Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Towards the Automatic Detection of Vection in Virtual Reality Using EEG

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read EEG reveals a 600-millisecond brain response that tracks the illusion of self-motion in virtual reality.

desk verdict A promising but statistically under-supported P600 vection marker; worth reviewing but needs subject-level analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18445 v1 pith:725I3LCM submitted 2024-12-24 cs.HC q-bio.NC

Gaël Van der Lee , Anatole Lécuyer , Maxence Naud , Reinhold Scherer , François Cabestaing , Hakim Si-Mohammed This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCq-bio.NC
keywords vectionEEGevokedpotentialsP600virtualrealityself-motionperceptioncybersicknessacceleration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the subjective illusion of self-motion in virtual reality, known as vection, leaves a measurable, time-locked trace in the EEG. In an experiment with 30 participants watching a star field accelerate forward or backward while wearing a VR headset, the authors compared brain responses from trials where participants reported strong vection with trials where they reported weak or no vection. They found a positive deflection around 600 ms after acceleration onset over parietal electrodes and a simultaneous negative deflection frontally, a pattern they propose as an evoked potential of vection. If the marker holds, VR systems could detect vection online from EEG rather than relying on questionnaires, opening the way to real-time adaptation for comfort and reduced cybersickness.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 600 ms evoked potential (EP), a stimulus-locked voltage deflection in the EEG after the onset of a sudden visual acceleration. To isolate it, the authors compare the median response to forward acceleration in trials rated SV against trials rated WV or NV, merge the weak and no-vection categories, and use the moderate category as a buffer; they assess significance with 10,000 bootstrap resamples and plot the spatial contrast as topographic maps. The EP is what carries the vection claim, while the FCz/Cz acceleration and direction markers and alpha suppression are secondary signatures used for replication and future fusion.

What would settle it

Average each participant's vection and no-vection trials into one epoch per condition, so each of the 30 participants contributes exactly one trial to each group, and retest the 600 ms parieto-frontal difference; if it disappears or is carried by one or two participants, the claimed general vection marker is refuted. A matched no-vection control, using optic flow that participants do not interpret as self-motion, should also fail to produce the parietal P600.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that subjective vection has a distinct evoked potential: for forward acceleration, trials rated as strong vection show a positive deflection near 600 ms after stimulus onset over parietal electrodes and a simultaneous negative deflection frontally, while weak/no-vection trials show the reverse polarity. The authors support this with a non-parametric bootstrap comparison over 87 strong-vection and 92 weak/no-vection trials from 30 participants, plus topographic maps of the spatial contrast. They position this as the first evoked potential tied to subjective vection and interpret it as the brain resolving a visual-vestibular conflict, analogous to a P3-like oddball response to real-world self-motion. The paper also reports distinct EEG markers for acceleration presence and direction, alpha suppression during vection, and a correlation between strong vection and simulator sickness scores.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on treating the 87 strong-vection and 92 weak/no-vection EEG segments from 30 participants as approximately independent samples; if the 600 ms difference is produced by a few vection-prone individuals, the marker would not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A real-time EEG classifier could flag a vection episode within roughly 600 ms of an acceleration event, rather than waiting for a post-hoc questionnaire.
  • VR systems that adapt content, such as field of view, speed, or visual gain, could use the marker to reduce sensory conflict before cybersickness builds.
  • Because strong vection correlates with SSQ nausea and disorientation scores, the marker may double as an early warning of impending simulator sickness.
  • The acceleration and direction markers on FCz and Cz give additional features that could make a vection detector robust across different motion profiles.
  • Alpha suppression during vection offers an independent, slower-frequency signature that could be fused with the P600 marker in future detectors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The trial-level bootstrap treats 179 epochs from 30 participants as exchangeable; a subject-level mixed model or leave-one-subject-out validation would test whether the P600 is a general marker or the product of a few vection-prone participants.
  • If the P600 survives subject-level validation, the same paradigm could be extended to backward acceleration, lateral motion, or walking-in-place illusions; the paper only demonstrates it for forward acceleration.
  • Vection questionnaires ask for conscious ratings after each trial, whereas an online EEG marker would resolve when in the trial vection starts, potentially sharpening onset-time measures that self-report is known to distort.
  • The comparison with vestibular oddball responses suggests the component may index surprise or sensory conflict rather than vection per se; a task that manipulates expectedness without changing visual self-motion could separate the two.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a VR/EEG study with 30 participants who experienced sudden forward or backward visual acceleration in a starfield environment and rated their perceived vection on a four-point scale. The central claim is that an evoked potential with a positive deflection around 600 ms after stimulus onset in parietal regions and a simultaneous negative deflection in frontal regions distinguishes strong vection from weak/no vection (Abstract, Sec. 4.3, Fig. 8). The paper also reports replication of previously published EEG markers of acceleration, alpha suppression during vection, and correlations between vection reports and Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) scores. Analyses are based on median waveforms with trial-level bootstrap confidence intervals and topographic maps.

Significance. If the P600 vection marker is statistically robust, the paper would provide a plausible objective and potentially real-time neural index of subjective vection in VR, addressing a recognized gap in vection research and offering practical value for adaptive VR systems. The authors are appropriately cautious about the need for subjective ground truth, and the paper includes a data-availability commitment (BIDS format, Sec. 3.6). The replication of alpha suppression and of acceleration-related EEG patterns is a useful confirmation of earlier findings. However, the primary novel claim—the P600 marker—rests on a trial-level analysis whose inferential validity is not established; the statistical issues are correctness risks that must be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 8] The central P600 comparison is based on 87 strong-vection (SV) trials versus 92 weak/no-vection (WV&NV) trials pooled across 30 participants, analyzed with a trial-level bootstrap that resamples individual epochs with replacement. This treats epochs from the same participant as independent, which is implausible given within-subject correlations in EEG. Table 1 shows severe imbalance: participants 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 27, and 30 each contribute between 36 and 65 SV trials, while participants 15, 20, and 29 contribute zero SV trials; hence the SV average waveform is dominated by a small subset of individuals. The manuscript reports no subject-level mixed-effects model, per-subject difference test, or leave-one-subject-out analysis. The shaded 'significant' periods in Fig. 8 may therefore reflect inter-individual differences rather than an effect of vection state. I request a subject-level analysis that accounts for within-subject correlation before the P600 marker is claimed as a general vection correlate.
  2. [Secs. 4.2 and 4.3] Statistical significance is assessed by computing pointwise 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for each time sample and electrode (or averaged electrode groups) and declaring a shaded region significant where intervals do not overlap. With 128 Hz sampling over epochs of about 1.5 seconds and 14 electrodes, this entails hundreds or thousands of simultaneous comparisons with no multiple-comparison correction. The resulting 'statistically significant periods' are therefore likely to include numerous false positives. A cluster-based permutation test across time and electrodes, or an equivalent correction for multiple comparisons, is needed to support the existence of the P600 component and the acceleration markers.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The binary categorization used for the main vection analysis is post hoc: the NV and WV categories are merged, MV is excluded, and the SV category is compared against this constructed class. This grouping is decided after inspecting the data (Sec. 4.1), which risks bias if the merging or exclusion criterion is correlated with the EEG signals under study. The manuscript should either justify the grouping a priori from the rating scale semantics or demonstrate robustness to alternative groupings (for example, NV-only versus SV, or an ordinal analysis including MV). This issue is load-bearing because the 'weak/no vection' class is the reference category for the central P600 comparison.
  4. [Sec. 4.3, SSQ correlations] The reported Pearson correlations between SV counts and SSQ total and subscale scores (r = 0.55, 0.45, 0.51, 0.62) are computed on only 30 subjects and four outcome measures without correction for multiple testing. Moreover, the per-subject SV count is derived from an unbalanced number of trials per participant, which can inflate or distort the correlation. These correlations are secondary to the main claim, but as reported they overstate the strength of evidence for a vection-sickness association; a mixed-effects or rank-based analysis with adjusted inference would be more appropriate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.5] There are several typos in this section: 'steated' should be 'seated', 'minimze' should be 'minimize', and 'bloc' should be 'block'.
  2. [Sec. 3.6] The artifact rejection threshold is given as '125mV', which is almost certainly a typo for microvolts (µV); also, the filter passband (0.3–10 Hz) is described without specifying filter order for the PSD plot, which would hamper exact reproduction.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 8] The figure caption says 'during FA1' while the text reports the graph is based on 92 WV&NV and 87 SV trials; it is unclear whether only forward-acceleration trials are used or whether both FA1 and BA1 are pooled. Please clarify the trial selection and specify which electrodes are averaged for the parietal and frontal regions.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1 lacks row labels or subject identifiers, making it impossible to map the text's references to 'participants 9, 10, 11...' onto the table. Adding subject IDs would improve transparency.
  5. [References] Reference [6] lists the author as 'Cz.'; this should be corrected to Helmholtz, H. von, or the original source should be cited properly.
  6. [Sec. 5] The similarity between the P600 pattern and the P3 oddball response in Nolan et al. [26] is stated qualitatively; the claim would be more convincing with a quantitative comparison or by explicitly noting the limits of visual resemblance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the P600 vection marker is an empirical EEG contrast against subjective labels; the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim (Section 4.3, Figure 8) is an evoked-potential contrast between trials labeled Strong Vection and trials labeled Weak/No Vection, based on participants' subjective reports. No parameter is fitted from one subset and then "predicted" on a closely related subset; no normalization or rescaling is defined in terms of the outcome; and no equation reduces the P600 finding to its inputs. The bootstrap procedure in Section 4.2 is an inference tool, not a fitted model, and although the trial-level resampling over 30 participants creates a pseudoreplication/correctness risk, that is a statistical validity concern rather than a circularity. The prior acceleration-marker study [46] is self-cited for the protocol and as replication support, but the current paper independently analyzes its own data (Figures 6 and 7), and the vection EP is not derived from that citation. The reported resemblance to vestibular oddball P3 (Nolan et al.) and to incongruity-related P600 effects (refs [9,45,47]) is an interpretive analogy, not an imported uniqueness or ansatz that forces the result. Score 2 reflects only the presence of a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation; no circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on subjective labeling, stimulus validity, artifact filtering choices, and a trial-level bootstrap that ignores subject clustering. No new physical entities, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The 600 ms timing and the artifact/filter thresholds are the main hand-chosen elements that affect the result.

free parameters (3)
  • 600 ms analysis window = approximately 600 ms after acceleration onset
    The vection ERP comparison is highlighted at around 600 ms after stimulus onset, a time point selected after inspecting the averaged waveforms. No pre-registered window or correction for this selection is reported, so it functions as a data-derived choice.
  • Artifact rejection threshold = 125 mV (likely 125 uV)
    Section 3.6 sets the epoch rejection threshold at 125 mV, almost certainly a typo for microvolts. This hand-chosen threshold determines which epochs enter the median averages and can influence the resulting waveform.
  • Filter passband = 0.3 to 10 Hz
    Section 3.6 applies a 0.3 to 10 Hz Butterworth filter to all ERP analyses. The filter band shapes the evoked potential morphology and may contribute to the broad 600 ms deflection.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 4-point subjective vection scale provides a valid ground-truth label for vection.
    Section 3.5 defines NV, WV, MV, and SV, and all EEG vection analyses are labeled by these post-trial ratings. If the scale does not capture the intended subjective state, the P600 comparison is not about vection.
  • domain assumption The white-sphere optic flow with 12 m/s^2 acceleration reliably induces vection and isolates it from confounding factors.
    Sections 3.3 and 3.4 describe the minimalist sphere environment and acceleration parameters. The interpretation of the EEG marker as vection-specific depends on this stimulus being a clean vection inducer.
  • domain assumption After common-average referencing and 0.3 to 10 Hz filtering, the median ERP differences reflect neural vection processing rather than ocular or motor artifacts.
    Section 3.6 describes channel rejection, referencing, filtering, and epoch rejection, but no EOG channels or ICA artifact correction are mentioned, and the authors acknowledge that some artifacts bypass rejection.
  • domain assumption Bootstrapping trials with replacement is a valid inference framework for these EEG data.
    Section 4.2 uses 10,000 resamples of trials, but the analysis treats trials as exchangeable even though multiple trials come from the same participants. This is a questionable statistical assumption that affects the reported significance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards the Automatic Detection of Vection in Virtual Reality Using EEG." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/725I3LCM

@misc{pith2026241218445,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards the Automatic Detection of Vection in Virtual Reality Using EEG},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/725I3LCM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18445}
}
read the original abstract

Vection, the visual illusion of self-motion, provides a strong marker of the VR user experience and plays an important role in both presence and cybersickness. Traditional measurements have been conducted using questionnaires, which exhibit inherent limitations due to their subjective nature and preventing real-time adjustments. Detecting vection in real time would allow VR systems to adapt to users' needs, improving comfort and minimizing negative effects like motion sickness. This paper investigates the presence of vection markers in electroencephalogram (EEG) brain signals using evoked potentials (brain responses to external stimulations). We designed a VR experiment that induces vection using two conditions: (1) forward acceleration or (2) backward acceleration. We recorded both electroencephalographic (EEG) signals and gathered subjective reports on thirty (30) participants. We found an evoked potential of vection characterized by a positive peak around 600 ms (P600) after stimulus onset in the parietal region and a simultaneous negative peak in the frontal region. Our results also found participant variability in sensitivity to vection and cybersickness and EEG markers of acceleration across subjects. This result is promising for potential detection of vection using EEG and paves the way for future studies towards a better understanding of vection. It also provides insights into the functional role of the visual system and its integration with the vestibular system during motion-perception. It has the potential to help enhance VR user experience by qualifying users' perceived vection and adapting the VR environments accordingly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18445 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Electrode Placement in the High-Resolution 10–20 International [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of a trial: Depiction of the evolution of speed over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Depiction of the visual experience presented to participants, fea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of reported vection per trial for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the median of the FCz electrode for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the EEG signals between WV & NV (blue) and SV (orange) during FA1. The x axis represents the time since the accelera￾tion started. The y axis represents the median voltage of the electrodes at that time point. The 95% confidence interval is shown around t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the median of the Cz electrode for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Topographic map comparison of the average response for all sub [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Power spectral density plot comparing WV & NV (blue) to SV (orange) during FA1 before filtering. The power of the frequencies during the acceleration event is shown, split between the vection conditions. The 95% confidence interval is shown around the line of vection …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Early cortical processing of vection- inducing visual stimulation as measured by event-related brain potentials (ERP)

    Berti, Haycock, Adler and Keshavarz. Early cortical processing of vection- inducing visual stimulation as measured by event-related brain potentials (ERP). Displays, 58:56–65, July 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2018.10.002 1, 3, 5

    work page doi:10.1016/j.displa.2018.10.002 2019

  2. [2]

    Neuropsychological Approaches to Visually-Induced Vection: An Overview and Evaluation of Neuroimaging and Neurophysio- logical Studies

    Berti and Keshavarz. Neuropsychological Approaches to Visually-Induced Vection: An Overview and Evaluation of Neuroimaging and Neurophysio- logical Studies. Multisensory Research, 34(2):153–186, Aug. 2020. doi: 10.1163/22134808-bja10035 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

    work page doi:10.1163/22134808-bja10035 2020

  3. [3]

    Cybersickness in current-generation virtual reality head-mounted displays: Systematic review and outlook

    Caserman, Garcia-Agundez, Gámez Zerban and Göbel. Cybersickness in current-generation virtual reality head-mounted displays: Systematic review and outlook. Virtual Reality, 25(4):1153–1170, Dec. 2021. doi: 10. 1007/s10055-021-00513-6 7

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Evoked Potentials in Clinical Medicine

    Chiappa. Evoked Potentials in Clinical Medicine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1997. 2

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    How Immersive Is Enough? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Immersive Technology on User Presence

    Cummings and Bailenson. How Immersive Is Enough? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Immersive Technology on User Presence. Media Psychol- ogy, 19(2):272–309, Apr. 2016. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740 1

    work page arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Handbuch der physiologischen Optik

    Cz. Handbuch der physiologischen Optik. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 7(1):A60–A61, Dec. 1896. doi: 10.1007/BF01708548 2

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01708548

  7. [7]

    A Systematic Review of Cybersickness

    Davis, Nesbitt and Nalivaiko. A Systematic Review of Cybersickness. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interactive Entertainment, IE2014, pp. 1–9. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, Dec

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Visual-Vestibular Interaction: Effects on Self- Motion Perception and Postural Control

    Dichgans and Brandt. Visual-Vestibular Interaction: Effects on Self- Motion Perception and Postural Control. In Anstis, Atkinson, Blakemore et al., eds., Perception, Handbook of Sensory Physiology, pp. 755–804. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1978. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-46354-9_25 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-46354-9_25 1978

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Differentiation of stages in joke comprehension: Evi- dence from an ERP study.International Journal of Psychology, 48(2):149– 157, 2013

    Du, Qin, Tu et al. Differentiation of stages in joke comprehension: Evi- dence from an ERP study.International Journal of Psychology, 48(2):149– 157, 2013. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.665162 7

    2013

  2. [10]

    Judgments of Visual Velocity as a Function of Length of Observation Time

    Goldstein. Judgments of Visual Velocity as a Function of Length of Observation Time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54(6):457, 1957. doi: 10.1037/h0044965 4

    1957 doi

  3. [11]

    The brain imaging data structure, a format for organizing and describing outputs of neuroimaging experiments

    Gorgolewski, Auer, Calhoun et al. The brain imaging data structure, a format for organizing and describing outputs of neuroimaging experiments. Scientific Data, 3(1):160044, June 2016. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.44 5

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Modulation of alpha waves in sensori- motor cortical networks during self-motion perception evoked by different visual-vestibular conflicts

    Harquel, Guerraz, Barraud and Cian. Modulation of alpha waves in sensori- motor cortical networks during self-motion perception evoked by different visual-vestibular conflicts. Journal of Neurophysiology, 123(1):346–355, Jan. 2020. doi: 10.1152/jn.00237.2019 3, 6

    2020

  5. [13]

    Vection and Simulator Sick- ness

    Hettinger, Berbaum, Kennedy et al. Vection and Simulator Sick- ness. Military Psychology, 2(3):171–181, Sept. 1990. doi: 10.1207/ s15327876mp0203_4 2

    1990

  6. [14]

    Visually Induced Motion Sickness in Virtual Envi- ronments

    Hettinger and Riccio. Visually Induced Motion Sickness in Virtual Envi- ronments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(3):306– 310, Aug. 1992. doi: 10.1162/pres.1992.1.3.306 1

    1992 doi

  7. [15]

    Simulator Sickness Question- naire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness

    Kennedy, Lane, Berbaum and Lilienthal. Simulator Sickness Question- naire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness. Inter- national Journal of Aviation Psychology , 3(3):203, July 1993. doi: 10. 1207/s15327108ijap0303_3 4

    1993

  8. [16]

    Vection lies in the brain of the beholder: EEG parameters as an objective measurement of vection

    Keshavarz, Campos and Berti. Vection lies in the brain of the beholder: EEG parameters as an objective measurement of vection. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2015. 1, 2, 3

    2015

  9. [17]

    The effect of visual motion stimulus characteristics on vection and visually induced motion sickness

    Keshavarz, Philipp-Muller, Hemmerich et al. The effect of visual motion stimulus characteristics on vection and visually induced motion sickness. Displays, 58:71–81, July 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2018.07.005 1, 4

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Vection and visually induced motion sickness: How are they related? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2015

    Keshavarz, Riecke, Hettinger and Campos. Vection and visually induced motion sickness: How are they related? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2015. 1, 2

    2015

  11. [19]

    Effects of active and passive viewpoint jitter on vection in depth

    Kim and Palmisano. Effects of active and passive viewpoint jitter on vection in depth. Brain Research Bulletin, 77(6):335–342, Dec. 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.09.011 2

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    A Virtual Reality Study Investigating the Effect of Cybersickness on the Relationship Between Vection and Presence Across Environments with Varying Levels of Eco- logical Relevance

    Kooijman, Asadi, Mohamed and Nahavandi. A Virtual Reality Study Investigating the Effect of Cybersickness on the Relationship Between Vection and Presence Across Environments with Varying Levels of Eco- logical Relevance. In 2022 15th International Conference on Human System I...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Measuring vection: A review and critical evaluation of different methods for quantifying illusory self-motion

    Kooijman, Berti, Asadi et al. Measuring vection: A review and critical evaluation of different methods for quantifying illusory self-motion. Be- havior Research Methods, June 2023. doi: 10.3758/s13428-023-02148-8 2

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Questionnaire (CSQ-VR): A Validation and Comparison against SSQ and VRSQ

    Kourtesis, Linnell, Amir et al. Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Questionnaire (CSQ-VR): A Validation and Comparison against SSQ and VRSQ. Virtual Worlds, 2(1):16–35, Mar. 2023. doi: 10.3390/ virtualworlds2010002 7

    2023

  15. [23]

    L. Waskom. Seaborn: Statistical data visualization. The Open Journal, 6(60):3021, 2021. doi: 10.21105/joss.03021 3, 5

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    MNE-Python

    Larson, Gramfort, Engemann et al. MNE-Python. Zenodo, Sept. 2023. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8322569 3, 4

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Correlating reaction time and nausea measures with traditional measures of cybersickness

    Nesbitt, Davis, Blackmore and Nalivaiko. Correlating reaction time and nausea measures with traditional measures of cybersickness. Displays, 48:1–8, July 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2017.01.002 7

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Neural correlates of oddball detection in self- motion heading: A high-density event-related potential study of vestibular integration

    Nolan, Butler, Whelan et al. Neural correlates of oddball detection in self- motion heading: A high-density event-related potential study of vestibular integration. Experimental Brain Research, 219(1):1–11, May 2012. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3059-y 7

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    Vection is the main contributor to motion sickness induced by visual yaw rotation: Implications for conflict and eye movement theories

    Nooij, Pretto, Oberfeld et al. Vection is the main contributor to motion sickness induced by visual yaw rotation: Implications for conflict and eye movement theories. PloS One, 12(4):e0175305, 2017. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0175305 1, 2, 7

    2017

  20. [28]

    Towards a Machine-Learning Ap- proach for Sickness Prediction in 360◦ Stereoscopic Videos

    Padmanaban, Ruban, Sitzmann et al. Towards a Machine-Learning Ap- proach for Sickness Prediction in 360◦ Stereoscopic Videos. IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(4):1594–1603, Apr

  21. [29]

    Cybersickness in Head-Mounted Displays Is Caused by Differences in the User’s Virtual and Physical Head Pose

    Palmisano, Allison and Kim. Cybersickness in Head-Mounted Displays Is Caused by Differences in the User’s Virtual and Physical Head Pose. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 1, 2020. 7

    2020

  22. [30]

    Future challenges for vection research: Definitions, functional significance, measures, and neural bases

    Palmisano, Allison, Schira and Barry. Future challenges for vection research: Definitions, functional significance, measures, and neural bases. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2015. 1, 2, 3, 5

    2015

  23. [31]

    Spontaneous postural sway pre- dicts the strength of smooth vection

    Palmisano, Apthorp, Seno and Stapley. Spontaneous postural sway pre- dicts the strength of smooth vection. Experimental Brain Research , 232(4):1185–1191, Apr. 2014. doi: 10.1007/s00221-014-3835-y 2

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Identifying Objective EEG Based Markers of Linear Vection in Depth

    Palmisano, Barry, De Blasio and Fogarty. Identifying Objective EEG Based Markers of Linear Vection in Depth. Frontiers in Psychology, 7:1205, 2016. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01205 2

    2016

  25. [33]

    EEG-BIDS, an extension to the brain imaging data structure for electroencephalography

    Pernet, Appelhoff, Gorgolewski et al. EEG-BIDS, an extension to the brain imaging data structure for electroencephalography. Scientific Data, 6(1):103, June 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0104-8 5

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    The Effect of Motion Direction and Eccentricity on Vection, VR Sickness and Head Movements in Virtual Reality

    Pöhlmann, Föcker, Dickinson et al. The Effect of Motion Direction and Eccentricity on Vection, VR Sickness and Head Movements in Virtual Reality. Multisensory Research, 34(6):623–662, Apr. 2021. doi: 10.1163/ 22134808-bja10049 1, 2

    2021

  27. [35]

    The relationship between vection, cybersickness and head movements elicited by illusory motion in virtual re- ality

    Pöhlmann, Föcker, Dickinson et al. The relationship between vection, cybersickness and head movements elicited by illusory motion in virtual re- ality. Displays, 71:102111, Jan. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2021.102111 1

    2022

  28. [36]

    Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays

    Rebenitsch and Owen. Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Reality, 20(2):101–125, June 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10055 -016-0285-9 6

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    OpenViBE: An Open-Source Software Plat- form to Design, Test and Use Brain-Computer Interfaces in Real and Virtual Environments

    Renard, Lotte, Gibert et al. OpenViBE: An Open-Source Software Plat- form to Design, Test and Use Brain-Computer Interfaces in Real and Virtual Environments. Presence Teleoperators & Virtual Environments / Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 19, Feb. 2010. doi: 10...

    2010

  30. [38]

    Compelling Self-Motion Through Virtual Environments Without Actual Self-Motion – Using Self-Motion Illusions (’Vection’) to Improve VR User Experience

    Riecke. Compelling Self-Motion Through Virtual Environments Without Actual Self-Motion – Using Self-Motion Illusions (’Vection’) to Improve VR User Experience. In Virtual Reality. IntechOpen, Jan. 2011. doi: 10. 5772/13150 1

    2011

  31. [39]

    Scene consistency and spatial presence increase the sensation of self-motion in virtual reality

    Riecke, Schulte-Pelkum, Avraamides et al. Scene consistency and spatial presence increase the sensation of self-motion in virtual reality. In Pro- ceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, APGV ’05, pp. 111–118. Association for Computin...

    2005

  32. [40]

    Towards electrophysiological measurement of presence in virtual reality through auditory oddball stimuli

    Savalle, Pillette, Won et al. Towards electrophysiological measurement of presence in virtual reality through auditory oddball stimuli. Journal of Neural Engineering, 21(4):046015, July 2024. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ ad5cc2 2

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Vection Is Enhanced by Increased Exposure to Optic Flow

    Seno, Murata, Fujii et al. Vection Is Enhanced by Increased Exposure to Optic Flow. I-Perception, 9(3):2041669518774069, 2018. doi: 10. 1177/2041669518774069 2

    2018

  34. [42]

    A Note on Presence Terminology

    Slater. A Note on Presence Terminology. Presence Connect, 3, Jan. 2003. 1

    2003

  35. [43]

    Unexpected Vection Exacerbates Cyber- sickness During HMD-Based Virtual Reality

    Teixeira, Miellet and Palmisano. Unexpected Vection Exacerbates Cyber- sickness During HMD-Based Virtual Reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3, Apr. 2022. doi: 10.3389/frvir.2022.860919 1, 2

    2022

  36. [44]

    Perception of Self-Motion From Pe- ripheral Optokinetic Stimulation Suppresses Visual Evoked Responses to Central Stimuli

    Thilo, Kleinschmidt and Gresty. Perception of Self-Motion From Pe- ripheral Optokinetic Stimulation Suppresses Visual Evoked Responses to Central Stimuli. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90(2):723–730, Aug. 2003. doi: 10.1152/jn.00880.2002 3

    2003

  37. [45]

    A New Association Evaluation Stage in Cartoon Apprehension: Evidence from an ERP Study

    Tu, Cao, Yun et al. A New Association Evaluation Stage in Cartoon Apprehension: Evidence from an ERP Study. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, 4(2):75–83, Feb. 2014. doi: 10.4236/jbbs.2014.42010 7

    2014

  38. [46]

    EEG Markers of Acceleration Perception in Virtual Reality

    van der Lee, Cabestaing, Lécuyer et al. EEG Markers of Acceleration Perception in Virtual Reality. In Graz Brain-Computer Interface Confer- ence, p. 249. Verlag der Technischen Universität Graz, Graz, Austria, Sept

  39. [47]

    Humor drawings evoked temporal and spectral EEG processes

    Wang, Kuo and Chuang. Humor drawings evoked temporal and spectral EEG processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(8):1359– 1376, Aug. 2017. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx054 7

    2017 doi

  40. [2014]

    doi: 10.1145/2677758.2677780 7

  41. [2018]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2793560 2

    2018

  42. [2024]

    doi: 10.3217/978-3-99161-014-4-044 3, 5

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.