Abstract
This narrative review synthesizes and introduces 386 previous works about virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects by focusing on cybersickness, visual fatigue, muscle fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload. Usually, these VRISE are treated independently in the literature, although virtual reality is increasingly considered an option to replace PCs at the workplace, which encourages us to consider them all at once. We emphasize the context of office-like tasks in VR, gathering 57 articles meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Cybersickness symptoms, influenced by fifty factors, could prevent workers from using VR. It is studied but requires more research to reach a theoretical consensus. VR can lead to more visual fatigue than other screen uses, influenced by fifteen factors, mainly due to vergence-accommodation conflicts. This side effect requires more testing and clarification on how it differs from cybersickness. VR can provoke muscle fatigue and musculoskeletal discomfort, influenced by fifteen factors, depending on tasks and interactions. VR could lead to acute stress due to technostress, task difficulty, time pressure, and public speaking. VR also potentially leads to mental overload, mainly due to task load, time pressure, and intrinsically due interaction and interface of the virtual environment. We propose a research agenda to tackle VR ergonomics and risks issues at the workplace.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
There is increasing consideration of replacing parts of current work involving a PC (using mouse and keyboard) with immersive virtual reality (VR) by both industry and scientists (Filho et al. 2018, 2019, 2020; Guo et al. 2019a). Democratization of nomad and remote work is a common argument for office-like experiences in VR (Grubert et al. 2018; Ofek et al. 2020). Literature contributions started to analyze the transposition to VR from a PC for various tasks. This includes spreadsheets (Gesslein et al. 2020), text entry (Knierim et al. 2018; Speicher et al. 2018a), editing and proofreading (Kim and Shin 2018; Li et al. 2021), reading (Baceviciute et al. 2021; Rzayev et al. 2021), coding (Castelo-Branco et al. 2021), and information retrieval (Schleußinger 2021). A growing number of contributions present VR with possible benefits in various fields. However, many scientific challenges remain for VR daily adoption in office-like tasks. One of them is health and safety implications (LaViola et al. 2017; Fuchs 2018; Khakurel et al. 2018; Çöltekin et al. 2020; Olson et al. 2020; Anses 2021; Ens et al. 2021). Virtual environment creators and head-mounted display (HMD) manufacturers do not seem to consider human factors/ergonomics enough in their design processes (Dehghani et al. 2021; Saghafian et al. 2021; Szopa and Soares 2021). However, virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects (VRISE) have been documented for more than thirty years (Kennedy et al. 1993; Keller and Colucci 1998; Cobb et al. 1999; Nichols 1999; Nichols and Patel 2002; Sharples et al. 2008; Melzer et al. 2009; Fuchs 2017, 2018; Souchet 2020; Grassini and Laumann 2021). Contributions about VR use for office-like tasks rarely mention or assess possible VRISE risks.
The EU-OSHA has already identified VRISE risks in a brochure on digitalization (EU-OSHA 2019). VRISE are real problems that elicit a negative user experience (Somrak et al. 2019; Lavoie et al. 2020). Concretely, workers might become sick or suffer from side effects, possibly reducing their task performance (Mittelstaedt et al. 2019; Mittelstaedt 2020; Park et al. 2021). Although the contradicting results show no significant correlation between cognitive performance and VRISE, such as cybersickness (Varmaghani et al. 2021), there is a definite need to consider possible VR side effects in everyday work to anticipate normalization or future regulation guidelines. Above all, designers and employers should safeguard workers’ health and safety if they use VR. This can only be achieved if all stakeholders know VR benefits and risks.
We concentrate on typical office-like tasks workers mainly fulfill with a PC. Usually, previous works would concentrate on one possible VRISE at a time. However, possible confusions are maintained between cybersickness (visually induced motion sickness) and visual fatigue. Moreover, other possible issues such as muscle fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload are rarely considered when measuring VRISE. Chen et al. (2021) gather several ergonomic risks of HMDs, but they do not comprehensively propose a general approach and an exhaustive list of influencing factors. Stanney et al. (2020b) focused on cybersickness and did not separate it from other VRISE.
This article considers five specific risks: cybersickness, visual fatigue, muscular fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload. It is worth noting that we mainly concentrate on acute symptoms, not chronic ones, based on repeated VR use since very few studies directly address medium- to long-term side effects. Yet, Howarth and Hodder (2008) found that 50% of users no longer had any symptoms after ten sessions every two to seven days. Our purposes are to.
-
catalog the main VR ergonomic risks at work by referring to recent publications with new HMD generation
-
point the distinction between cybersickness and visual fatigue
-
consider other risks than cybersickness
-
better inform VR users and designers about the risks inherent in this technology if they want to introduce it at the workplace
The article is structured as follows. First, we describe the method to search previous works. Second, we present the results from this search on cybersickness, visual fatigue, muscle fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload. For each VRISE, we draw an overview and occurrence description based on previous meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or overviews when available. For each VRISE, we propose a synthesis of possible factors evoked in the literature as inducing symptoms. The review encouraged us to add a disambiguation section in virtual reality relating to cybersickness. Then, we introduce works assessing office-like tasks in VR about each VRISE that can help better gauge risks. Third, we discuss the results about each VRISE, the limitations of our review, and provide a research agenda for theoretical and experimental works that better define, quantify, and distinguish each ergonomic risk.
2 Method
2.1 Keywords and database
Initial papers’ selection was made in August 2021 based on the following keywords for each VRISE: “cybersickness” OR “visually induced motion sickness,” “visual fatigue” OR “eyestrain,” “muscle fatigue” OR “musculoskeletal discomfort,” “stress” OR “acute stress,” “mental workload” OR “cognitive load, AND “Virtual reality” AND “work” AND “meta-analysis” OR “Systematic review” OR “Review” in Google Scholar. We used the same keywords listed above to document VRISE at work without adding meta-analysis, systematic review, or review.
2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Papers were included if.
-
Published between 2016 and 2021
-
Language used was English and French
-
Peer-reviewed or grey literature written by scientists
-
Mentioning one searched keyword at least in whether the title, abstract or list of keywords
-
Using HMDs available for the general public
Papers were excluded if.
-
Using other languages than English or French
-
Not mentioning keywords, at least in whether the title, abstract, or list of keywords
-
Not using off-the-shelf HMDs
-
Subjects in experiments were children
-
Stimuli are video games that require interactions or stimuli too far from office-like tasks in VR
2.3 Search strategy
We concentrated on articles published between 2016 and 2021. 2016 has been selected as the starting date of literature research because it corresponds to Oculus CV1’s commercial release, making the HMD widely accessible for labs and allowing overview contributions to incorporate new generation HMDs. If the latest review, systematic review, or meta-analysis was published before 2016, we augmented the range to years before 2016 until finding a result. When the latest meta-analysis, systematic review, or review paper was found, we extracted information to write our overview of VRISE and its occurrence. If no meta-analysis, systematic review, or review existed, we draw factors from individual papers proposing them. The procedure described here, including the criteria, mostly refers to the description of VR in the work environment. The general presentation of VRISE mostly mixes latest review papers and older contributions.
3 Results
3.1 Cybersickness
3.1.1 Cybersickness overview
The following symptoms characterize cybersickness: visual fatigue, headache, pallor, sweating, dry mouth, full stomach, disorientation, dizziness, ataxia (movements coordination), nausea, and tiredness (Lawson 2014; Davis et al. 2014; Rebenitsch and Owen 2016; Bockelman and Lingum 2017; Nesbitt and Nalivaiko 2018; Descheneaux et al. 2020; Chang et al. 2020). During the first popularization phase of HMDs in the 90 s, there was optimism about the ability to “cure” cybersickness (Biocca 1992). However, thirty years later, the issue still exists, as documented by the latest overviews (Stanney et al. 2020b). Cybersickness arises no matter the HMD (Yildirim 2020). Therefore, despite HMD technical improvements, cybersickness is not likely to disappear anytime soon (Gallagher and Ferrè 2018). However, the current HMD generation seems to cause fewer risks than previous generations (Caserman et al. 2021).
Several competing theories exist to explain and predict the cybersickness phenomenon: sensory conflict, evolutionary, ecological (postural instability), and multisensory reweighting (Palmisano et al. 2020a; Stanney et al. 2020b). The sensory conflict theory of motion sickness (or sensory cues conflict) is the most widely accepted (Lackner 2014; Stanney et al. 2020b). According to this theory, passive movement creates a mismatch between information relating to orientation and movement, provided by the visual and the vestibular systems (Colman 2009).
As Watt (1983) recalls, Reason (1978) explains that motion sickness results from a mismatch between predicted and actual sensory inputs in his theory description. Constancy is disturbed within the virtual environment due to sensorimotor conflicts (Patterson et al. 2006; Patterson 2009). “Sensorimotor” represents sensory and motor elements necessary for an individual to interact with their environment (Ehrenbrusthoff et al. 2018). Most conflicts in virtual environments are visually induced (Rebenitsch and Owen 2016). Our “probabilistic brain” (Pouget et al. 2013), which seems to rely on predictive computation to perceive, process, and interact with the natural environment (Diaz et al. 2013; Van den Berg et al. 2015; Mahani et al. 2017; Alais and Burr 2019; Walsh et al. 2020), faces inconsistent and unreliable cues from virtual environments. An alternative explanation is that our brain, via error minimization, could also reweigh each sensory signal (Gallagher and Ferrè 2018) to reduce unpredictability. The main criticism of sensory cue conflict is that the theory is not falsifiable (Stanney et al. 2020b).
The evolutionary theory states that the resulting illness is derived from prior evolutionary adaptation to the effects of poison (Treisman 1977; Stanney et al. 2020b). The body essentially misinterprets the symptoms caused by inconsistent cues as poison.
The ecological theory states that cybersickness is due to the body's inability to compensate for its posture given the external stimuli properly. An increase in deviation from ideal posture is thought to indicate more significant illness. The primary criticism of the ecological theory is that the severity and type of postural instability vary across VR environments (Munafo al. 2017), and illness may occur with no instability (Dennison and D’Zmura 2017).
However, the exact psycho-physiological causes and the most parsimonious theories are not sufficient to explain cybersickness (Davis et al. 2014; Nesbitt and Nalivaiko 2018; Weech et al. 2018; Descheneaux et al. 2020; Stanney et al. 2020b; Howard and Van Zandt 2021). Therefore, the actual models describing and explaining cybersickness remain under debate.
Two aspects of cybersickness research continue to cause controversy:
-
1)
A unifying theory is still missing. Hence, more contributions under each competing prediction are needed.
-
2)
Various strategies exist to tackle cybersickness’s prediction. To deploy and assess each strategy, objective and subjective measurements are necessary.
Cybersickness is one concern for workers using VR. Hereafter, we describe cybersickness occurrence based on the current state of the art.
3.1.2 Cybersickness occurrence
According to Stanney et al. (2020b), at least one-third of users will experience discomfort during VR usage, and 5% will present severe symptoms with the current HMD generation. Although, in some contexts, it can be up to 80% (Kim et al. 2005). Rebenitsch and Owen (2021), following Laviola (2000) and Davis et al. (2014), list three types of factors affecting VR experience and cybersickness. See Table 1 for an organized list of the factors.
We rearranged Rebenitsch and Owen’s (2021) factors into individual (demographics in their contribution), hardware (former device factor), and software categories (former task factor) compared to Davis et al. (2014) in Table 1. According to Rebenitsch and Owen (2021), at least fifty factors could influence cybersickness. It should be noted that perceptual style, which is listed under mental attributes in individual factors (see Table 1), is linked to learning style and is criticized as a neuromyth (Willingham et al. 2015; Kirschner 2017). The documented higher risks of symptoms in women, which is the Gender factor listed in Individual factors (see Table 1), in past works could be due to the general ergonomics of current HMDs and higher average motion sickness susceptibility (Stanney et al. 2020a). However, there is no consensus about gender differences as data acquired by previous works are questionable (Grassini and Laumann 2020; MacArthur et al. 2021).
Latency or lag, listed under Screen in Hardware factors (see Table 1), can impact cybersickness. However, to date, the magnitude is still unclear as experiments are drastically varying (latency measures, paradigms, etc.) (Stauffert et al. 2020). Rebenitsch and Owen (2021) also point out that the initial lag factor had been determined with old apparatuses and argue that it is less likely to occur with new HMDs due to better performances.
Cybersickness increases with exposure time (Dennison et al. 2016). The duration factor, listed under experience in individual factors (see Table 1), is widely pointed out as one of the main contributors to cybersickness in appearance and magnitude (Dużmańska et al. 2018).
Standing rather than sitting increases the chances of provoking cybersickness (Merhi et al. 2007), as Rebenitsch and Owen (2021) mentioned. Therefore, defining whether users should use VR applications while sitting is necessary for work purposes.
Other factors than the list by Rebenitsch and Owen (2021), mainly individual, might influence cybersickness (Howard and Van Zandt 2021). Here is a list pointing at individual factors that could also influence cybersickness (pathologies, neurodiversity):
-
Emotional personalities reported the highest oculomotor, disorientation, and VR sickness scores (Widyanti and Hafizhah 2021)
-
Smoking seems to be a predictor of cybersickness in highly stressed people (Kim et al. 2021)
-
Insomnia seems to impact vestibular, oculomotor, and interoceptive functions, leading to more visually induced motion sickness (Altena et al. 2019).
-
Autism spectrum disorders might cause users to suffer from higher adverse symptoms (Schmidt et al. 2021).
-
Multiple sclerosis could affect people differently from the general population as these users have balance impairments (Ferdous et al. 2018), less alertness, more stress, and possibly lower attention (Arafat et al. 2018).
-
Age-related macular degeneration (arising starting at 50) seems to result in an increased rate of less perceived vection strength, and those with early manifest glaucoma reported lower perceived vection strength but also lower cybersickness than the “normal” population (Luu et al. 2021a).
-
Alcohol (intoxication at a blood alcohol level of approximately 0.07%) seems to alleviate cybersickness (Iskenderova et al. 2017).
-
Prior information or a questionnaire about cybersickness can provoke priming or anchoring effects (Furnham and Boo 2011; Weingarten et al. 2016; Doherty and Doherty 2018). Users report more side effects when expecting them (Almeida et al. 2018).
Even though short-term side effects of VR are well known, impacts on cognition and long-term effects are yet to be documented. However, based on questionnaires like the simulator sickness questionnaire (Sevinc and Berkman 2020; Hirzle et al. 2021), physiological changes that correlate to subjective reports have been documented by Gallagher and Ferrè (2018). According to Gallagher and Ferrè, cybersickness influences psycho-physiological variables that can be measured with ECG (Electrocardiography, heart), EDA (Electrodermal activity, skin), or EEG (Electroencephalography, brain). Blink rate increase with exposure time and cybersickness (Lopes et al. 2020). Therefore, we can also add to Gallagher and Ferrè’s (2018) list the incidences on the visual system.
During and after VR exposure, users report symptoms correlated with psycho-physiological changes. Rebenitsch and Owen's (2021) list of factors influencing cybersickness to go beyond classic motion sickness symptoms and vection issues (visually mediated subjective experience of self-motion). However, cybersickness is mainly explained by visually induced motion. Therefore, it is necessary to understand if cybersickness could arise with office-like tasks.
3.1.3 Cybersickness and working in VR
Most experimental contributions on cybersickness use video games (rollercoasters), driving tasks, or dedicated “walking-around” tasks. Those paradigms induce cybersickness symptoms with some confidence to measure psycho-physiological variations attributable to it. However, even if those previous works provide useful information, we narrowed down the literature presented to work-related tasks to match office-like tasks. Ten articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria.
In a collaborative car design environment, Coburn et al. (2020) experimented with four moving methods: teleport, fade, fly, and manual. (Translation and rotation automatically place users in a predetermined location.) After moving, participants located a particular part of the car. Flying proved to be the best solution for spatial location. But it implied a potentially higher discomfort (cybersickness). In their experiment, teleporting was the worst mode because of disorientation. Coburn et al. (2020) advocate multiple transition styles (locomotion) for users. We can hypothesize that users in a VR application for office-like tasks will be sitting (Zielasko et al. 2017; Zielasko and Riecke 2021). Zielasko et al. (2019) had participants move by leaning (forward and backward). Participants found the shortest path between a pair of red vertices hidden in a node-link visualization. Since participants were sitting in front of a desk, Zielasko et al. (2019) tested two conditions: a stable virtual desk visually represented in VR and without a virtual desk. The author did not find differences in cybersickness (and task performance) when employing a keyboard and other interfaces instead of a virtual desk.
When analyzing data, the type of locomotion also seems to be impacted by the user’s expertise in data analysis, video games, and spatial orientation ability (Lages and Bowman 2018). Some works show no difference in cybersickness symptoms when comparing real desk tasks to a virtual reality desk (Guo et al. 2019a). Boges et al. (2020) work (editing and exploring medial axis representations of nanometric scale neural structures) shows that users must take several breaks because of cybersickness after being immersed for fifteen minutes. However, side effects in experimental contributions are not always assessed, such as in works about data visualization in VR, e.g. (Andersen et al. 2019). In office-like work in VR, visually induced motion sickness could be less of a problem since fewer tasks or stimuli require continuous locomotion than virtual environments consisting of driving or rollercoaster games. Filho et al. with “VirtualDesk” (data visualization and analytics) show low cybersickness in different experiments (Filho et al. 2018, 2019, 2020).
Previous works relating to data visualization and office work in VR have shown that cybersickness needs further investigation and acknowledged as a risk of side effects even in this configuration. Locomotion and visual feedback of this locomotion are two crucial factors leading to cybersickness (Caserman et al. 2021).
Based on the latest reviews and systematic reviews (Koohestani et al. 2019; Descheneaux et al. 2020; Kemeny et al. 2020; Saredakis et al. 2020; Stanney et al. 2020b), we can infer that contributions regarding cybersickness concentrate on the visual-vestibular-proprioceptive conflicts (like motion sickness) issue. Contributions rarely focus on visual fatigue, i.e., vergence-accommodation conflict (Fuchs 2017; Souchet 2020; Chang et al. 2020; Souchet et al. 2021a). But Rebenitsch and Owen (2017) reported no effect of vergence-accommodation conflict on cybersickness.
Since visual fatigue (or oculomotor symptoms in cybersickness-related works) is pointed out as one of the main symptoms in VR side effects, it seems legitimate to focus on it (Chang et al. 2020). Nausea may only result in 30% of the instances after withdrawing from VR use (Rebenitsch and Owen 2017). Our current focus choice aligns with the agenda of Stanney et al. (2020b) as we contribute to the evaluation and applications research to tackle cybersickness issues. This section shows that oculomotor symptoms are mainly induced by visual motion in VR. But visual fatigue should be considered not only as a symptom related to cybersickness but as a side effect of its own. Therefore, the following section addresses visual fatigue, as cybersickness seems heavily dependent on locomotion, less of a determinant feature in office-like VR applications.
3.2 Visual fatigue
3.2.1 Visual fatigue overview
According to Evans (2007), visual fatigue (also named asthenopia, eyestrain, visual strain, ocular symptoms, depending on the discipline tackling this issue) generally corresponds to eye fatigue and headaches. Sheppard and Wollfsohn (2018) quote the list of symptoms by the American Optometric Association: eyestrain, headaches, blurred vision, dry eyes, and pain in the neck and shoulders. The subjective appreciation of these symptoms is visual discomfort (Lambooij et al. 2007, 2009). Visual fatigue is due to a weakness of the eyes or vision, i.e., resulting from a visual or ocular abnormality rather than purely extrinsic (environmental) factors. Lambooij and IJsselsteijn (2009) define visual fatigue as a “physiological strain or stress resulting from excessive exertion of the visual system.” Various screen usages induce this excessive exertion. Sheppard and Wollfsohn (2018) have reviewed the visual fatigue phenomenon linked to digital uses. They have determined that a large part of the population is at risk. However, they did not evaluate HMDs or other devices displaying stereoscopy.
HMDs are absent of most visual fatigue reviews, such as in Coles-Brennan et al. (2019) for standard displays. One of the main issues regarding visual fatigue is that HMDs are displaying stereoscopic images: depth cues from the environment inferred from the distance between our two eyes (interpupillary-distance) fused by our brain (Parker 1983, 2016; Hodges and Davis 1993; Best 1996; Reichelt et al. 2010; Holliman et al. 2011; Urey et al. 2011; Rößing 2016).
Terzić and Hansard (2017) reviewed the causes of visual discomfort, pointing to future problems with HMDs since the apparatuses display stereoscopy. Displaying stereoscopy is known to induce visual strain in general (Lambooij et al. 2007, 2009; Kuze and Ukai 2008; Fortuin et al. 2010; Kim et al. 2011; Karajeh et al. 2014; Sugita et al. 2014; Sasaki et al. 2015). However, the scientific literature is unclear on the mechanisms and predictions distinguishing visual fatigue from cybersickness.
3.2.2 Visual fatigue occurrence
Despite all the excessive exertions on the visual system when using HMDs, they do not seem to induce myopia after 40 min of exposure (Turnbull and Phillips 2017). However, HMD use can contribute to near-work factors that induce myopia, and the impact on accommodation and vergence functions also could be a long-time concern (Németh et al. 2021). Therefore, we concentrate on visual fatigue rather than other issues that could arise with users’ eyes since we are concerned with what happens while VR is used.
Stereoscopy allows us to reproduce binocular and proprioceptive (or oculomotor) depth cues. Stereoscopy aims to provide clear stimuli for our eyes in HMDs (Rotter 2017). Binocular cues mean that the effect can only be seen with two eyes (Blake and Wilson 2011). The horizontal distance between the eyes (inter-pupillary distance) is on average 65 mm (Anses 2014), ranging from about 50 to 77 mm for the general population (Lambooij et al. 2009; Stanney et al. 2020b). However, this range may vary depending on the country and gender and be wider if children are included (Dodgson 2004; Stanney et al. 2020a). Misadjustments of HMD lenses, in the form of binocular stimuli related to IPD, can provoke visual fatigue (Hibbard et al. 2020).
Disparity and blur drive the vergence and accommodation mechanisms (Sweeney et al. 2014). According to Schor and his colleagues’ model (Schor and Kotulak 1986; Schor and Tsuetaki 1987; Schor 1992), vergence and accommodation are two dual parallel feedback control systems that interact via cross-links. Lambooij et al. (2009) summarized that accommodation and vergence interact to provide comfortable and clear, binocular, single vision under natural viewing.
However, stereopsis is only possible for a limited number of positions in space. The brain will only consider the point of vergence as unique despite the binocular disparity if the distance meets certain conditions. This set of merging points can be represented by the human's binocular horizontal field of view of 120°. Fusion without diplopia (double vision) is possible (Patterson 2015). Retinal disparity on the horopter is about 0°. Shibata et al. (2011) assume that the maximum and minimum relative distance of the comfort zone is between 0.8 diopters and 0.3 diopters. Stereoscopy sometimes requires fusion outside of the comfort zone (Lambooij et al. 2009; Fortuin et al. 2010). When this occurs, the habitual crosslink between accommodation and vergence is mismatched because accommodation applies to the screen’s plane while convergence applies to objects of interest (Emoto et al. 2005; Banks et al. 2013; Kim et al. 2014; Leroy 2016; Fuchs 2017) (see Fig. 1). Several scientific works treat accommodation and vergence mechanisms and conflicts due to stereoscopy in detail (Schor 1992; Jiang et al. 2002; Hoffman et al. 2008; Lambooij et al. 2009; Mays 2009; Banks et al. 2012, 2013; Kim et al. 2014; Leroy 2016; Neveu et al. 2016; Rößing 2016; Fuchs 2017).
Stereoscopy induces the vergence-accommodation conflict (Ukai and Howarth 2008; Bando et al. 2012). This conflict also arises with HMDs (Yuan et al. 2018; Matsuura 2019). There is no theoretical consensus on which to rely, but this conflict concerns everyday VR uses (Biggs et al. 2018). This sensorimotor conflict mainly explains visual fatigue with HMDs (Fuchs 2017). A new generation of HMDs still causes visual fatigue (Souchet et al. 2018, 2019, 2021a; Hirota et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019; Yoon et al. 2020) and visual discomfort (Cho et al. 2017; Guo et al. 2017, 2019b; Souchet et al. 2018; Bracq et al. 2019). A lack of contributions to document that effect (beyond merely knowing that it still exists for HMDs) has been pointed out (Szpak et al. 2019). Table 2 updates the list of factors proposed by Bando et al. (2012).
Visual fatigue appears to be time-related: the more prolonged the VR exposure, the higher the visual fatigue. Guo et al. (2019b) find that symptoms are increasingly severe and that the severity increases faster during the first 20 min. Guo et al. (2020) tested exposures of almost eight hours to VR and reported increasingly impacted accommodative response and pupil size. However, the impact is comparable with VR and 2D screen working tasks (text error corrections) for pupil size. Specific cumulative effect of immersion on eye movement (extraocular muscle excitation) has been observed while calculating a visual fatigue index through ocular biomechanics by Iskander and Hossny (2021)
Apart from the population that is “stereo-blind,” have missing or have non-measurable binocular depth perception, the proportion of concerned individuals varies according to the tested populations and measurement conditions from 2.2% to 32% (Lambooij et al. 2009; Bosten et al. 2015; Hess et al. 2015). Moreover, although not necessarily impacting the discriminating abilities to determine an object’s depth, the precision abilities of stereopsis diminish with age (Schubert et al. 2016). It also seems that poor stereo acuity drives higher visual fatigue (Ramadan and Alhaag 2018). Therefore, this population seems to present higher risks of visual fatigue.
Blue light might also contribute to visual fatigue, but it remains unclear how significant this factor is since little research has been conducted, especially with HMDs (Heo et al. 2017; Lawrenson et al. 2017; Priya and Subramaniyam 2020; Tu et al. 2021). Continuous (chronic) exposure to blue light might damage the retina (Ahmed et al. 2018). Since HMDs use OLED and LCD technologies, this suggests that blue light could be a factor of visual fatigue when using VR. Previous stereoscopy and near-work contributions indicate that blue light implies less accommodation (Panke et al. 2019).
Several more display features are associated with visual fatigue. The lighter the displayed stimuli, the higher the visual fatigue (Wang et al. 2010; Erickson et al. 2020). The more frequent the color changes, the higher the visual fatigue (Kim et al. 2016). The more dynamism in videos, the more visual fatigue (Kweon et al. 2018). An AnsesFootnote 1 report about light effects on health includes blue lights (range from 400 to 490 nm). It indicates that the “phototoxicity” range (450 to 470 nm – deep blue) has possible effects (Anses 2019) 1) on myopia (positive or negative), and 2) on dry eye syndrome.
Blue light seems to facilitate visual discomfort in general (not restricted to screen use). However, according to the report, proof of effects on humans is limited. Long-term issues include (Anses 2019) 1) disturbance of circadian rhythms in the form of disturbance of sleep if exposed to blue lights during the evening, at night before sleep, or even during the day (Wahl et al. 2019), and 2) phototoxicity (Youssef et al. 2011) on the cornea (Niwano et al. 2019; Mehra and Galor 2020). However, it is not clear how much blue lights emitted by HMDs influence visual fatigue.
Other possible factors that might influence visual fatigue but that has yet to be further tested in the VR context (therefore, we did not list them in Table 2), including the following:
-
Passive smoking and e-cigarettes have similar negative impacts on tear films, and smoking regular cigarettes is detrimental to the tear film (Miglio et al. 2021). This implies that dry eye syndromes would be more likely to arise in those situations, possibly hastening the development of visual fatigue when using VR.
-
Vergence and accommodation insufficiency is associated with less task engagement and higher cognitive fatigue during complex tasks (Bernhardt and Poltavski 2021). Visual fatigue can also negatively impact attention (Yue et al. 2020). Therefore, mental workload might influence visual fatigue (Daniel and Kapoula 2019; Bernhardt and Poltavski 2021).
Usually, visual fatigue is measured before and after HMD use. But, HMDs increasingly implement eye trackers, allowing measurements during immersion (Souchet et al. 2021b). But, no measurement method for visual fatigue caused by HMDs has reached a consensus. Factors inducing visual fatigue and cybersickness are sometimes similar (see Tables 1 and 2). This similarity does not help to clarify the domain of visual fatigue and the domain of cybersickness. In both cases, oculomotor performance seems to be negatively impacted in VR (Valori et al. 2020). In the next section, we try to disambiguate cybersickness from visual fatigue.
3.2.3 Disambiguation of cybersickness and visual fatigue
Vi sual fatigue is listed as one of cybersickness’s symptoms (Lawson 2014; Davis et al. 2014; Rebenitsch and Owen 2016; Bockelman and Lingum 2017; Nesbitt and Nalivaiko 2018; Descheneaux et al. 2020; Chang et al. 2020). However, visual fatigue and visually induced motion sickness seem different but with a small relation (Bando et al. 2012; Yuan et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2019). Hereafter, we develop each argument advocating for two different VRISE measurements.
3.2.3.1 Visual fatigue and cybersickness intersect theoretically but do not rely on the same theories
Visual fatigue predictions in VR mostly reuse knowledge drawn from stereoscopic images and their perception without discomfort (Lambooij et al. 2009; Terzic and Hansard 2017). Most contributions point to vergence-accommodation conflict as the main factor explaining visual fatigue with HMDs (see Sect. 3.2.2). Patterson proposes the “Dual-process theory” to predict visual fatigue occurrence with stereoscopic images (Patterson 2009; Patterson and Silzars 2009; Evans and Stanovich 2013). However, when describing the vergence-accommodation conflict occurring with HMDs – or only stereoscopy – most peers point to “sensorimotor conflicts” during visual perception (Bando et al. 2012; Fuchs 2017). They do not rely on Patterson’s proposal or other transparent theoretical backgrounds. This view relies on the sensorimotor approach and sensorimotor contingencies theory, indicating that perception (especially sight) is intimately linked to motor actions (O’Regan and Noë 2001; Buhrmann et al. 2013; Dell’Anna and Paternoster 2013; Bishop and Martin 2014).
From the perspective of sensorimotor contingencies, accommodation-vergence conflict is failing our brain’s probabilities. Thus, the accommodation-vergence mismatch can be considered a sensorimotor conflict. The mismatch impacts the crosslink between the accommodation-vergence components resulting in a sensory conflict during depth perception and drives to excessive oculomotor movements.
It should be noted that the concepts of predictive coding and sensorimotor contingencies theory are in debate in the cognition field and are not reaching a consensus (Flament-Fultot 2016; Vernazzani 2019; Williams 2020; Marvan and Havlík 2021). Ukai and Howarth (2008) conclude their review by stating that the theory applying to visual fatigue provoked by vergence-accommodation conflict remains unclear. Therefore, our description of sensorimotor contingencies theory as a possible candidate should be taken with caution because 1) it drifts from the current views in cognition that humans have an internal representation of the outside world in line with current developments of controversial “embodied cognition” (Adams 2010; Goldinger et al. 2016), and 2) it is not directly used by previous works to explain the accommodation-vergence conflict in VR. However, peers refer to sensorimotor conflicts to explain accommodation-vergence conflicts with HMDs.
In parallel, cybersickness's “evolutionary theory” provides predictions about vergence-accommodation conflict (Stanney et al. 2020b). However, as introduced in Sect. 3.1.1, the theory most widely employed is the sensory conflict theory of motion sickness. Vergence-accommodation conflict is usually listed in cybersickness descriptions (Nesbitt and Nalivaiko 2018; Descheneaux et al. 2020; Chang et al. 2020; Stanney et al. 2020b; Rebenitsch and Owen 2021) but without clearly demonstrating if it is predicted by the sensory conflict theory of motion sickness. Like visual fatigue in VR, cybersickness relies on the concept of conflicts between “sensorimotor” systems (Weech et al. 2018; Stanney et al. 2020b).
In summary, it appears that visual fatigue in HMDs could rely on sensorimotor contingencies theory which mainly applies for predicting visual fatigue due to vergence-accommodation conflict: visual-proprioceptive (oculomotor) conflicts. In contrast, cybersickness relies on the sensory conflict theory of motion sickness, mainly predicting visual-vestibular conflicts. However, both theories are debated, and no clear consensus advocates that those theories apply.
3.2.3.2 Visual fatigue and cybersickness intersect in symptomology
Cybersickness and visual fatigue overlap as lists of symptoms for the first include the second. Cybersickness describes several oculomotor symptoms. Questionnaires, like the virtual reality sickness questionnaire (VRSQ) designed for cybersickness (Kim et al. 2018; Sevinc and Berkman 2020; Cid et al. 2021), or the simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ) by Kennedy et al. (1993), list similar symptoms to those for visual fatigue like the computer vision syndrome questionnaire (CVS-Q) (Seguí et al. 2015; Sheppard and Wolffsohn 2018) or questionnaires developed for discomfort during stereoscopic viewing (Lambooij et al. 2007, 2009; Zeri and Livi 2015). Namely, “headache” and “blurred vision” are common symptoms reported for both states. Questionnaires about visual fatigue in VR usually have not been designed to assess HMD-viewing context directly. In summary, we can see that cybersickness and visual fatigue intersect on at least two symptoms.
3.2.3.3 Visual fatigue and cybersickness influencing factors intersect
Common possible factors can influence both cybersickness and visual fatigue (see Tables 1 and 2): age, stereoscopic visual ability, optical misalignment (inter-pupillary distance in Table 1), global visual flow (motion parallax in Table 2), and color. These advocates for both VRISE intersecting based on individual, hardware, and software characteristics.
3.2.3.4 Visual fatigue is not a sub-symptom of cybersickness
Wang et al. (2019) show that users can present visual fatigue without reporting visually induced motion sickness. Bando et al. (2012) remind that static stereoscopic images drive visual fatigue and that moving images increase fatigue. Conversely, binocular cues influence perceived motion in VR and can impact vection (Luu et al. 2021b). Active viewing induces higher vection compared to passive viewing. Stereoscopy seems to increase vection by changing optical flow proprieties (Palmisano et al. 2020b). Therefore, visually induced motion and vergence-accommodation conflict play a role in both VRISE. But visual fatigue can occur in VR without visually induced motion sickness. Visual fatigue is not a sub-symptom of cybersickness but an intersecting VRISE.
The following section concentrates on works tackling visual fatigue when working in VR.
3.2.4 Visual fatigue and working in VR
Visual fatigue is already an issue in everyday work, with various screen uses putting a large population at risk. At least 50% is potentially at risk (Sheppard and Wolffsohn 2018). Near work on computer screens is an issue regarding dry eye, ametropia, and accommodation or vergence mechanisms. Therefore, adding HMDs would increase screen use at the workplace. HMD use seems to drive higher visual fatigue than PC screen, tablet, or smartphone uses (Han et al. 2017; Yu et al. 2018; Souchet et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2020). Here, we focus on visual fatigue while using VR and right after. Examples of video game use show that VR impacts accommodation and vergence compared to a baseline, whether duration use is 10 or 50 min (Szpak et al. 2020). The Szpak et al. (2020) study took 40 min after VR use for those measures to go back to baseline. However, their study shows that starting after 10 min exposure user’s oculomotor functions similarly changed. Several works present the comparable results about how accommodation and vergence are negatively impacted after playing video games (Yoon et al. 2020; Alhassan et al. 2021). However, studies sometimes find contradictory results. There was no decrease in accommodative and vergence functions after 25 min of playing in Munsamy et al. (2020). In other studies, there was an improvement in the amplitude of accommodation after 10 min of use two times a day for two weeks (Long et al. 2020) which could be due to changes to the ciliary muscle. Similar findings by are presented by Mohamed Elias et al. (2019). Interestingly, during video game play for 20 min, blinks seem similarly impacted with HMD and PC, but lipid layer thickness increased more in VR (Marshev et al. 2021).
However, video games in VR findings might not apply to typical tasks of office workers in a VR environment. Eleven studies, including interaction types related to what office work in VR would require from users, detect visual fatigue (see Table 3).
In summary, despite the few works directly tackling VR-induced visual fatigue at work, existing experiments point out that visual fatigue arises with similar interactions and content to what working in VR would require. Volume visualization does not always require stereoscopic images (Laha et al. 2012). By extension, not all work tasks would require stereoscopy. Therefore, stereoscopy use must be used with discretion. Only a few contributions directly investigate visual fatigue in the context of office-like tasks in VR. Dedicated works should better measure, detect, and evaluate visual fatigue induced by HMDs and the consequences on human performance while working in VR. This section shows that visual fatigue is already a concern for general screen uses. VR would generate an extra load on workers’ visual systems and, therefore, their well-being. Furthermore, the possible influence of visual fatigue on available memory workload could directly influence work performance in VR (Park et al. 2015; Eckstein et al. 2017; Daniel and Kapoula 2019; Alhusuny et al. 2020; Bernhardt and Poltavski 2021; Souchet et al. 2021b).
3.3 Muscle fatigue and musculoskeletal discomfort
3.3.1 Muscle fatigue and musculoskeletal discomfort overview
According to Gandevia (2001), muscle fatigue is defined as an “exercise-induced reduction in the ability of a muscle or muscle group to generate maximal force or power.” This leads to difficulty performing a voluntary task (Gruet et al. 2013; Taylor et al. 2016). Muscle fatigue mainly refers to intense exercises like sports or physically demanding work (Wan et al. 2017) (e.g., prolonged standing Halim et al. 2012; Coenen et al. 2018)) but also screen work (Coenen et al. 2019)). Repeated issues regarding muscle load can lead to musculoskeletal disorders and are the most common (almost 24% of EU workers) work-related problem in Europe (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work 2007). For office workers, neck, shoulder, forearm/hands pain, upper and low back pain are the primary disorders associated with office work (Eltayeb et al. 2009; Calik et al. 2020; Heidarimoghadam et al. 2020; Frutiger and Borotkanics 2021). Despite some short-term physical discomfort, musculoskeletal disorders appear temporarily. After a few minutes of rest, users recover from muscle fatigue (Sesboüé and Guincestre 2006). On the other hand, symptoms associated with prolonged use of computers and the internet are headache, neck and wrist pain, and backache (Borhany et al. 2018). Such symptoms are likely to arise in VR as hands are not the only interaction modality in VR. The head is widely exploited (Monteiro et al. 2021). Similar to visual fatigue, computer, and office work already raised the issue of musculoskeletal discomfort, and VR could add to physical load (Reenen et al. 2008; Waongenngarm et al. 2020).
3.3.2 Muscle fatigue and musculoskeletal discomfort occurrence
In VR, users are interacting with a computer-generated virtual environment. The stimuli, inputs from users, and feedback depend primarily on HMDs. Then, depending on the interaction modalities, a user can use controllers, their hands, their head, their eyes, and other body movements to induce changes in this virtual environment (Rogers et al. 2019; Kim et al. 2020; Monteiro et al. 2021; Vergari et al. 2021). Ultimately, the entirety of the body could be interfaced. Therefore, users need to wear different hardware and perform repeated gestures that are not always in their habit and can lead to muscle fatigue.
Since physical load varies heavily depending on the work context, we directly focus on VR-related factors. In Table 4, we summarized factors identified in 11 contributions regarding muscle fatigue and musculoskeletal discomfort while using VR (Chihara and Seo 2018; Kim and Shin 2018; Lee and Han 2018; Dube and Arif 2019; Song et al. 2019; Yan et al. 2019; Bourdin et al. 2019; Kartick et al. 2020; Li et al. 2020b, a; Penumudi et al. 2020).
Other possible factors might influence muscle fatigue and musculoskeletal discomfort, but that have yet to be further tested in the VR context (therefore, we did not list them in Table 4), including the following:
-
Cognitive exertion has a negative effect on subsequent physical performance (Brown et al. 2020).
-
Depending on environmental illumination and screen brightness (PC), workers might compensate with postural changes, influencing muscle fatigue (Merbah et al. 2020).
-
Stress could promote muscle fatigue (Dehdashti et al. 2017).
Contributions we used to define factors influencing muscle fatigue, and musculoskeletal discomfort are presented in the following section as they apply to possible tasks while working in VR.
3.3.3 Muscle fatigue, musculoskeletal discomfort, and working in VR
During the late 1990s, Nichols (1999) had already identified muscle fatigue or musculoskeletal discomfort issues. Sixteen articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria.
E. Kim and Shin (2018) compared keyboard and mouse document editing tasks on a computer with an HTC Vive. The authors show that HMD has higher physical stress because of weight and lower resolution (reading text). VR text-entry requires more contributions causing muscle fatigue (Dube and Arif 2019). The weight of HMDs themselves could be a source of discomfort (Yan et al. 2019) as users’ neck joint torque is affected and the optimal center of mass position of HMDs is varying depending on users’ postures (Chihara and Seo 2018; Ito et al. 2019; Sun et al. 2019). HMD weight can be perceived as higher by users the lower the number of belts (Song et al. 2019). The physical tension on the neck can change with an increased number of belts distributing the weight. According to Penumudi et al. (2020), shoulder flexion angle, neck flexion moment, and muscle activities of the neck and shoulder are excessive with vertical target locations when interacting with targets at several angles in the 3D environment. Interaction gestures play a role depending on their amplitude. This can lead to musculoskeletal discomfort, so some contributions develop microgestures (Li et al. 2020a). However, depending on the tasks in the virtual environment, involving more of the body can be necessary (Kartick et al. 2020). When comparing the same real gestures versus VR gestures (CAVE), Ahmed et al. (2017) showed that physical fatigue is higher in VR. Bourdin et al. (2019) showed that modifying postural/gesture feedbacks of users’ avatar in VR drive unconscious motor and muscular adjustments. Time seems a factor to consider when watching VR videos as it provokes erector spinae and upper trapezius muscles fatigue (Lee and Han 2018). Conversely, watching 360° videos, despite more neck movements, seems to lead to less fatigue than traditional video (ibid.). As little as 15 min in VR for laparoscopic tasks drive users to declare slight physical discomfort (Li et al. 2020b). The arm fatigue issue is inerasably tackled during the design of virtual environments (Evangelista Belo et al. 2021; Iqbal et al. 2021). It indicates that the issue of muscle fatigue is increasingly acknowledged by peers.
In summary, few contributions have considered possible muscle fatigue provoked by state-of-the-art virtual environments and HMDs. Based on such a few previous scientific works, it is difficult to identify the magnitude of possible risks regarding this issue. But like any human–computer interaction situation, VR could ultimately lead to repetitive strain injury (van Tulder et al. 2007). Therefore, peers and application creators must acknowledge that muscle fatigue could influence use and users' discomfort. However, since VR requires interactions different from computer work, it could also be a way to induce task variation at the job level, which might help alleviate general musculoskeletal discomfort and, ultimately, disorders (Luger et al. 2014).
3.4 Acute stress
3.4.1 Stress overview
Stress is a concept whose definition is not unified in a collective theory (Epel et al. 2018). Revisiting the stress definition based on theories of the neurobiology of a “Bayesian and Selfish Brain,” Peters et al. (2017) define stress as the individual state of uncertainty about what needs to be done to safeguard physical, mental, or social well-being. This definition relies on the human strategy to reallocate energy to reach homeostasis or allostasis in reaction to stress induction, which defines adaptation to maintain equilibrium in the human’s systems (Ganzel et al. 2010; Dewe et al. 2012; Asarian et al. 2012; Ramsay and Woods 2014; Boucher and Plusquellec 2019). The transactional theory of stress (Lazarus and Folkman 1984; Biggs et al. 2017) predicts that stress as a process is transactional. The path from a stressful situation to the outcome is individualized, situationally specific, and inseparable from the cognition of the experience process. To disambiguate our interpretation of stress (Bienertova‐Vasku et al. 2020), we consider stress as a negatively perceived factor or situation (psychology). Three components define stress (Kim and Diamond 2002; Fink 2016): arousal or excitability (Cohen 2011), perceived aversiveness (Kim and Diamond 2002), and uncontrollability (Breier et al. 1987). Stress defines a wide range of human interactions with its environment (Schneiderman et al. 2004). We focus on acute stress provoked by VR at work in our context. Therefore, we describe the acute stress response occurrence hereinafter.
3.4.2 Acute stress occurrence
Acute stress is defined as a sudden or short time stressor (trauma, perceived threat, death of a loved one, job loss, etc.) as opposed to chronic stress—long time stressor (Fink, 2007, p. 192‑193). Acute stress with animal models is usually divided into physical (shock, cold, loud noises, etc.) and psychological (novelty, social conflict, unfamiliarity with environment, etc.) (Monroe and Cummins 2015; Monroe and Slavich 2016). With animal models, Li et al. (2019) indicate that the effects of physical stress appear early but are relatively moderate. In contrast, the effects of psychological stress appear late but are more severe. However, with humans, physical and psychological stress could interact and accumulate (Abdelall et al. 2020). Acute stress responses occur within seconds to several hours (Godoy et al., 2018; Shields et al., 2017). There are individual differences in how people respond and cope to stressors (Dewe 2017; Stephenson and DeLongis 2020).
Stress at the workplace covers various experiences one can face (Colligan MSW and Higgins 2006). We focus on the acute stress that may be compounded by VR or a new source in office tasks. Acute stress, in general, can impair executive functions (Shields et al. 2016). According to LeBlanc (2009), stress reduces selective attention (Lee and Choo 2013; Bater and Jordan 2020), impairs working memory, enhances memory consolidation (Roesler and McGaugh 2019), and impairs memory recall/retrieval (Staresina and Wimber 2019; Klier et al. 2020). Therefore, we can infer that stress could impair work performance when fulfilling tasks in VR depending on task typologies.
A summary of factors favoring acute stress in the office-like tasks in VR context is proposed in Table 5. Hereafter it is described how acute psychological and physical stress can be induced at the workplace when using VR. As little literature about time pressure and task difficulty in VR regarding stress has been found, those factors are presented in the last section about mental overload as they also seem to influence it.
3.4.3 Acute stress and working in VR
One study assessing stress in VR office linked to the apparatus and three public speaking induced-stress (Trier Social Stress Test corresponding to presenting during a meeting) articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria.
3.4.3.1 Techno-stress provoked by VR
Growing information and communication technology (ICT) use at the workplace induces a specific type of stress factor: techno-stress (Brivio et al. 2018; La Torre et al. 2019). Techno-stress refers to an IT user’s experience of stress when using technologies (Ragu-Nathan et al. 2008). It has been observed with the introduction of many ICTs in the workplace (Tarafdar et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2020; Karimikia et al. 2020). Techno-stress can lie on the Transactional Theory of Stress (Zhao et al. 2020) presented above. La Torre et al. (2019) list five factors contributing to techno-stress. We specifically concentrate on techno-complexity. Techno-complexity defines the inherent quality of an ICT, which drives employees to feel that their computer skills are inadequate. Symptoms include poor concentration, irritability, memory disturbances, and exhaustion. Since VR is new for most workers, it is reasonable to presume it could lead to techno-complexity stress. Workers will have to constantly learn how to use this ICT (Tarafdar et al. 2019). VR might replace a part of existing ICTs. However, it might add to and result in techno-overload, which is simultaneous, different streams of information that increase the pace and volume of work (Atanasoff and Venable 2017).
Inside this techno-overload, the “information overload” dimension (Nisafani et al. 2020) could apply in data analyses in VR, for instance. Since VR is new for most workers and implies side effects, we can predict high psychological and physiological demands (Atanasoff and Venable 2017; Zhao et al. 2020). However, VR is not considered in overviews about techno-stress (Bondanini et al. 2020; Karimikia et al. 2020), but coping with VR-induced techno-complexity could result in a stress response similar to other apparatuses (Weinert et al. 2020; Dragano and Lunau 2020; Tarafdar et al. 2020). The dynamic to have workers in a virtual office can facilitate such techno-stress (Stich 2020). Ultimately, techno-stress could negatively impact general and task performance (Tams et al. 2018; Nisafani et al. 2020).
In summary, techno-complexity is critical as it could make VR perceived as non-efficient to fulfill tasks. It could impact task performance itself, and VR could be an additional stress source that negatively impacts workers' well-being.
3.4.3.2 Public speaking-induced stress in VR meetings
Meetings in VR are one popular use case at work. During those meetings, workers need to speak in public. Depending on the worker, one can suffer from public speaking anxiety, common in the general population (Ebrahimi et al. 2019; Marcel 2019; Gallego et al. 2021). Public speaking is well known to induce acute stress, even in healthy adults without public speaking anxiety. This is why the Trier social stress test (TSST) is used to study stress in-lab (Allen et al. 2017; Labuschagne et al. 2019; Narvaez Linares et al. 2020). Immersive virtual environments replicating the TSST showed a higher cortisol reactivity than non-immersive (Zimmer et al. 2019; Helminen et al. 2019). Audience feedback in VR seems to impact stress (Barreda-Ángeles et al. 2020). Hence, it could mean that VR induces higher stress during meetings requiring workers to do presentations.
In summary, public speaking could induce higher stress in VR compared to PC. Therefore, it should be considered a stressor that can affect workers even in VR.
3.5 Mental overload
3.5.1 Mental workload overview
Cognitive load and mental workload are often used as synonyms in the literature (Van Acker et al. 2018). The cognitive load concept is used in the learning field, while the mental workload is used in ergonomics / human factors (Orru and Longo 2019). Vanneste et al. (2020) mention that despite differing definitions, the two concepts share a common ground: the amount of working memory resources used for a given task (Baddeley 2012; Leppink 2017). These working memory resources are limited (Camina and Güell 2017; Chai et al. 2018; Adams et al. 2018). According to Eriksson et al. (2015), working memory maintains information in an easily accessible state over brief periods of time (several seconds to minutes) for use in an ongoing task. Working memory resources are a limited set of resources (pool of energy) available for mental processes (operations, from sensory-level processing to meaning-level processing) that are allocated across different tasks, modalities, and processing (Basil 2012).
Van Acker et al. (2018) indicate that mental workload is a subjectively experienced physiological processing state, revealing the interplay between one’s limited and multidimensional cognitive resources and the cognitive work demands. Numerous theories of mental workload compete and ad hoc definitions and frameworks are proposed in the literature (Lim et al. 2013; Dehais et al. 2020; Vanneste et al. 2020). Synthetizing 82 previous works, Van Acker et al. (2018) propose an explanatory framework of mental workload. This framework by Van Acker et al. (2018) gathered common predictive components of mental workload in work-related tasks at an occupational level. We concentrate on how working memory can be overloaded, impacting task performances, quality, and completion times (work-related in Van Acker et al. (2018) framework). Mental workload depends on cognitive work demands (Causse et al. 2017) and resource consumption. Two demands are often referenced: time pressure and task difficulty/complexity (Galy et al. 2012). However, time pressure is not listed in Acker et al.'s (2018) framework.
3.5.2 Mental overload occurrence
Depending on task characteristics, workers can face suboptimal levels of mental workload, both underload, and overload. M. S. Young et al. (2015) indicate that overload occurs when the operator is faced with more stimuli than (s)he is able to handle while maintaining their own standards of performance. Conversely, M. S. Young et al. (2015) describe that too little stimulation can lead to underload, as resources are either allocated elsewhere or otherwise shrink through underuse. The most commonly accepted hypothesis describes the relationship between mental workload and performance through an ‘‘inverted U-shape,” which is disputed (Babiloni 2019). M. S. Young et al. (2015) propose an updated representation of relationships between performance, task demands, and resource supply. High task demand, thus increasing resource demand, does not constantly negatively impact performance. Peers rarely concentrate on mental underload as the concept is difficult to define and explain correctly (Young et al. 2015; Sharples 2019). Mental workload is also dependent on attention (Curtin and Ayaz 2019; Sepp et al. 2019) or engagement (Dehais et al. 2020).
Zimmerman (2017) defines task load as a measurement of human performance that broadly refers to the levels of difficulty individual encounters when executing a task. Multitasking can negatively impact task performance (Modi et al. 2020). Stress and task difficulty impact cognition (Kim et al. 2017). Depending on the level of mental workload (dependent time pressure and task difficulty (Galy et al. 2012)), stress, and despite a link between difficulty and repetition rate, difficulty may either enhance task performance or decrease it (Song et al. 2011; Main et al. 2017). De Dreu et al. (2019) showed that high task difficulty leads to lower performance and higher response times. Using VR rather than classical paper-and-pencil or computerized measures to perform neuropsychological assessments revealed increased complexity and difficulty, suggesting that VR requires additional cognitive resources (Neguţ et al. 2016). Interestingly, Neguţ et al. observed that the most substantial effect is measured with healthy participants (compared to clinical participants).
Denovan and Dagnall (2019) define time pressure as insufficient time to complete necessary tasks. This insufficient time available is an individual perception of the amount of time necessary to fulfill a task (Ordóñez et al. 2015). It is a challenging stressor that can be coped via extra efforts, leading to strain and exhaustion (Prem et al. 2018). Caviola et al. (2017) show that solving complex math problems under time pressure fosters strategies that can be applied rapidly but negatively impact task performance. Time pressure can be a stressor that impairs performances, but less so with procedural tasks (McCoy et al. 2014; Prasad et al. 2020). The more time for a task, the less stress (Heikoop et al. 2017). The surgery literature informs us that time pressure negatively impacts performances (Arora et al. 2010) and decision-making (Modi et al. 2020).
In summary, mental overload can occur when performing a given task, leading to non-optimal working memory resource allocation, depending on task demand (mismatch between demands and capabilities), which reduces performance. Mental overload occurs depending on intrinsic task load, users’ characteristics, feedback, and coping strategies depending on the task, which ultimately impacts performance.
3.5.3 Mental overload and working in VR
Scientific knowledge regarding a VR office, especially the possible mental workload consequence, seems rare. Other contexts, close to typical tasks performed in such virtual environments, are presented hereafter. Table 6 summarizes twenty-one studies that analyzed mental workload in VR with office-like tasks. Four of the following studies compare PC to VR (Zhang et al. 2017; Broucke and Deligiannis 2019; Makransky et al. 2019; Tian et al. 2021), which is relevant in our use-case scenarios as we focus on replacing current tasks completed on a PC by VR. Contradictory results regarding mental workload are observed. Filho et al. (2018) directly investigate office-like task issues by creating “VirtualDesk,” consisting of data visualization and analytics. Mental workload appears similar in VR to PC. However, VR presents a lower mental workload for geo-visualization and trajectory data exploration than PC (Filho et al. 2018, 2019, 2020). But, Shen et al. (2019a) report that tasks in a virtual environment versus a real office drive higher mental fatigue. Five studies experiment with various HCI aspects, which show that independent of the task goal, the interface and interactions already impact mental workload (Geiger et al. 2018; Speicher et al. 2018b; Zielasko et al. 2019; Biener et al. 2020; Gao et al. 2021; Wu et al. 2021). It appears that assistance within the interface helps to reduce mental workload and promote higher performance in VR (Geiger et al. 2018; Gupta et al. 2020; Gao et al. 2021). The physical efforts a task requires may also impact mental workload, e.g., text input posture and required movement (Knierim et al. 2018; Speicher et al. 2018a).
The literature that assesses mental workload in VR is still scarce. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to generalize the present results to all workplace tasks context. However, the presented studies give an insight into the effects of VR on mental workload. Taking advantage of spatialization possibilities within VR seems to reduce mental workload if tasks require such cognitively related resources (Filho et al. 2018, 2020; Wismer et al. 2018; Broucke and Deligiannis 2019; Armougum et al. 2019). On the other side, VR seems to lead to mental overload with tasks not requiring such spatialization cues or interactions when those interactions are too far from what users are accustomed to as well (Wismer et al. 2018; Bernard et al. 2019; Baceviciute et al. 2021). Those results seem moderated by expertise within VR and the task demands (Aksoy et al. 2019; Luong et al. 2019; Armougum et al. 2019). For instance, outside of VR, when time and load on the resources are high, humans hit the maximum resource allocation capacity (McGregor et al. 2021).
4 Discussion and limitations
4.1 Cybersickness and working in VR
Most paradigms to study cybersickness (visually induced motion sickness) are games, driving tasks, or videos inducing a lot of movements to ensure that symptoms will occur (rollercoaster, multiple head movements, walking in VR, etc.). However, those paradigms represent little of the office work experience. We summarized ten previous works tackling cybersickness with work tasks (Zielasko et al. 2017, 2019; Lages and Bowman 2018; Andersen et al. 2019; Guo et al. 2019a; Coburn et al. 2020; Boges et al. 2020; Filho et al. 2018, 2019, 2020). Locomotion type heavily influences cybersickness in those experiments. It appears that sitting and avoiding too many movements in the virtual environment would reduce the chances for workers to present cybersickness symptoms. Ultimately, generalizing VR use when part of the population is at risk of side effects could, in the future, become a form of discrimination for potential workers (Stanney et al. 2020b). Fifty different factors could induce cybersickness (Rebenitsch and Owen 2021). During experiments with VR, more than 15% of participants are susceptible to dropout because of VR side effects (Saredakis et al. 2020). This implies that part of the workers might not even maintain application use. Thus, cybersickness can negatively impact VR adoption at the workplace.
4.2 Visual fatigue and working in VR
Few contributions regarding visual fatigue and the vergence-accommodation conflict in VR are available to date in the work context. Visual fatigue is already an issue in everyday work with various screen uses as at least 50% of the population is at risk (Sheppard and Wolffsohn 2018). Adding HMDs could increase screen use at work, and it seems that HMDs drive toward higher visual fatigue than PC, tablet, or smartphone uses (Han et al. 2017; Yu et al. 2018; Souchet et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2020). The vergence-accommodation issue arises when displaying stereoscopy. Therefore, not displaying stereoscopy unless it is beneficial to task completion should be considered. However, the optical proprieties of HMDs and other variables of virtual environments themselves could influence visual fatigue. Updating Bando et al. (2012) list, we identify fifteen possible factors that could induce visual fatigue in VR. Furthermore, a possible influence of visual fatigue on available memory workload could directly influence work performance in VR (Park et al. 2015; Eckstein et al. 2017; Daniel and Kapoula 2019; Alhusuny et al. 2020; Bernhardt and Poltavski 2021). We reviewed eleven experiments with stimuli or tasks that could apply to the work (Souchet et al. 2018, 2019, 2021a; Shen et al. 2019b; Hirota et al. 2019; Jacobs et al. 2019; Iskander et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019; Thai et al. 2020; Yoon et al. 2020; Chen and Hou 2021). Those studies mostly show the impacts of VR on accommodation and vergence during and after use. The mean duration of immersion in the ten reviewed studies was 26.22 min. Therefore, immersion of about 26 min or more is likely to induce visual fatigue.
4.3 Muscle fatigue, musculoskeletal discomfort, and working in VR
Like any human–computer interaction situation, VR could lead to repetitive strain injury (van Tulder et al. 2007). Therefore, peers and application creators must acknowledge how muscle fatigue could influence use and users' discomfort. Conversely, VR could also be a way to induce task variation at the job level, which might help alleviate general musculoskeletal discomfort (Luger et al. 2014). Therefore, it is unclear how significant muscle fatigue can be with VR use. Previous studies show negative impacts on.
-
Users’ neck joint torque
-
Stress on the neck and shoulders
-
Flexion angle, neck flexion moment, muscle activities changes
-
Excessive vertical target locations
-
Arm fatigue
More experiments are needed to encompass VR risks regarding muscle fatigue.
4.4 Acute stress and working in VR
Stressful work tasks are particular to individuals and situations. Introducing VR as a new ICT tool can lead to additional stress. Encompassing every factor is too complex. We chose to concentrate on techno-stress (with techno-complexity and techno-overload, which directly related to the user experience of the hardware and software), public speaking, task difficulty, and time pressure. Four articles met our criteria. In the short term, these stressors could negatively influence work performances and use performances in VR since stress impacts cognitive resources. However, it is unclear how those stress factors arise in VR compared to PC.
4.5 Mental overload and working in VR
Introducing virtual reality as a new ICT tool implies changing interactions and interfaces. Therefore, expertise with VR and new ways of fulfilling tasks could impact mental workload. The interaction and interface could lead to mental overload if they require higher working memory resources. It appears that typical tasks transposed to VR do require more working memory resources, and this includes reading and writing with a keyboard. However, VR allows information spatialization. Despite requiring higher working memory resources, such spatialization seems to promote high performance when tasks take advantage of spatial information. Typically, data visualization and analytics seem to take advantage of VR because of these spatial information possibilities. VR and its effects on mental workload lack contributions directly assessing work tasks. Looking at assimilable tasks, VR impacts on mental workload are mixed and sometimes contradictory. Consistent findings are that mental workload in VR seems higher than other apparatuses. However, this does not always negatively impact task performance.
Furthermore, workers' expertise in both VR and tasks influence performance and objective and subjective mental workload. Poor or inadequate interaction metaphors and interfaces could lead to mental overload and decreased task performance. Furthermore, workers could put VR aside when high time pressures and task loads require high performance if VR provokes mental overload. However, at the time of this narrative review, little scientific data can generalize those predictions. Possible working memory resource saturation is provoked by cybersickness, visual fatigue (Mittelstaedt et al. 2019; Mittelstaedt 2020; Park et al. 2021), and acute stress (Epps 2018; Collins et al. 2019; Borghini et al. 2020; Wulvik et al. 2020) should also be considered. This could impact the total amount of available mental resources and reduce the user’s ability to allocate sufficient resources to tasks in VR.
4.6 Limitations of the present review
This narrative review is more summative and less detailed than the results of a formal methodology review (Pautasso 2013; Stratton 2016) with more narrowed keywords, publication date range, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The motivation was to gather information usually scattered in various articles within multiple fields. This allowed for a review of five different VRISE. We concentrated on typical office-like tasks. Due to the primary uses of VR for video games (entertainment in general) and training, part of the presented articles may not directly relate to virtual environments for work. However, our contribution is one of the first to address VR ergonomic risks when introduced in the workplace. Hence, part of described factors and VRISE at work are speculative based on previous works.
4.7 General discussion
We extend the Chen et al. (2021) review despite the abovementioned limitations. Our work gives a unique insight into the current and possible future issues in introducing VR at work following Stanney et al. (2020b). Stanney et al. focused on cybersickness. Here, we differentiate cybersickness from visual fatigue to better represent VRISE and VR ergonomic risks in general. Furthermore, we orientated our review to directly summarize findings from experiments using stimuli close to tasks an office worker could fulfill to be more focused. By treating five VRISE risks, we also show that the current contributions’ focus on cybersickness is necessary but should not consume all peers' efforts. Indeed, other concerns regarding visual fatigue, muscle fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload require further study.
Furthermore, cybersickness is a portmanteau word that often leads to cloudy VRISE and other VR side-effect explanations. Cybersickness should not be used to encompass all VRISE. Peers abundantly tackled cybersickness within the past three years (Gallagher and Ferrè 2018; Nesbitt and Nalivaiko 2018; Weech et al. 2018; Descheneaux et al. 2020; Chang et al. 2020; Saredakis et al. 2020; Stanney et al. 2020b; Grassini and Laumann 2021; Howard and Van Zandt 2021; Rebenitsch and Owen 2021). The uncertainty around this concept is partly due to theoretical challenges and the widely varying VR environments. Immersing a human being in a computer-generated environment induces various modifications compared to their real environment. Although a general concept of VR side effects is tempting, this may imply too many variables to consider. Human perception, cognition, and action are large research fields, independently of VR. Therefore, the cybersickness concept should be used when talking about visually induced motion sickness but not encompass all symptoms that occur in VR. Hence, despite the shortcomings of a narrative review, this allowed us to go over the concept of “cybersickness” to clarify the “VRISE” one and add other side effects that are task-related (acute stress and mental overload).
By cross comparing literature, we showed part of the variety of VRISE risks. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, the present review is the first to formally treat sensorimotor mismatch and psychological risks of VR in the same paper. We reproduced Rebenitsch and Owen’s (2021) list of factors that could induce cybersickness and extended the logic to visual and muscle fatigue. We relied on existing models listing factors not developed directly with VR for acute stress and mental overload. Thanks to this method, we can see that various factors could influence cybersickness, visual fatigue, muscle fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload in VR. Sometimes those possible factors are listed for each side effect, leading one to consider possible interactions between those states. When using cybersickness list of factors and comparing it to the other four VRISE (see supplementary materials), we identify that 31 out of 50 factors are similar among all VRISE although not always using the same terminology. The duration factor is present in all five VRISE, age and scene content or scene complexity in four VRISE, position tracking error, the ratio of virtual to real world in and body mass index in three VRISE.
Moreover, it allows identifying possible interactions between those five side effects. Interactions are not directly treated in this paper, but there are growing advocates for them (Park et al. 2015; Iskander et al. 2018; Alsuraykh et al. 2019; Mittelstaedt et al. 2019; Parent et al. 2019; Alhusuny et al. 2020). Those interactions are issues implying difficulties when characterizing what is measured when assessing VR side effects, particularly with complex stimuli.
4.8 Proposal of a research agenda regarding VRISE risks at work
Immersing humans in VR mobilizes several sensorimotor stimulations. In current HMDs, this mainly constitutes visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive systems. The existing scientific literature draws guidelines to identify and reduce VR ergonomic risks. However, it should be clear to potential VR users and creators that, to date, no existing method can fully alleviate VR side effects. Therefore, scientific and industrial contributions are still needed to better consider VR ergonomic risks and human factors. The EU-OSHA already identified these issues (EU-OSHA 2019). Therefore, we can reasonably imagine that regulation and legislation regarding VR use at work shall emanate from the EU and other governmental agencies. In their present form, HMDs and virtual environments have issues complying with workers' safety and health, fulfilling office-like tasks. Stanney et al. (2020b) provide an R&D agenda to resolve cybersickness. Most actions they list are estimated to happen within one to five years when their work has been published. This is an optimistic agenda. Even if only focused on cybersickness, the phenomenon's complexity could take longer to check most of the listed actions. Like we have seen with cybersickness and visual fatigue, conceptual issues are at stake. VRISE is a broad term encompassing many factors and the possible relationship between side effects should be considered. Based on our review of VR side effects, it is clear that robust methods to monitor cybersickness, visual fatigue, and muscle fatigue require more scientific contributions. Furthermore, no theory predicting VR side effects makes consensus, and peers require more experimental work. This can apply to visual fatigue, muscle fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload in VR. Therefore, Table 7 lists a research agenda.
We should be parsimonious with the introduction of VR at work. Increasing scientific works are prompt to point out the benefits of HMDs. However, they often do not mention risks. Our narrative review concentrated on ergonomic risks, which could directly impact workers' safety and health. We do not have enough data on the introduction of VR for a large part of office workers. VR has been used in specific industries like automotive, design, or aviation, for pilot training purposes. In those cases, benefits (economic or task risk reduction) seem to surpass ergonomic risks. However, similar benefits still need to be determined for office-like tasks. Workers’ performance, health, and safety are at stake.
Notes
French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety.
References
Abdelall ES, Eagle Z, Finseth T et al (2020) The interaction between physical and psychosocial stressors. Front Behav Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2020.00063
Adams F (2010) Embodied cognition. phenom. Cogn Sci 9:619–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9175-x
Adams EJ, Nguyen AT, Cowan N (2018) Theories of working memory: differences in definition, degree of modularity, role of attention, and purpose. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 49:340–355. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0114
Ahmed SF, McDermott KC, Burge WK et al (2018) Visual function, digital behavior and the vision performance index. OPTH 12:2553–2561. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S187131
Ahmed S, Leroy L, Bouaniche A (2017) Questioning the use of virtual reality in the assessment of the physical impacts of real-task gestures and tasks. In: 2017 23rd International conference on virtual system multimedia (VSMM). pp 1–10
Aksoy E, Izzetoglu K, Baysoy E et al (2019) Performance Monitoring via Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy for Virtual Reality Based Basic Life Support Training. Front Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01336
Alais D, Burr D (2019) Cue combination within a bayesian framework. In: Lee AKC, Wallace MT, Coffin AB et al (eds) Multisensory processes: the auditory perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 9–31
Alhassan M, Alhamad F, Bokhary K, Almustanyir A (2021) Effects of virtual reality head-mounted displays on oculomotor functions. Int J Ophthalmol Vis Sci. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijovs.20210601.12
Alhusuny A, Cook M, Khalil A et al (2020) Impact of accommodation, convergence and stereoacuity on perceived symptoms and surgical performance among surgeons. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08167-2
Allen AP, Kennedy PJ, Dockray S et al (2017) The trier social stress test: principles and practice. Neurobiol Stress 6:113–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ynstr.2016.11.001
Almeida A, Rebelo F, Noriega P, Vilar E (2018) Virtual reality self induced cybersickness: an exploratory study. In: Rebelo F, Soares M (eds) Advances in ergonomics in design. Springer, Cham, pp 26–33
Alsuraykh NH, Wilson ML, Tennent P, Sharples S (2019) How stress and mental workload are connected. In: Proceedings of the 13th EAI international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare. association for computing machinery, New York, USA. pp 371–376
Altena E, Daviaux Y, Sanz-Arigita E et al (2019) How sleep problems contribute to simulator sickness: preliminary results from a realistic driving scenario. J Sleep Res 28:e12677. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12677
Andersen BJH, Davis ATA, Weber G, Wünsche BC (2019) Immersion or diversion: does virtual reality make data visualisation more effective? In: 2019 International conference on electronics, information, and communication (ICEIC). pp 1–7
Anses (2014) Effets sanitaires potentiels des technologies audiovisuelles en 3D stéréoscopique. Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail, Maisons-Alfort, France
Anses (2019) AVIS et RAPPORT de l’Anses relatif aux effets sur la santé humaine et sur l’environnement (faune et flore) des systèmes utilisant des diodes électroluninescentes (LED). Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail, France
Anses (2021) AVIS et RAPPORT de l’Anses relatifs aux effets sanitaires potentiels liés à l’exposition aux technologies utilisant la réalité augmentée et la réalité virtuelle. Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail, Maisons-Alfort, France
Arafat IM, Shahnewaz Ferdous SM, Quarles J (2018) Cybersickness-provoking virtual reality alters brain signals of persons with multiple sclerosis. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D User interfaces (VR). pp 1–120
Armougum A, Orriols E, Gaston-Bellegarde A et al (2019) Virtual reality: a new method to investigate cognitive load during navigation. J Environ Psychol 65:101338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101338
Arora S, Sevdalis N, Nestel D et al (2010) The impact of stress on surgical performance: a systematic review of the literature. Surgery 147:318-330.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2009.10.007
Asarian L, Gloy V, Geary N (2012) Homeostasis. In: Ramachandran VS (ed) Encyclopedia of human behavior, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 324–333
Atanasoff L, Venable MA (2017) Technostress: Implications for adults in the workforce. Career Dev Q 65:326–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12111
Babiloni F (2019) Mental workload monitoring: new perspectives from neuroscience. In: Longo L, Leva MC (eds) Human mental workload: models and applications. Springer, Cham, pp 3–19
Baceviciute S, Terkildsen T, Makransky G (2021) Remediating learning from non-immersive to immersive media: using EEG to investigate the effects of environmental embeddedness on reading in virtual reality. Comput Educ 164:104122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104122
Baddeley A (2012) Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol 63:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
Bando T, Iijima A, Yano S (2012) Visual fatigue caused by stereoscopic images and the search for the requirement to prevent them: a review. Display 33:76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2011.09.001
Banks MS, Read JCA, Allison RS, Watt SJ (2012) Stereoscopy and the human visual system. SMPTE Motion Imaging J 121:24–43. https://doi.org/10.5594/j18173
Banks MS, Kim J, Shibata T (2013) Insight into vergence/accommodation mismatch. In: Head- and helmet-mounted displays XVIII: design and applications. International society for optics and photonics, 8735
Barreda-Ángeles M, Aleix-Guillaume S, Pereda-Baños A (2020) Users’ psychophysiological, vocal, and self-reported responses to the apparent attitude of a virtual audience in stereoscopic 360°-video. Virtual Real 24:289–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00400-1
Basil MD (2012) Multiple resource theory. In: Seel NM (ed) Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Springer, US, Boston, MA, pp 2384–2385
Bater LR, Jordan SS (2020) Selective attention. In: Zeigler-Hill V, Shackelford TK (eds) Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer, Cham, pp 4624–4628
Bernard F, Zare M, Sagot J-C, Paquin R (2019) virtual reality simulation and ergonomics assessment in aviation maintainability. In: Bagnara S, Tartaglia R, Albolino S, et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th congress of the international ergonomics association (IEA 2018). Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 141–154
Bernhardt KA, Poltavski D (2021) Symptoms of convergence and accommodative insufficiency predict engagement and cognitive fatigue during complex task performance with and without automation. Appl Ergon 90:103152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103152
Best S (1996) Perceptual and oculomotor implications of interpupillary distance settings on a head-mounted virtual display. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 1996 national aerospace and electronics conference NAECON 1996. pp 429–434 vol.1
Biener V, Schneider D, Gesslein T et al (2020) Breaking the screen: interaction across touchscreen boundaries in virtual reality for mobile knowledge workers. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 26:3490–3502. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3023567
Bienertova-Vasku J, Lenart P, Scheringer M (2020) Eustress and distress: neither good nor bad, but rather the same? BioEssays 42:1900238. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201900238
Biggs A, Brough P, Drummond S (2017) Lazarus and folkman’s psychological stress and coping theory. The handbook of stress and health. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 349–364
Biggs AT, Geyer DJ, Schroeder VM, et al (2018) Adapting virtual reality and augmented reality systems for naval aviation training. Naval medical research unit dayton wright-patterson AFB United States
Biocca F (1992) Will Simulation Sickness Slow Down the Diffusion of Virtual Environment Technology. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 1:334–343. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.3.334
Bishop JM, Martin AO (2014) Contemporary sensorimotor theory: a brief introduction. In: Bishop JM, Martin AO (eds) Contemporary sensorimotor theory. Springer, Cham, pp 1–22
Blake R, Wilson HR (2011) Binocular vision. Vision Res 51:754–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.10.009
Bockelman P, Lingum D (2017) Factors of cybersickness. In: Stephanidis C (ed) HCI international 2017 – posters’ extended abstracts. Springer, Cham, pp 3–8
Boges D, Agus M, Sicat R et al (2020) Virtual reality framework for editing and exploring medial axis representations of nanometric scale neural structures. Comput Graph 91:12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2020.05.024
Bondanini G, Giorgi G, Ariza-Montes A et al (2020) Technostress dark side of technology in the workplace: a scientometric analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:8013. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218013
Borghini G, Di Flumeri G, Aricò P et al (2020) A multimodal and signals fusion approach for assessing the impact of stressful events on air traffic controllers. Sci Rep 10:8600. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65610-z
Borhany T, Shahid E, Siddique WA, Ali H (2018) Musculoskeletal problems in frequent computer and internet users. J Fam Med Prim Care 7:337–339. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_326_17
Bosten JM, Goodbourn PT, Lawrance-Owen AJ et al (2015) A population study of binocular function. Vision Res 110:34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2015.02.017
Boucher P, Plusquellec P (2019) Acute stress assessment from excess cortisol secretion: fundamentals and perspectives. Front Endocrinol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00749
Bourdin P, Martini M, Sanchez-Vives MV (2019) Altered visual feedback from an embodied avatar unconsciously influences movement amplitude and muscle activity. Sci Rep 9:19747. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56034-5
Bracq M-S, Michinov E, Arnaldi B et al (2019) Learning procedural skills with a virtual reality simulator: an acceptability study. Nurse Educ Today 79:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.05.026
Breier A, Albus M, Pickar D et al (1987) Controllable and uncontrollable stress in humans: alterations in mood and neuroendocrine and psychophysiological function. AJP 144:1419–1425. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.144.11.1419
Brivio E, Gaudioso F, Vergine I et al (2018) Preventing technostress through positive technology. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02569
Broucke SV, Deligiannis N (2019) Visualization of real-time heterogeneous smart city data using virtual reality. In: 2019 IEEE International smart cities conference (ISC2). pp 685–690
Brown DMY, Graham JD, Innes KI et al (2020) Effects of prior cognitive exertion on physical performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 50:497–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01204-8
Buhrmann T, Di Paolo EA, Barandiaran X (2013) A dynamical systems account of sensorimotor contingencies. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00285
Calik BB, Yagci N, Oztop M, Caglar D (2020) Effects of risk factors related to computer use on musculoskeletal pain in office workers. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2020.1765112
Camina E, Güell F (2017) The neuroanatomical, neurophysiological and psychological basis of memory: current models and their origins. Front Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2017.00438
Caserman P, Garcia-Agundez A, Gámez Zerban A, Göbel S (2021) Cybersickness in current-generation virtual reality head-mounted displays: systematic review and outlook. Virtual Reality. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00513-6
Castelo-Branco R, Brás C, Leitão AM (2021) Inside the matrix: immersive live coding for architectural design. Int J Archit Comput 19:174–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478077120958164
Causse M, Chua Z, Peysakhovich V et al (2017) Mental workload and neural efficiency quantified in the prefrontal cortex using fNIRS. Sci Rep 7:5222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05378-x
Caviola S, Carey E, Mammarella IC, Szucs D (2017) Stress, time pressure, strategy selection and math anxiety in mathematics: a review of the literature. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01488
Chai WJ, Abd Hamid AI, Abdullah JM (2018) Working memory from the psychological and neurosciences perspectives: a review. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00401
Chang E, Kim HT, Yoo B (2020) Virtual reality sickness: a review of causes and measurements. Int J Hum Comput Interact 36:1658–1682. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1778351
Chen Y, Wang X, Xu H (2021) Human factors/ergonomics evaluation for virtual reality headsets: a review. CCF Trans Pervasive Comp Interact. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42486-021-00062-6
Chen X-L, Hou W-J (2021) Visual fatigue assessment model based on eye-related data in virtual reality. In: 2021 IEEE 7th International conference on virtual reality (ICVR). pp 262–268
Chihara T, Seo A (2018) Evaluation of physical workload affected by mass and center of mass of head-mounted display. Appl Ergon 68:204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.11.016
Cho T-H, Chen C-Y, Wu P-J et al (2017) The comparison of accommodative response and ocular movements in viewing 3D and 2D displays. Displays 49:59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2017.07.002
Cobb SVG, Nichols S, Ramsey A, Wilson JR (1999) Virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects (VRISE). Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 8:169–186. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566152
Coburn J, Salmon J, Freeman I (2020) The effects of transition style for collaborative view sharing in immersive virtual reality. Comput Graph 92:44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2020.08.003
Coenen P, Willenberg L, Parry S et al (2018) Associations of occupational standing with musculoskeletal symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 52:176–183. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096795
Coenen P, van der Molen HF, Burdorf A et al (2019) Associations of screen work with neck and upper extremity symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med 76:502–509. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2018-105553
Cohen RA (2011) Arousal. In: Kreutzer JS, DeLuca J, Caplan B (eds) Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology. Springer, New York, pp 247–249
Coles-Brennan C, Sulley A, Young G (2019) Management of digital eye strain. Clin Exp Optom 102:18–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12798
Colligan MSWTW, Higgins EM (2006) Workplace stress. J Work Behav Health 21:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J490v21n02_07
Collins J, Regenbrecht H, Langlotz T, et al (2019) Measuring cognitive load and insight: a methodology exemplified in a virtual reality learning context. In: 2019 IEEE International symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR). pp 351–362
Colman AM (2009) Sensory conflict theory In: a dictionary of psychology. Oxford University Press
Çöltekin A, Lochhead I, Madden M et al (2020) Extended reality in spatial sciences: a review of research challenges and future directions. ISPRS Int J Geo Inf 9:439. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9070439
Curtin A, Ayaz H (2019) Chapter 22 - neural efficiency metrics in neuroergonomics: theory and applications. In: Ayaz H, Dehais F (eds) Neuroergonomics. Academic Press, pp 133–140
Daniel F, Kapoula Z (2019) Induced vergence-accommodation conflict reduces cognitive performance in the stroop test. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37778-y
Davis S, Nesbitt K, Nalivaiko E (2014) A Systematic review of cybersickness. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on interactive entertainment. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp 1–9
de Dreu MJ, Schouwenaars IT, Rutten G-JM et al (2019) Brain activity associated with expected task difficulty. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00286
Dehais F, Lafont A, Roy R, Fairclough S (2020) A Neuroergonomics Approach to Mental Workload Engagement and human performance. Front Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00268
Dehdashti A, Mehralizadeh S, Mahjoubi Z (2017) Workplace stresses and musculoskeletal disorders among nurses: a cross-sectional study. Middle East J Rehabil Health Stud. https://doi.org/10.5812/mejrh.57480
Dehghani M, Acikgoz F, Mashatan A, Lee SH (2021) A holistic analysis towards understanding consumer perceptions of virtual reality devices in the post-adoption phase. Behav Infor Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1876767
del Cid DA, Larranaga D, Leitao M et al (2021) Exploratory factor analysis and validity of the virtual reality symptom questionnaire and computer use survey. Ergonomics 64:69–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1820083
del Seguí M, M, Cabrero-García J, Crespo A, et al (2015) A reliable and valid questionnaire was developed to measure computer vision syndrome at the workplace. J Clin Epidemiol 68:662–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.015
Dell’Anna A, Paternoster A (2013) Phenomenal consciousness and the sensorimotor approach. a critical account. Open J Philos 3:435–442. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2013.34064
Dennison MS, D’Zmura M (2017) Cybersickness without the wobble: experimental results speak against postural instability theory. Appl Ergon 58:215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.014
Dennison MS, Wisti AZ, D’Zmura M (2016) Use of physiological signals to predict cybersickness. Displays 44:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2016.07.002
Denovan A, Dagnall N (2019) Development and evaluation of the chronic time pressure inventory. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02717
Descheneaux CR, Reinerman-Jones L, Moss J et al (2020) Negative effects associated with HMDs in augmented and virtual reality. In: Chen JYC, Fragomeni G (eds) Virtual, augmented and mixed reality design and interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 410–428
Dewe P (2017) Demand, resources, and their relationship with coping. The handbook of stress and health. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 427–442
Dewe PJ, O’Driscoll MP, Cooper CL (2012) Theories of psychological stress at work. In: Gatchel RJ, Schultz IZ (eds) Handbook of occupational health and wellness. Springer, US, Boston, MA, pp 23–38
Diaz G, Cooper J, Rothkopf C, Hayhoe M (2013) Saccades to future ball location reveal memory-based prediction in a virtual-reality interception task. J vis 13:20–20. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.1.20
Dodgson NA (2004) Variation and extrema of human interpupillary distance. In: Stereoscopic displays and virtual reality systems XI. international society for optics and photonics, pp 36–46
Doherty K, Doherty G (2018) The construal of experience in HCI: understanding self-reports. Int J Hum Comput Stud 110:63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.10.006
