK 2 25 (5/20)M= 37.6 - PQ Four out of five females felt sick in the first five minutes of the test. Almost all participants with no prior experience with HMD got simulation sick. Ihemedu-Steinke et al. (2015) 
Comparison between a static HMD and a medium range FOV driving simulator regarding simulation sickness. Oculus Rift DK 1 14 (2/12)M= 24.4SD= 2.3 - Customized questionnaire- Vehicle acceleration- Head (vestibular) acceleration Simulation sickness (SS) increased with the VR driving simulator. Users of the VR driving simulator felt more discomfort such as nausea, dizziness and eye strain. The level of immersion was higher with the VR driving simulator and it could deliver a better experience despite SS occurrence. Aykent et al. (2014) 
Assess the extent to which level the vehicle in a loop elicits realistic driving responses. NVIS SX111 44 (15/29)M= 29SD= 10 - SSQ Disorientation cluster symptoms were more severe than Nausea or Oculomotor ones. 4% stopped the experiment due to severe symptoms, 94% had minor symptoms. No significant difference between driving in a simple and a complex virtual world. Sieber et al. (2013) 
ObjectiveHMDN (f/m)MeasurementFindingsReference
Investigation of the sense of presence and physiological response induced by an immersive virtual environment. Oculus Rift CV1 5 (all male)M= 31.2SD= 4.6 - Heart rate- EDA- A customized presence and cybersickness questionnaire HMD increased the sense of presence. None of the participants reported cybersickness symptoms. The emergency maneuvering increased the response of heart rate and electrodermal activity. Eudave & Valencia (2017) 
Comparison of VR and non-VR driving simulations influence physiological responses, simulation sickness, and driving performance. Oculus Rift Development Kit 2 (DK2) 94 (24/70)M= 24.8SD= 4.7 - SSQ HMD induced significantly more discomfort than the stereoscopic 3D simulation. Weidner et al. (2017) 
Evaluation of VR driving simulation in relation to user's immersion in low-cost setup. HTC Vive 20 (5/14; one-not reported)M= 25.1SD= 3.2 - SSQ No significant difference between HMD and flat screen conditions regarding simulation sickness was reported. Walch et al. (2017) 
Evaluation of additional visual assets on simulation sickness outbreak in HMD driving simulation. Oculus Rift DK2 72 (18/54)M= 25.3SD= 5.2 - SSQ- A customized questionnaire Significantly reduced simulation sickness onset in a city VR environment with additional assets (e.g., pedestrians and other cars). No relation found between motion sickness history and simulation sickness. Ihemedu-Steinke et al. (2017) 
HMDs for human-cockpit interactions validation while driving in an immersive environment. Oculus Rift DK 1 20 (3/17)M= 28.3SD= 3.6 - SSQ Simulation sickness was significantly lower with PC setup than with HMD. Reported awkwardness when the users did not see their own hands. Reich, Buchholz, & Stark (2017) 
Motion sickness comparison between a CAVE environment and an HMD. Oculus Rift DK 2 24 (6/18)M= 36SD=- SSQ Simulation sickness might be increased with yaw acceleration increasing. Colombet, Kemeny, & George (2016) 
An investigation of galvanic cutaneous stimulation and auditory stimulation in mitigation simulation sickness. VR-based visual system 15 (6/9)M= 23.2 - SSQ- Head sway Simulation sickness is 47% less with galvanic cutaneous stimulation and audio stimulation in a static driver simulator. Galvez-Garcıa (2015) 
Development and evaluation of a VR driving simulator with HMD. Oculus Rift DK 2 25 (5/20)M= 37.6 - PQ Four out of five females felt sick in the first five minutes of the test. Almost all participants with no prior experience with HMD got simulation sick. Ihemedu-Steinke et al. (2015) 
Comparison between a static HMD and a medium range FOV driving simulator regarding simulation sickness. Oculus Rift DK 1 14 (2/12)M= 24.4SD= 2.3 - Customized questionnaire- Vehicle acceleration- Head (vestibular) acceleration Simulation sickness (SS) increased with the VR driving simulator. Users of the VR driving simulator felt more discomfort such as nausea, dizziness and eye strain. The level of immersion was higher with the VR driving simulator and it could deliver a better experience despite SS occurrence. Aykent et al. (2014) 
Assess the extent to which level the vehicle in a loop elicits realistic driving responses. NVIS SX111 44 (15/29)M= 29SD= 10 - SSQ Disorientation cluster symptoms were more severe than Nausea or Oculomotor ones. 4% stopped the experiment due to severe symptoms, 94% had minor symptoms. No significant difference between driving in a simple and a complex virtual world. Sieber et al. (2013) 

The HMD model, the number (N), the gender (f = female and m = male), and the age (M = mean age and SD = standard deviation) of the subjects and the measurements are mentioned. EDA = electrodermal activity.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal