A New Training Method for VR Sickness Reduction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes a training method to reduce virtual reality (VR) sickness experienced when using head mounted displays (HMD). The concept of pre-exposing users to VR disease to induce adaptation is innovative but requires careful ethical considerations. Inducing disease as a form of training could have ethical implications and may not be suitable for all users, particularly those with pre-existing conditions that could be exacerbated by such exposure.

 

Observations on design and experimental results:

1. The experiment involved a relatively small sample size of 13 subjects, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The small sample size also increases the likelihood that statistical anomalies will affect the results.

2. The use of the SSQ (Simulator Sickness Questionnaire) and the VR illness response as measures is standard and appropriate for this type of research, ensuring the relevance of the results to the wider field of VR illness studies.

3. The withdrawal of two subjects due to VR disease is notable. Although their inclusion in the dropout analysis is methodologically sound, it also highlights the potential severity of VR disease for some individuals and the challenges in developing universally effective mitigation strategies - how have you approached this please to detail in the manuscript.

4. The significant decrease in nausea and oculomotor discomfort scores after training, with p values indicating statistical significance, is promising. However, the lack of significant improvement in disorientation scores and SSQ total score suggests that the training method may not be equally effective across all dimensions of VR disease - how you approached this, please detail in the manuscript.

5. Dividing subjects into low and high VR disease response groups and the observed trends underscore the variability of individual training responses. This variability suggests that while training may be beneficial for some, it may not work for everyone, indicating the need for tailored approaches to training for VR disease - how you approach this, please detail in the manuscript.

CRITICAL

1. Sample size and generalizability: The small sample size is a significant limitation, raising questions about the robustness and generalizability of the findings. Future studies should target larger and more diverse groups of participants to validate the effectiveness of the training method in different populations - how you approached this, please detail in the manuscript.

2. Statistical Significance and Effect Size: Differential statistical significance between SSQ categories warrants further investigation into why certain aspects of VR disease (eg, disorientation) are less responsive to training. Understanding the nuances of these differences could inform more targeted training interventions - how you approached this, please detail in the manuscript.

3. Individual differences: Findings emphasize the importance of individual differences in response to VR disease and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Future research should explore factors that contribute to these differences, such as prior VR exposure, individual susceptibility to motion sickness, and physiological and psychological characteristics - how you approach this, please detail in the manuscript.

Future directions

1. The increased viewing time of VR content for subjects who initially discontinued due to VR sickness is an encouraging result, suggesting the potential of training to increase user tolerance and engagement with VR.

2. The call for future research on the relationship between VR disease reduction training and viewing time indicates a recognition of the complex interplay between user adaptation and engagement with VR content. This suggests a broader perspective on the implications of VR disease mitigation strategies beyond immediate symptom reduction.

Author Response

First of all, the authors would like to express sincere gratitude for reviewer’s invaluable time and thoughtful comments.

In order to save the reviewer's invaluable time, and expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, the authors tried to be as specific as possible in our response to the reviewer.

Overall, the authors agreed with the reviewer's opinion and comment. For better quality of the paper, the authors had read the manuscript carefully, and some sentences, references were added or modified according to the reviewer's comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, a training method to reduce the VR sickness that occurs while 11 viewing VR content with an HMD on is  propsoed. This article is very meaningful, but there are further modifications needed for the following content.

(1) The innovation of this article needs to be further condensed to make it more clear.

(2) The literature review is not sufficient and further revisions are needed.

(3) The format and grammar of the article need further modification, such as many parts in blue font.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In this paper, a training method to reduce the VR sickness that occurs while 11 viewing VR content with an HMD on is  propsoed. This article is very meaningful, but there are further modifications needed for the following content.

(1) The innovation of this article needs to be further condensed to make it more clear.

(2) The literature review is not sufficient and further revisions are needed.

(3) The format and grammar of the article need further modification, such as many parts in blue font.

Author Response

First of all, the authors would like to express sincere gratitude for reviewer’s invaluable time and thoughtful comments.

In order to save the reviewer's invaluable time, and expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, the authors tried to be as specific as possible in our response to the reviewer.

Overall, the authors agreed with the reviewer's opinion and comment. For better quality of the paper, the authors had read the manuscript carefully, and some sentences, references were added or modified according to the reviewer's comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides solution for VR sickness reduction, however there are some problems within the paper:

1. The text in the article is not consistent in color. Is there any special significance to the blue text?

2. The references are too outdated.

3. The background information of the test subjects lacks detailed descriptions, which undermines the persuasiveness of the test results.

4. In Table 3, the authors established factors without providing rationale for the values assigned to these factors. All parameters are pre-set. Could targeted parameter setting be employed to enhance the robustness of the system?

Author Response

First of all, the authors would like to express sincere gratitude for reviewer’s invaluable time and thoughtful comments.

In order to save the reviewer's invaluable time, and expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, the authors tried to be as specific as possible in our response to the reviewer.

Overall, the authors agreed with the reviewer's opinion and comment. For better quality of the paper, the authors had read the manuscript carefully, and some sentences, references were added or modified according to the reviewer's comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has provided reasonable explanations for the questions raised by the reviewer. However, the font color still seems to require modification. As a consequence, I recommend accepted after minor revision.