Dragano N, Lunau T (2020) Technostress at work and mental health: concepts and research results. Curr Opin Psychiatry 33:407–413. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000613
Dube TJ, Arif AS (2019) Text entry in virtual reality: a comprehensive review of the literature. In: Kurosu M (ed) Human-computer interaction recognition and interaction technologies. Springer, Cham, pp 419–437
Dużmańska N, Strojny P, Strojny A (2018) can simulator sickness be avoided? a review on temporal aspects of simulator sickness. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02132
Ebrahimi OV, Pallesen S, Kenter RMF, Nordgreen T (2019) Psychological interventions for the fear of public speaking: a meta-analysis. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00488
Eckstein MK, Guerra-Carrillo B, Singley ATM, Bunge SA (2017) Beyond eye gaze: what else can eyetracking reveal about cognition and cognitive development? Dev Cogn Neurosci 25:69–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2016.11.001
Ehrenbrusthoff K, Ryan CG, Grüneberg C, Martin DJ (2018) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the reliability and validity of sensorimotor measurement instruments in people with chronic low back pain. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 35:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2018.02.007
Eltayeb S, Staal JB, Hassan A, de Bie RA (2009) Work related risk factors for neck, shoulder and arms complaints: a cohort study among dutch computer office workers. J Occup Rehabil 19:315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9196-x
Emoto M, Niida T, Okano F (2005) Repeated vergence adaptation causes the decline of visual functions in watching stereoscopic television. J Disp Technol 1:328–340. https://doi.org/10.1109/jdt.2005.858938
Ens B, Bach B, Cordeil M, et al (2021) Grand challenges in immersive analytics. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, pp 1–17
Epel ES, Crosswell AD, Mayer SE et al (2018) More than a feeling: a unified view of stress measurement for population science. Front Neuroendocrinol 49:146–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2018.03.001
Epps J (2018) Task load and stress. The wiley handbook of human computer interaction. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 207–223
Erickson A, Kim K, Bruder G, Welch GF (2020) Effects of dark mode graphics on visual acuity and fatigue with virtual reality head-mounted displays. In: 2020 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). pp 434–442
Eriksson J, Vogel EK, Lansner A et al (2015) Neurocognitive architecture of working memory. Neuron 88:33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.020
EU-OSHA, (2019) Digitalisation and occupational safety and health. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Bilbao Spain, p 45
Evangelista Belo JM, Feit AM, Feuchtner T, Grønbæk K (2021) XRgonomics: facilitating the creation of ergonomic 3D interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp 1–11
Evans BJ (2007) Chapter 2 - detecting binocular vision anomalies in primary eyecare practice. In: Evans BJ (ed) Pickwell’s binocular vision anomalies, 5th edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Edinburgh, pp 12–38
Evans JStBT, Stanovich KE (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci 8:223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
Filho JAW, Freitas CMDS, Nedel L (2018) VirtualDesk: a comfortable and efficient immersive information visualization approach. Comput Graph Forum 37:415–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13430
Filho JAW, Freitas CMDS, Nedel L (2019) Comfortable immersive analytics with the virtualdesk metaphor. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 39:41–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2019.2898856
Filho JAW, Stuerzlinger W, Nedel L (2020) Evaluating an immersive space-time cube geovisualization for intuitive trajectory data exploration. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 26:514–524. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934415
Fink G (2007) Encyclopedia of stress four-volume set. Elsevier, San Diego, p 98
Fink G (2016) Chapter 1 - stress, definitions, mechanisms, and effects outlined: lessons from anxiety. In: Fink G (ed) Stress: Concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 3–11
Flament-Fultot M (2016) Counterfactuals versus constraints: towards an implementation theory of sensorimotor mastery. J Conscious Stud 23:153–176
Fortuin MF, Lambooij MT, IJsselsteijn WA et al (2010) An exploration of the initial effects of stereoscopic displays on optometric parameters. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 31:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00804.x
Frutiger M, Borotkanics R (2021) Systematic review and meta-analysis suggest strength training and workplace modifications may reduce neck pain in office workers. Pain Pract 21:100–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.12940
Fuchs P (2017) Virtual reality headsets - a theoretical and pragmatic approach, 1st edn. CRC Press, London, UK
Fuchs P (2018) The challenges and risks of democratization of VR-AR. In: Arnaldi B, Guitton P, Moreau G (eds) Virtual reality and augmented reality. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 289–301
Furnham A, Boo HC (2011) A literature review of the anchoring effect. J Socio Econ 40:35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008
Gallagher M, Ferrè ER (2018) Cybersickness: a multisensory integration perspective. Multisens Res 31:645–674. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-20181293
Gallego A, McHugh L, Penttonen M, Lappalainen R (2021) Measuring public speaking anxiety: self-report, behavioral, and physiological. Behav Modif. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445521994308
Galy E, Cariou M, Mélan C (2012) What is the relationship between mental workload factors and cognitive load types? Int J Psychophysiol 83:269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.023
Gandevia SC (2001) Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue. Physiol Rev 81:1725–1789. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.2001.81.4.1725
Ganzel BL, Morris PA, Wethington E (2010) Allostasis and the human brain: integrating models of stress from the social and life sciences. Psychol Rev 117:134–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017773
Gao B, Chen Z, Chen X et al (2021) The effects of audiovisual landmarks on spatial learning and recalling for image browsing interface in virtual environments. J Syst Architect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2021.102096
Geiger A, Bewersdorf I, Brandenburg E, Stark R (2018) Visual feedback for grasping in virtual reality environments for an interface to instruct digital human models. In: Ahram T, Falcão C (eds) Advances in usability and user experience. Springer, Cham, pp 228–239
Gesslein T, Biener V, Gagel P, et al (2020) Pen-based interaction with spreadsheets in mobile virtual reality. In: 2020 IEEE International symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR). pp 361–373
Godoy LD, Rossignoli MT, Delfino-Pereira P et al (2018) A comprehensive overview on stress neurobiology: basic concepts and clinical implications. Front Behav Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00127
Goldinger SD, Papesh MH, Barnhart AS et al (2016) The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychon Bull Rev 23:959–978. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0860-1
Grassini S, Laumann K (2021) Immersive visual technologies and human health. In: European conference on cognitive ergonomics 2021. association for computing machinery, New York, USA, pp 1–6
Grassini S, Laumann K (2020) Are modern head-mounted displays sexist? a systematic review on gender differences in HMD-mediated virtual reality. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01604
Grubert J, Ofek E, Pahud M, Kristensson PO (2018) The office of the future: virtual, portable, and global. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 38:125–133. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2018.2875609
Gruet M, Temesi J, Rupp T et al (2013) Stimulation of the motor cortex and corticospinal tract to assess human muscle fatigue. Neuroscience 231:384–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.10.058
Guo J, Weng D, Been-Lirn Duh H et al (2017) Effects of using HMDs on visual fatigue in virtual environments. 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR) IEEE. Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp 249–250
Guo J, Weng D, Zhang Z et al (2019b) Subjective and objective evaluation of visual fatigue caused by continuous and discontinuous use of HMDs. J Soc Infor Disp 27:108–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsid.750
Guo J, Weng D, Zhang Z, et al (2019a) Evaluation of maslows hierarchy of needs on long-term use of HMDs – a case study of office environment. In: 2019a IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). pp 948–949
Guo J, Weng D, Fang H, et al (2020) Exploring the differences of visual discomfort caused by long-term immersion between virtual environments and physical environments. In: 2020 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). pp 443–452
Gupta K, Hajika R, Pai YS, et al (2020) Measuring human trust in a virtual assistant using physiological sensing in virtual reality. In: 2020 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). pp 756–765
Halim I, Omar AR, Saman AM, Othman I (2012) Assessment of muscle fatigue associated with prolonged standing in the workplace. Saf Health Work 3:31–42. https://doi.org/10.5491/SHAW.2012.3.1.31
Han J, Bae SH, Suk H-J (2017) Comparison of visual discomfort and visual fatigue between head-mounted display and smartphone. Electron Imaging 2017:212–217. https://doi.org/10.2352/issn.2470-1173.2017.14.hvei-146
Heidarimoghadam R, Mohammadfam I, Babamiri M et al (2020) Study protocol and baseline results for a quasi-randomized control trial: an investigation on the effects of ergonomic interventions on work-related musculoskeletal disorders, quality of work-life and productivity in knowledge-based companies. Int J Ind Ergon 80:103030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2020.103030
Heikoop DD, de Winter JCF, van Arem B, Stanton NA (2017) Effects of platooning on signal-detection performance, workload, and stress: a driving simulator study. Appl Ergon 60:116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.10.016
Helminen EC, Morton ML, Wang Q, Felver JC (2019) A meta-analysis of cortisol reactivity to the trier social stress test in virtual environments. Psychoneuroendocrinology 110:104437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104437
Heo J-Y, Kim K, Fava M et al (2017) Effects of smartphone use with and without blue light at night in healthy adults: a randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled comparison. J Psychiatr Res 87:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.12.010
Hess RF, To L, Zhou J et al (2015) Stereo vision: the haves and have-nots. I Perception 6:2041669515593028. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669515593028
Hibbard PB, van Dam LCJ, Scarfe P (2020) The implications of interpupillary distance variability for virtual reality. In: 2020 International conference on 3D immersion (IC3D). pp 1–7
Hirota M, Kanda H, Endo T et al (2019) Comparison of visual fatigue caused by head-mounted display for virtual reality and two-dimensional display using objective and subjective evaluation. Ergonomics 62:759–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1582805
Hodges LF, Davis ET (1993) Geometric considerations for stereoscopic virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 2:34–43. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1993.2.1.34
Hoffman DM, Girshick AR, Akeley K, Banks MS (2008) Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. J vis 8:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.3.33
Holliman NS, Dodgson NA, Favalora GE, Pockett L (2011) Three-dimensional displays: a review and applications analysis. IEEE Trans Broadcast 57:362–371. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbc.2011.2130930
Howard MC, Van Zandt EC (2021) A meta-analysis of the virtual reality problem: Unequal effects of virtual reality sickness across individual differences. Virtual Reality. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00524-3
Howarth PA, Hodder SG (2008) Characteristics of habituation to motion in a virtual environment. Displays 29:117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2007.09.009
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2007) Introduction to work-related musculoskeletal disorders - Safety and health at work. In: www.osha.europa.eu. https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/factsheet-71-introduction-work-related-musculoskeletal-disorders/view. Accessed 22 Mar 2021
Iqbal H, Latif S, Yan Y et al (2021) Reducing arm fatigue in virtual reality by introducing 3D-spatial offset. IEEE Access 9:64085–64104. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3075769
Iskander J, Hossny M (2021) Measuring the likelihood of VR visual fatigue through ocular biomechanics. Displays 70:102105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2021.102105
Iskander J, Hossny M, Nahavandi S (2018) a review on ocular biomechanic models for assessing visual fatigue in virtual reality. IEEE Access 6:19345–19361. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2815663
Iskander J, Hossny M, Nahavandi S (2019) Using biomechanics to investigate the effect of VR on eye vergence system. Appl Ergon 81:102883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102883
Iskenderova A, Weidner F, Broll W (2017) Drunk virtual reality gaming: exploring the influence of alcohol on cybersickness. In: Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. ACM, Amsterdam The Netherlands, pp 561–572
Ito K, Tada M, Ujike H, Hyodo K (2019) Effects of weight and balance of head mounted display on physical load. In: Chen JYC, Fragomeni G (eds) Virtual, augmented and mixed reality multimodal interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 450–460
Jacobs J, Wang X, Alexa M (2019) Keep it simple: depth-based dynamic adjustment of rendering for head-mounted displays decreases visual comfort. ACM Trans Appl Percept 16:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3353902
Jiang B, Hung GK, Ciuffreda KJ (2002) Models of vergence and accommodation-vergence interactions. In: Hung GK, Ciuffreda KJ (eds) Models of the visual system. Springer, US, Boston, MA, pp 341–384
Karajeh H, Maqableh M, Masadeh R (2014) A review on stereoscopic 3D home entertainment for the twenty first century. 3D Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13319-014-0026-3
Karimikia H, Singh H, Joseph D (2020) Negative outcomes of ICT use at work: meta-analytic evidence and the role of job autonomy. INTR 31:159–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-09-2019-0385
Kartick P, Quevedo AJU, Gualdron DR (2020) Design of Virtual reality reach and grasp modes factoring upper limb ergonomics. In: 2020 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW). pp 798–799
Keller K, Colucci D (1998) Perception in HMDs: what is it in head-mounted displays (HMDs) that really make them all so terrible? pp 46–53
Kemeny A, Chardonnet JR, Colombet F (2020) Getting rid of cybersickness: in virtual reality augmented reality, and simulators. Springer, Cham
Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG (1993) Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 3:203–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3
Khakurel J, Melkas H, Porras J (2018) Tapping into the wearable device revolution in the work environment: a systematic review. Inf Technol People 31:791–818. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-03-2017-0076
Kim JJ, Diamond DM (2002) The stressed hippocampus, synaptic plasticity and lost memories. Nat Rev Neurosci 3:453–462. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn849
Kim E, Shin G (2018) Head rotation and muscle activity when conducting document editing tasks with a head-mounted display. Proc Hum Factor Ergon Soc Ann Meet 62:952–955. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621219
Kim YY, Kim HJ, Kim EN et al (2005) Characteristic changes in the physiological components of cybersickness. Psychophysiology 42:616–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00349.x
Kim J, Kane D, Banks MS (2014) The rate of change of vergence–accommodation conflict affects visual discomfort. Vision Res 105:159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.10.021
Kim J-Y, Kim S-H, So G-J (2016) The modeling of color fatigue in 3-dimensional stereoscopic video. IJCTE 8:229–234. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJCTE.2016.V8.1049
Kim Y, Woo J, Woo M (2017) Effects of stress and task difficulty on working memory and cortical networking. Percept Mot Skills 124:1194–1210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512517732851
Kim HK, Park J, Choi Y, Choe M (2018) Virtual reality sickness questionnaire (VRSQ): motion sickness measurement index in a virtual reality environment. Appl Ergon 69:66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.12.016
Kim YM, Rhiu I, Yun MH (2020) A Systematic review of a virtual reality system from the perspective of user experience. Int J Hum Comput Interact 36:893–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1699746
Kim H, Kim DJ, Chung WH et al (2021) Clinical predictors of cybersickness in virtual reality (VR) among highly stressed people. Sci Rep 11:12139. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91573-w
Kim D, Jung YJ, Kim E, et al (2011) Human brain response to visual fatigue caused by stereoscopic depth perception. In: 2011 17th International conference on digital signal processing (DSP). pp 1–5
Kirschner PA (2017) Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Comput Educ 106:166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
Klier C, Buratto LG, Klier C, Buratto LG (2020) Stress and long-term memory retrieval: a systematic review. Trends Psychiatry Psychother 42:284–291. https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2019-0077
Knierim P, Schwind V, Feit AM, et al (2018) Physical keyboards in virtual reality: analysis of typing performance and effects of avatar hands. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp 1–9
Koohestani A, Nahavandi D, Asadi H et al (2019) A knowledge discovery in motion sickness: a comprehensive literature review. IEEE Access 7:85755–85770. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2922993
Kuze J, Ukai K (2008) Subjective evaluation of visual fatigue caused by motion images. Displays 29:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2007.09.007
Kweon SH, Kweon HJ, Kim S, et al (2018) A brain wave research on VR (Virtual Reality) usage: comparison between VR and 2D video in EEG measurement. advances in human factors and systems interaction AHFE 2017 advances in intelligent systems and computing 592:194–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60366-7_19
La Torre G, Esposito A, Sciarra I, Chiappetta M (2019) Definition, symptoms and risk of techno-stress: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 92:13–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1352-1
Labuschagne I, Grace C, Rendell P et al (2019) An introductory guide to conducting the trier social stress test. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 107:686–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.032
Lackner JR (2014) Motion sickness: more than nausea and vomiting. Exp Brain Res 232:2493–2510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4008-8
Lages WS, Bowman DA (2018) Move the object or move myself? walking vs. manipulation for the examination of 3D scientific data. Front ICT. https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2018.00015
Laha B, Sensharma K, Schiffbauer JD, Bowman DA (2012) Effects of immersion on visual analysis of volume data. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 18:597–606. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.42
Lambooij MTM, IJsselsteijn WA, Heynderickx I (2007) Visual discomfort in stereoscopic displays: a review. Stereosc Disp Virtual Real Syst XIV Int Soc Opt Photonics. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.705527
Lambooij M, IJsselsteijn W, Fortuin M, Heynderickx I (2009) Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: a review. J Imaging Sci Technol 53:1–14. https://doi.org/10.2352/j.imagingsci.technol.2009.53.3.030201
LaViola JJ (2000) A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bull 32:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/333329.333344
LaViola JJ, Kruijff E, McMahan RP, et al (2017) 3D user interfaces: theory and practice, second edition. addison-wesley, boston columbus indianapolis new york san francisco amsterdam cape town dubai london madrid milan munich paris montreal toronto delhi mexico city são paulo sidney hong kong seoul singapore taipei tokyo
Lavoie R, Main K, King C, King D (2020) Virtual experience, real consequences: the potential negative emotional consequences of virtual reality gameplay. Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00440-y
Lawrenson JG, Hull CC, Downie LE (2017) The effect of blue-light blocking spectacle lenses on visual performance, macular health and the sleep-wake cycle: a systematic review of the literature. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 37:644–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12406
Lawson BD (2014) Motion sickness symptomatology and origins. In: Hale KS, Stanney KM (eds) Handbook of virtual environments design, implementation, and applications, second. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA
Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping, 1st edn. Springer, New York
LeBlanc VR (2009) The effects of acute stress on performance: implications for health professions education. Acad Med 84:S25. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b37b8f
Lee K, Choo H (2013) A critical review of selective attention: an interdisciplinary perspective. Artif Intell Rev 40:27–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-011-9278-y
Lee DH, Han SK (2018) Effects of watching virtual reality and 360° videos on erector spinae and upper trapezius muscle fatigue and cervical flexion-extension angle. KSPE 35:1107–1114. https://doi.org/10.7736/KSPE.2018.35.11.1107
Leppink J (2017) Cognitive load theory: practical implications and an important challenge. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 12:385–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2017.05.003
Leroy L (2016) Eyestrain reduction in stereoscopy. Wiley, New Jersey
Li Y, Qin J, Yan J et al (2019) Differences of physical vs. psychological stress: evidences from glucocorticoid receptor expression, hippocampal subfields injury, and behavioral abnormalities. Brain Imaging Behav 13:1780–1788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-018-9956-3
Li G, Rempel D, Liu Y, Harris-Adamson C (2020a) The design and assignment of microgestures to commands for virtual and augmented reality tasks. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet 64:2061–2063. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641498
Li M, Ganni S, Ponten J, et al (2020b) Analysing usability and presence of a virtual reality operating room (VOR) simulator during laparoscopic surgery training. In: 2020b IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). pp 566–572
Li Y, Sarcar S, Zheng Y, Ren X (2021) Exploring text revision with backspace and caret in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp 1–12
Lim H-K, Kim H, Jang T, Lee Y (2013) Research trends of international guides for human error prevention in nuclear power plants. J Ergon Soc Korea. https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2013.32.1.125
Long Y, Shen Y, Guo D et al (2020) The effects of consumer-grade virtual reality headsets on adult visual function. Semin Ophthalmol 35:170–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2020.1776342
Lopes P, Tian N, Boulic R (2020) Exploring blink-rate behaviors for cybersickness detection in VR. In: 2020 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW). pp 794–795
Luger T, Bosch T, Veeger D, de Looze M (2014) The influence of task variation on manifestation of fatigue is ambiguous – a literature review. Ergonomics 57:162–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.885088
Luong T, Martin N, Argelaguet F, Lécuyer A (2019) Studying the mental effort in virtual versus real environments. In: 2019 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). pp 809–816
Luu W, Zangerl B, Kalloniatis M et al (2021a) Vision impairment provides new insight into self-motion perception. Invest Ophthalmol vis Sci 62:4–4. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.62.2.4
Luu W, Zangerl B, Kalloniatis M, Kim J (2021b) Effects of stereopsis on vection, presence and cybersickness in head-mounted display (HMD) virtual reality. Sci Rep 11:12373. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89751-x
MacArthur C, Grinberg A, Harley D, Hancock M (2021) You’re making me sick: a systematic review of how virtual reality research considers gender & cybersickness. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp 1–15
Mahani M-AN, Sheybani S, Bausenhart KM et al (2017) Multisensory perception of contradictory information in an environment of varying reliability: evidence for conscious perception and optimal causal inference. Sci Rep 7:3167. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-03521-2
Main LC, Wolkow A, Chambers TP (2017) Quantifying the physiological stress response to simulated maritime pilotage tasks: the influence of task complexity and pilot experience. J Occup Environ Med 59:1078–1083. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001161
Makransky G, Terkildsen TS, Mayer RE (2019) Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learn Instr 60:225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
Marcel M (2019) Communication apprehension across the career span. Int J Bus Commun. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419856803
Marshev V, Bolloch J, Pallamin N et al (2021) Impact of virtual reality headset use on eye blinking and lipid layer thickness. J Fr Ophtalmol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfo.2020.09.032
Marvan T, Havlík M (2021) Is predictive processing a theory of perceptual consciousness? New Ideas Psychol 61:100837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2020.100837
Matsuura Y (2019) Aftereffect of stereoscopic viewing on human body II. In: Takada H, Miyao M, Fateh S (eds) Stereopsis and hygiene. Springer, Singapore, pp 89–99
Mays L (2009) Accommodation-vergence interactions. In: Binder MD, Hirokawa N, Windhorst U (eds) Encyclopedia of neuroscience. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 10–10
McCoy SK, Hutchinson S, Hawthorne L et al (2014) Is pressure stressful? the impact of pressure on the stress response and category learning. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 14:769–781. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0215-1
McGregor M, Azzopardi L, Halvey M (2021) Untangling cost, effort, and load in information seeking and retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 2021 conference on human information interaction and retrieval. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp 151–161
Mehra D, Galor A (2020) Digital screen use and dry eye: a review. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol 9:491–497. https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000328
Melzer J, Brozoski F, Letowski T et al (2009) Guidelines for HMD design. Sensat Percept Cognit Issues Helmet Mounted Disp. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.848931
Merbah J, Gorce P, Jacquier-Bret J (2020) Effects of environmental illumination and screen brightness settings on upper limb and axial skeleton parameters: how do users adapt postures? Ergonomics 63:1561–1570. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1808248
Merhi, O., Faugloire, E., Flanagan, M., & Stoffregen, T. A. (2007). Motion Sickness, Console Video Games, and Head-Mounted Displays. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(5), 920‑934. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007x230262
Miglio F, Naroo S, Zeri F et al (2021) The effect of active smoking, passive smoking, and e-cigarettes on the tear film: an updated comprehensive review. Exp Eye Res 210:108691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2021.108691
Mittelstaedt JM (2020) Individual predictors of the susceptibility for motion-related sickness: a systematic review. J Vestib Res 30:165–193. https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-200702
Mittelstaedt JM, Wacker J, Stelling D (2019) VR aftereffect and the relation of cybersickness and cognitive performance. Virtual Real 23:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0370-3
Modi HN, Singh H, Darzi A, Leff DR (2020) Multitasking and time pressure in the operating room: impact on surgeons’ brain function. Ann Surg 272:648–657. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004208
Mohamed Elias Z, Batumalai UM, Azmi ANH (2019) Virtual reality games on accommodation and convergence. Appl Ergon 81:102879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102879
Monroe SM, Cummins LF (2015) Stress: psychological perspectives. In: Wright JD (ed) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 583–587
Monroe SM, Slavich GM (2016) Chapter 13 - psychological stressors: overview. In: Fink G (ed) Stress: concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 109–115
Monteiro P, Gonçalves G, Coelho H et al (2021) Hands-free interaction in immersive virtual reality: a systematic review. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 27:2702–2713. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2021.3067687
Munafo J, Diedrick M, Stoffregen TA (2017) The virtual reality head-mounted display oculus rift induces motion sickness and is sexist in its effects. Exp Brain Res 235:889–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4846-7
Munsamy AJ, Paruk H, Gopichunder B et al (2020) The effect of gaming on accommodative and vergence facilities after exposure to virtual reality head-mounted display. J Optom 13:163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2020.02.004
Narvaez Linares NF, Charron V, Ouimet AJ et al (2020) A systematic review of the trier social stress test methodology: issues in promoting study comparison and replicable research. Neurobiol Stress 13:100235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ynstr.2020.100235
Neguţ A, Matu S-A, Sava FA, David D (2016) Task difficulty of virtual reality-based assessment tools compared to classical paper-and-pencil or computerized measures. Comput Hum Behav 54:414–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.029
Nemeth J, Tapaszto B, Aclimandos WA et al (2021) Update and guidance on management of myopia european society of ophthalmology in cooperation with international myopia institute. Eur J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672121998960
Nesbitt K, Nalivaiko E (2018) Cybersickness. In: Lee N (ed) Encyclopedia of computer graphics and games. Springer, Cham, pp 1–6
Neveu P, Roumes C, Philippe M et al (2016) Stereoscopic viewing can induce changes in the CA/C ratio. Investig Opthalmol Visual Sci 57:4321–4326. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-18854
Nichols S (1999) Physical ergonomics of virtual environment use. Appl Ergon 30:79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(98)00045-3
Nichols S, Patel H (2002) Health and safety implications of virtual reality: a review of empirical evidence. Appl Ergon 33:251–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(02)00020-0
Nisafani AS, Kiely G, Mahony C (2020) Workers’ technostress: a review of its causes, strains, inhibitors, and impacts. J Decis Syst. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1796286
Niwano Y, Iwasawa A, Tsubota K et al (2019) Protective effects of blue light-blocking shades on phototoxicity in human ocular surface cells. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 4:e000217. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2018-000217
O’Regan JK, Noë A (2001) A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behav Brain Sci 24:939–973. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x01000115
Ofek E, Grubert J, Pahud M, et al (2020) Towards a practical virtual office for mobile knowledge workers
Olson BV, McGuire C, Crawford A (2020) Improving the quality of work life: an interdisciplinary lens into the worker experience. In: Dhiman S (ed) The palgrave handbook of workplace well-being. Springer, Cham, pp 1–32
Ordóñez LD, Benson L, Pittarello A (2015) Time-pressure perception and decision making. In: Keren G, Wu G (eds) The wiley blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Wiley, UK, pp 517–542
Orru G, Longo L (2019) The evolution of cognitive load theory and the measurement of its intrinsic, extraneous and germane loads: a review. In: Longo L, Leva MC (eds) Human mental workload: models and applications. Springer, Cham, pp 23–48
Palmisano S, Allison RS, Kim J (2020a) Cybersickness in head-mounted displays is caused by differences in the user’s virtual and physical head Pose. Front Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2020.587698
Palmisano S, Nakamura S, Allison RS, Riecke BE (2020b) The stereoscopic advantage for vection persists despite reversed disparity. Atten Percept Psychophys 82:2098–2118. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01886-2
Panke K, Pladere T, Velina M, et al (2019) Ocular performance evaluation: how prolonged near work with virtual and real 3D image modifies our visual system. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on applications of intelligent systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp 1–5
Parent M, Peysakhovich V, Mandrick K et al (2019) The diagnosticity of psychophysiological signatures: can we disentangle mental workload from acute stress with ECG and fNIRS? Int J Psychophysiol 146:139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.09.005
Park S, Won MJ, Lee EC et al (2015) Evaluation of 3D cognitive fatigue using heart–brain synchronization. Int J Psychophysiol 97:120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.04.006
Park S, Kim L, Kwon J et al (2021) Evaluation of visual-induced motion sickness from head-mounted display using heartbeat evoked potential: a cognitive load-focused approach. Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00600-8
Parker L (1983) The history of stereoscopy in art, science and entertainment. Proc SPIE Opt Entertain. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.935066
Parker AJ (2016) Vision in our three-dimensional world. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 371:20150251. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0251
Patterson R (2009) Review paper: human factors of stereo displays: an update. J Soc Infor Disp 17:987–996. https://doi.org/10.1889/jsid17.12.987
Patterson RE (2015) Basics of human binocular vision. In: Robert PP, Earl, (eds) Human factors of stereoscopic 3D displays. Springer, London, pp 9–21
Patterson R, Silzars A (2009) Immersive stereo displays, intuitive reasoning, and cognitive engineering. J Soc Infor Disp 17:443–448. https://doi.org/10.1889/JSID17.5.443
Patterson R, Winterbottom MD, Pierce BJ (2006) Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 48:555–573. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006778606877
Pautasso M (2013) Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Comput Biol 9:e1003149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149
Penumudi SA, Kuppam VA, Kim JH, Hwang J (2020) The effects of target location on musculoskeletal load, task performance, and subjective discomfort during virtual reality interactions. Appl Ergon 84:103010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103010
Peters A, McEwen BS, Friston K (2017) Uncertainty and stress: why it causes diseases and how it is mastered by the brain. Prog Neurobiol 156:164–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.05.004
Pouget A, Beck JM, Ma WJ, Latham PE (2013) Probabilistic brains: knowns and unknowns. Nat Neurosci 16:1170–1178. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3495
Prasad K, Poplau S, Brown R et al (2020) Time pressure during primary care office visits: a prospective evaluation of data from the healthy work place study. J Gen Intern Med 35:465–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05343-6
Prem R, Paškvan M, Kubicek B, Korunka C (2018) Exploring the ambivalence of time pressure in daily working life. Int J Stress Manag 25:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000044
Priya DB, Subramaniyam M (2020) A systematic review on visual fatigue induced by tiny screens (smartphones). IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 912:062009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/912/6/062009
Ragu-Nathan TS, Tarafdar M, Ragu-Nathan BS, Tu Q (2008) The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: conceptual development and empirical validation. Inf Syst Res 19:417–433. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165
Ramadan MZ, Alhaag MH (2018) Evaluating the user physical stresses associated with watching 3d and 2d displays over extended time using heart rate variability, galvanic skin resistance, and performance measure. J Sens 2018:e2632157. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2632157
Ramsay DS, Woods SC (2014) Clarifying the roles of homeostasis and allostasis in physiological regulation. Psychol Rev 121:225–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035942
Reason JT (1978) Motion sickness adaptation: a neural mismatch model. J R Soc Med 71:819–829
Rebenitsch L, Owen C (2016) Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Real 20:101–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0285-9
Rebenitsch L, Owen C (2017) Evaluating factors affecting virtual reality display. In: Lackey S, Chen J (eds) Virtual, augmented and mixed reality. Springer, Cham, pp 544–555
Rebenitsch L, Owen C (2021) Estimating cybersickness from virtual reality applications. Virtual Real 25:165–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00446-6
Reenen HHH, van der Beek AJ, Blatter BM et al (2008) Does musculoskeletal discomfort at work predict future musculoskeletal pain? Ergonomics 51:637–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701743433
Reichelt S, Häussler R, Fütterer G, Leister N (2010) Depth cues in human visual perception and their realization in 3D displays. Three-dimensional imaging, visualization, and display 2010 and display technologies and applications for defense, security, and avionics IV. SPIE, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp 92–103
Roesler R, McGaugh JL (2019) Memory consolidation. In: Reference module in neuroscience and biobehavioral psychology. Elsevier
Rogers K, Funke J, Frommel J, et al (2019) Exploring interaction fidelity in virtual reality: object manipulation and whole-body movements. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp 1–14
Rößing C (2016) Human Visual Perception. In: Terzis A (ed) Handbook of camera monitor systems: the automotive mirror-replacement technology based on ISO 16505. Springer, Cham, pp 279–312
Rotter P (2017) Why did the 3D revolution fail?: the present and future of stereoscopy [commentary]. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 36:81–85. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2017.2654294
Rzayev R, Ugnivenko P, Graf S, et al (2021) Reading in VR: The effect of text presentation type and location. In: Proceedings of the 2021 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp 1–10
Saghafian M, Sitompul TA, Laumann K et al (2021) Application of human factors in the development process of immersive visual technologies: challenges and future improvements. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634352
Saredakis D, Szpak A, Birckhead B et al (2020) Factors associated with virtual reality sickness in head-mounted displays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00096
Sasaki K, Yoshizawa M, Sugita N, Abe M (2015) Evaluation of visual fatigue while watching artificial three-dimensional image with vertical parallax. In: 2015 IEEE 4th Global conference on consumer electronics (GCCE). IEEE, Osaka, Japan, pp 666–667
Schleußinger M (2021) Information retrieval interfaces in virtual reality—a scoping review focused on current generation technology. PLoS One 16:e0246398. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246398
Schmidt M, Newbutt N, Schmidt C, Glaser N (2021) A process-model for minimizing adverse effects when using head mounted display-based virtual reality for individuals with autism. Front Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.611740
Schneiderman N, Ironson G, Siegel SD (2004) Stress and health: psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 1:607–628. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144141
Schor CM (1992) A dynamic model of cross-coupling between accommodation and convergence: simulations of step and frequency responses. Optom Vis Sci 69:258–269. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199204000-00002
Schor CM, Kotulak JC (1986) Dynamic interactions between accommodation and convergence are velocity sensitive. Vis Res 26:927–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(86)90151-3
Schor CM, Tsuetaki TK (1987) Fatigue of accommodation and vergence modifies their mutual interactions. Investig Opthalmol Vis Sci 28:1250–1259
Schubert RS, Hartwig J, Müller M, et al (2016) Are age differences missing in relative and absolute distance perception of stereoscopically presented virtual objects? In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM conference on virtual reality software and technology. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp 307–308
Sepp S, Howard SJ, Tindall-Ford S et al (2019) Cognitive load theory and human movement: towards an integrated model of working memory. Educ Psychol Rev 31:293–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09461-9
Sesboüé B, Guincestre J-Y (2006) Muscular fatigue. Ann Readapt Med Phys 49:348–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annrmp.2006.04.020
Sevinc V, Berkman MI (2020) Psychometric evaluation of simulator sickness questionnaire and its variants as a measure of cybersickness in consumer virtual environments. Appl Ergon 82:102958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102958
Sharples S, Cobb S, Moody A, Wilson JR (2008) Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Displays 29:58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2007.09.005
Sharples S (2019) Workload II: A future paradigm for analysis and measurement. In: Bagnara S, Tartaglia R, Albolino S, et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th congress of the international ergonomics association (IEA 2018). Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 489–498
Shen R, Weng D, Guo J et al (2019b) Effects of dynamic disparity on visual fatigue caused by watching 2D videos in HMDs. In: Wang Y, Huang Q, Peng Y (eds) Image and graphics technologies and applications. Springer, Singapore, pp 310–321
Shen R, Weng D, Chen S, et al (2019a) Mental fatigue of long-term office tasks in virtual environment. In: 2019a IEEE International symposium on mixed and augmented reality adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). pp 124–127
Sheppard AL, Wolffsohn JS (2018) Digital eye strain: prevalence, measurement and amelioration. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 3:e000146. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2018-000146
Shibata T, Kim J, Hoffman DM, Banks MS (2011) The zone of comfort: predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. J Vis 11:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.8.11
Shields GS, Sazma MA, Yonelinas AP (2016) The effects of acute stress on core executive functions: a meta-analysis and comparison with cortisol. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 68:651–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.038
Shields GS, Sazma MA, McCullough AM, Yonelinas AP (2017) The effects of acute stress on episodic memory: a meta-analysis and integrative review. Psychol Bull 143:636–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000100
Somrak A, Humar I, Hossain MS et al (2019) Estimating VR sickness and user experience using different HMD technologies: an evaluation study. Futur Gener Comput Syst 94:302–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.11.041
Song J, Chung T, Kang J, Nam K (2011) The changes in performance during stress-inducing cognitive task: focusing on processing difficulty. In: Park JJ, Yang LT, Lee C (eds) Future information technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 345–347
Song Y, Liu Y, Yan Y (2019) The effects of center of mass on comfort of soft belts virtual reality devices. In: Rebelo F, Soares MM (eds) Advances in ergonomics in design. Springer, Cham, pp 312–321
Souchet AD, Philippe S, Lévêque A et al (2021a) Short- and long-term learning of job interview with a serious game in virtual reality: influence of eyestrain, stereoscopy, and apparatus. Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00548-9
Souchet AD, Philippe S, Lourdeaux D, Leroy L (2021b) Measuring visual fatigue and cognitive load via eye tracking while learning with virtual reality head-mounted displays: a review. Int J Hum Comput Interact. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1976509
Souchet AD, Philippe S, Zobel D, et al (2018) Eyestrain impacts on learning job interview with a serious game in virtual reality: a randomized double-blinded study. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology. ACM, Tokyo Japan, pp 1–12
Souchet AD, Philippe S, Ober F, et al (2019) Investigating cyclical stereoscopy effects over visual discomfort and fatigue in virtual reality while learning. In: 2019 IEEE International symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR). pp 328–338
Souchet AD (2020) Visual fatigue impacts on learning via serious game in virtual reality. PhD Thesis, Paris 8 University
Speicher M, Feit AM, Ziegler P, Krüger A (2018a) Selection-based text entry in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2018a CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–13
Speicher M, Hell P, Daiber F, et al (2018b) A virtual reality shopping experience using the apartment metaphor. In: Proceedings of the 2018b International conference on advanced visual interfaces. association for computing machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–9
Stanney K, Fidopiastis C, Foster L (2020a) Virtual reality is sexist: but it does not have to Be. Front Robot AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.00004
Stanney K, Lawson BD, Rokers B et al (2020b) Identifying causes of and solutions for cybersickness in immersive technology: reformulation of a research and development agenda. Int J Hum Comput Interact 36:1783–1803. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1828535
Staresina BP, Wimber M (2019) A neural chronometry of memory recall. Trends Cogn Sci 23:1071–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.09.011
Stauffert J-P, Niebling F, Latoschik ME (2020) Latency and cybersickness: impact, causes, and measures. Rev Front Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2020.582204
Stephenson E, DeLongis A (2020) Coping strategies. The wiley encyclopedia of health psychology. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 55–60
Stich J-F (2020) A review of workplace stress in the virtual office. Intell Build Int 12:208–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2020.1759023
Stratton SJ (2016) Comprehensive reviews. Prehosp Disaster Med 31:347–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X16000649
Sugita N, Yamaga T, Yoshizawa M, et al (2014) Visual fatigue induced by accommodation convergence mismatch while viewing three-dimensional television. In: 2014 IEEE 3rd Global conference on consumer electronics (GCCE). IEEE, Tokyo, Japan, pp 250–251
Sun Y, Kar G, Stevenson Won A, Hedge A (2019) Postural risks and user experience of 3d interface designs for virtual reality-based learning environments. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet 63:2313–2317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631023
Sweeney LE, Seidel D, Day M et al (2014) Adaptive virtual environments for neuropsychological assessment in serious games. Vis Res 105:121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.10.007
Szopa A, Soares MM (2021) Handbook of standards and guidelines in human factors and ergonomics: second edition, 2nd edn. CRC Press
Szpak A, Michalski SC, Saredakis D et al (2019) Beyond feeling sick: the visual and cognitive aftereffects of virtual reality. IEEE Access 7:130883–130892. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2940073
Szpak A, Michalski SC, Loetscher T (2020) Exergaming with beat saber: an investigation of virtual reality aftereffects. J Med Internet Res 22:e19840. https://doi.org/10.2196/19840
Tams S, Thatcher J, Grover V (2018) Concentration, competence, confidence, and capture: an experimental study of age, interruption-based technostress, and task performance. J Assoc Infor Syst 19:2
Tarafdar M, Pullins EB, Ragu-Nathan TS (2015) Technostress: negative effect on performance and possible mitigations. Inf Syst J 25:103–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12042
Tarafdar M, Cooper CL, Stich J (2019) The technostress trifecta - techno eustress, techno distress and design: theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Info Syst J 29:6–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169
Tarafdar M, Pirkkalainen H, Salo M, Makkonen M (2020) Taking on the “dark side”––coping with technostress. IT Prof 22:82–89. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2020.2977343
Taylor JL, Amann M, Duchateau J et al (2016) Neural contributions to muscle fatigue: from the brain to the muscle and back again. Med Sci Sports Exerc 48:2294–2306. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000923
Terzic K, Hansard ME (2017) Causes of discomfort in stereoscopic content: a review. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1703.04574
Thai KTP, Jung S, Lindeman RW (2020) On the use of ”active breaks” to perform eye exercises for more comfortable VR experiences. In: 2020 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW). pp 468–476
Tian F, Zhang Y, Li Y (2021) From 2D to VR film: a research on the load of different cutting rates based on EEG data processing. Information 12:130. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12030130
Treisman M (1977) Motion sickness: an evolutionary hypothesis. Science 197:493–495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.301659
Tu Y, Shi Y, Wang L et al (2021) 17.2: Invited paper: influence of blue light from smartphone on visual fatigue. SID Symp Dig Techn Pap 52:108–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdtp.14396
Turnbull PRK, Phillips JR (2017) Ocular effects of virtual reality headset wear in young adults. Sci Rep 7:16172. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16320-6
Ukai K, Howarth PA (2008) Visual fatigue caused by viewing stereoscopic motion images: Background, theories, and observations. Displays 29:106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2007.09.004
Urey H, Chellappan KV, Erden E, Surman P (2011) State of the art in stereoscopic and autostereoscopic displays. Proc IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2010.2098351
Valori I, McKenna-Plumley PE, Bayramova R et al (2020) Proprioceptive accuracy in immersive virtual reality: a developmental perspective. PLoS ONE 15:e0222253. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222253
Van Acker BB, Parmentier DD, Vlerick P, Saldien J (2018) Understanding mental workload: from a clarifying concept analysis toward an implementable framework. Cogn Tech Work 20:351–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0481-3
Van den Berg MMHE, Maas J, Muller R et al (2015) Autonomic nervous system responses to viewing green and built settings: differentiating between sympathetic and parasympathetic activity. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:15860–15874. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph121215026
van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Koes B (2007) Repetitive strain injury. Lancet 369:1815–1822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60820-4
Vanneste P, Raes A, Morton J et al (2020) Towards measuring cognitive load through multimodal physiological data. Cogn Tech Work. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00641-0
Varmaghani S, Abbasi Z, Weech S, Rasti J (2021) Spatial and attentional aftereffects of virtual reality and relations to cybersickness. Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00535-0
Vergari M, Kojić T, Vona F, et al (2021) Influence of interactivity and social environments on user experience and social acceptability in virtual reality. In: 2021 IEEE virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). pp 695–704
Vernazzani A (2019) The structure of sensorimotor explanation. Synthese 196:4527–4553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1664-9
Wahl S, Engelhardt M, Schaupp P et al (2019) The inner clock—Blue light sets the human rhythm. J Biophotonics 12:e201900102. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201900102
Walsh KS, McGovern DP, Clark A, O’Connell RG (2020) Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1464:242–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14321
Wan J, Qin Z, Wang P et al (2017) Muscle fatigue: general understanding and treatment. Exp Mol Med 49:e384–e384. https://doi.org/10.1038/emm.2017.194
Wang Y, Zhai G, Chen S et al (2019) Assessment of eye fatigue caused by head-mounted displays using eye-tracking. Biomed Eng Online 18:111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-019-0731-5
Wang B, Liu Y, Parker SK (2020) How does the use of information communication technology affect individuals? a work design perspective. Annals 14:695–725. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0127
Wang A, Kuo H, Huang S (2010) Effects of polarity and ambient illuminance on the searching performance and visual fatigue for various aged users. In: The 40th International conference on computers indutrial engineering. pp 1–3
Waongenngarm P, van der Beek AJ, Akkarakittichoke N, Janwantanakul P (2020) Perceived musculoskeletal discomfort and its association with postural shifts during 4-h prolonged sitting in office workers. Appl Ergon 89:103225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103225
Weech S, Varghese JP, Barnett-Cowan M (2018) Estimating the sensorimotor components of cybersickness. J Neurophysiol 120:2201–2217. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00477.2018
Weinert C, Pflügner K, Maier C (2020) Do users respond to challenging and hindering techno-stressors differently? a laboratory experiment. In: Davis FD, Riedl R, vom Brocke J et al (eds) Information systems and neuroscience. Springer, Cham, pp 79–89
Weingarten E, Chen Q, McAdams M et al (2016) From primed concepts to action: a meta-analysis of the behavioral effects of incidentally presented words. Psychol Bull 142:472–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000030
Widyanti A, Hafizhah HN (2021) The influence of personality, sound, and content difficulty on virtual reality sickness. Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00525-2
Williams D (2020) Predictive coding and thought. Synthese 197:1749–1775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1768-x
Willingham DT, Hughes EM, Dobolyi DG (2015) The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teach Psychol 42:266–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589505
Wismer A, Reinerman-Jones L, Teo G et al (2018) A workload comparison during anatomical training with a physical or virtual model. In: Schmorrow DD, Fidopiastis CM (eds) Augmented cognition: users and contexts. Springer, Cham, pp 240–252
Wu H, Deng Y, Pan J et al (2021) User capabilities in eyes-free spatial target acquisition in immersive virtual reality environments. Appl Ergon 94:103400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103400
Wulvik AS, Dybvik H, Steinert M (2020) Investigating the relationship between mental state (workload and affect) and physiology in a control room setting (ship bridge simulator). Cogn Tech Work 22:95–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00553-8
Yan Y, Chen K, Xie Y et al (2019) The effects of weight on comfort of virtual reality devices. In: Rebelo F, Soares MM (eds) Advances in ergonomics in design. Springer, Cham, pp 239–248
Yildirim C (2020) Don’t make me sick: investigating the incidence of cybersickness in commercial virtual reality headsets. Virtual Real 24:231–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00401-0
Yoon HJ, Kim J, Park SW, Heo H (2020) Influence of virtual reality on visual parameters: immersive versus non-immersive mode. BMC Ophthalmol 20:200. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-020-01471-4
Young MS, Brookhuis KA, Wickens CD, Hancock PA (2015) State of science: mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics 58:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.956151
Youssef PN, Sheibani N, Albert DM (2011) Retinal Light Toxicity. Eye 25:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2010.149
Yu X, Weng D, Guo J, et al (2018) Effect of using HMDs for one hour on preteens visual fatigue. In: 2018 IEEE International symposium on mixed and augmented reality adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, Munich, Germany, pp 93–96
Yuan J, Mansouri B, Pettey JH et al (2018) The Visual Effects Associated with Head-Mounted Displays. Int J Ophthalmol Clin Res. https://doi.org/10.23937/2378-346x/1410085
Yue K, Wang D, Chiu SC, Liu Y (2020) Investigate the 3D visual fatigue using modified depth-related visual evoked potential paradigm. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 28:2794–2804. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3049566
Zeri F, Livi S (2015) Visual discomfort while watching stereoscopic three-dimensional movies at the cinema. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 35:271–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12194
Zhang Y, Yang Y, Feng S et al (2020) The evaluation on visual fatigue and comfort between the VR HMD and the iPad. In: Karwowski W, Goonetilleke RS, Xiong S et al (eds) Advances in physical, social & occupational ergonomics. Springer, Cham, pp 213–219
Zhang S, Zhang Y, Sun Y, et al (2017) Graph theoretical analysis of EEG functional network during multi-workload flight simulation experiment in virtual reality environment. In: 2017 39th Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). pp 3957–3960
Zhao X, Xia Q, Huang W (2020) Impact of technostress on productivity from the theoretical perspective of appraisal and coping processes. Infor Manag 57:103265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103265
Zielasko D, Weyers B, Bellgardt M, et al (2017) Remain seated: towards fully-immersive desktop VR. In: 2017 IEEE 3rd workshop on everyday virtual reality (WEVR). pp 1–6
Zielasko D, Weyers B, Kuhlen TW (2019) A non-stationary office desk substitution for desk-based and HMD-projected virtual reality. In: 2019 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). pp 1884–1889
Zielasko D, Riecke BE (2021) To sit or not to sit in VR: analyzing influences and (dis)advantages of posture and embodied interaction. Computers 10:73. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10060073
Zimmer P, Buttlar B, Halbeisen G et al (2019) Virtually stressed? a refined virtual reality adaptation of the trier social stress test (TSST) induces robust endocrine responses. Psychoneuroendocrinology 101:186–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.11.010
Zimmerman ME (2017) Task load. In: Kreutzer J, DeLuca J, Caplan B (eds) Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology. Springer, Cham, pp 1–1
Funding
This study was funded by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 883293 (INFINITY project). H2020 European Research Council, 883293, Domitile Lourdeaux
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Souchet, A.D., Lourdeaux, D., Pagani, A. et al. A narrative review of immersive virtual reality’s ergonomics and risks at the workplace: cybersickness, visual fatigue, muscular fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload. Virtual Reality 27, 19–50 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00672-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00672-0