See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354730991

Tunnel Vision – Dynamic Peripheral Vision Blocking Glasses for Reducing
Motion Sickness Symptoms
Conference Paper · September 2021
DOI: 10.1145/3460421.3478824

CITATIONS

READS

2

129

7 authors, including:
Qing Zhang

Dingding Zheng

Keio University

Keio University

3 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

15 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONSSEE PROFILESEE PROFILE

Kanyu Chen

Kai Kunze

Keio University

Keio University

2 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

238 PUBLICATIONS 3,033 CITATIONSSEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

emotion and concerns how people respond to different types of events. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Qing Zhang on 24 October 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SEE PROFILE

Tunnel Vision – Dynamic Peripheral Vision Blocking Glasses for
Reducing Motion Sickness Symptoms
Qing Zhang, Hiroo Yamamura, Holger Baldauf, Dingding Zheng, Kanyu Chen, Junichi Yamaoka,
Kai Kunze
Keio University{cyosei,usurai-ligno,holger,zheng208,cady.cky,yamaoka,kai}@kmd.keio.ac.jp

Figure 1: Tunnel Vision glasses help the user deal with motion sickness. Left, the user can see through the glasses as usual;
middle, the glasses start to block visual stimuli in the peripheral vision; right, if the user starts to move their gaze away fromthe center, the glasses return to their transparent state.

ABSTRACTACM Reference Format:
Qing Zhang, Hiroo Yamamura, Holger Baldauf, Dingding Zheng, Kanyu
Chen, Junichi Yamaoka, Kai Kunze. 2021. Tunnel Vision – Dynamic Peripheral Vision Blocking Glasses for Reducing Motion Sickness Symptoms. In 2021 International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC ’21),
September 21–26, 2021, Virtual, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3460421.3478824

Motion sickness affects roughly a third of all people. Narrowing thefield of view (FOV) can help to reduce motion sickness symptoms.
In this paper, we present Tunnel Vision, a type of smart glasses
that can dynamically block a wearer’s peripheral vision area using
switchable polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) film. We evaluate the prototype in a virtual reality environment. Our experiments(n=19) suggest that Tunnel Vision statistically significantly reduces
the following Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) related motion sickness symptoms without impacting immersion: "difficulty
concentrating" (F(2,35) = 4.121, p = 0.025), "head feeling heavy"(F(2,35) = 3.231, p = 0.051) and "nausea" (F(2,35) = 3.145, p = 0.055).

1

INTRODUCTION

Have you ever felt motion sickness or experienced nausea while
reading something in a moving train or car? This is actually acommon symptom. Approximately one in three people are highly
receptive to motion sickness, and most people become motion sickin extreme circumstances [8]. Mismatches between a user’s perception of motion and their visual system are regarded as triggeringfactors of motion sickness.
This study aims to propose a dynamic peripheral vision adjusting system to enable us to be less sensitive to or less affected by
fast-moving scenery [25] (e.g., train ride, roller coaster ride). We hypothesize that dynamically blocking parts of the peripheral vision
during fast-moving scenes can reduce motion sickness symptoms.
According to related studies, narrowed FOV could ease users’ cybersickness while watching fast-moving and rotating scenes inVR [3, 9, 18]. Our dynamic peripheral vision blocking glasses canalso reduce cybersickness while experiencing fast-moving sceneryin VR without completely removing access to visual informationfrom peripheral vision [1, 10, 20]. This user study is divided into
two parts: the first is to determine if the proposed peripheral vision blocking glasses can reduce symptoms of cybersickness while
seeing fast-moving scenery in a VR environment. The second is to

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Mobile devices.

KEYWORDS
Smart Glasses, Motion Sickness, Virtual Reality, Peripheral Vision

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM
must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish,
to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or afee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
ISWC ’21, September 21–26, 2021, Virtual, USA© 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-8462-9/21/09. . . $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3460421.3478824

48

ISWC ’21, September 21–26, 2021, Virtual, USA

Zhang and Kunze, et al.

evaluate if these switchable PDLC film glasses can reduce cybersickness without completely sacrificing visual information fromperipheral vision.
We summarize the contributions of this paper as follows:(1) We present Tunnel Vision, a smart glasses prototype thatcan dynamically block a user’s peripheral vision.
(2) Our prototype can significantly reduce some simulator sickness symptoms (nausea, difficulty concentrating and headfeeling heavy) in a VR experiment (n=19) while having little
impact on immersion.
(3) We also discuss a first usage test during train rides for 2
users who are highly affected by motion sickness.

1.1

3.3, MAX = 70, MIN = 58). Based on this data and actual experience
with the glasses, we decided to cut out a horizontal elliptical areawith a major axis of 8 cm. The participants seem to be comfortablein the setup if looking straight.
As the control system for changing between transparent andopaque mode, we use an Arduino compatible Pro Mini development board. Concerning its interactive design, we use two photoreflective sensors to detect users’ eye movements. Such sensors
are widely used to detect changes in distance. Our eyelids, sclera
and the area within the boundary of the iris, each have a different
infrared reflectance, which enables us to detect eye movements. Regarding interactive logic, our visual stimulus (Epic Roller Coasters)
shows the following message in its initial scene: “Focus here, if you
feel motion sickness”. So we can assume that if our participants feel
sick, they can focus on any place without moving their eyes for 3.5
seconds, then the dynamic glasses’ switchable PDLC film will become opaque to prevent its user from experiencing the fast-moving
surrounding scenery via their peripheral vision. In comparison, if
the users move their eyeballs, we assume that they feel well, thenthe film will be transparent to support them getting more visual
information.

Related WorkIn terms of preventing motion sickness, there are several works
that suggest behavioral or food adjustments. Miller et al. evaluate
acupressure and acustimulation bands in this regard [19]. Stewart
et al. suggest that ginger smell and taste can have positive effects
on individuals suffering from motion sickness [24].
The symptoms evoked by motion sickness are very similar andoverlap with simulator sickness. Regarding motion and simulator
sickness in VR and AR applications, studies often leverage a shrinking field of view (FOV) to help ease symptoms [5, 6, 9, 17, 18]. Mostof the current methods are more or less a trade-off between experiencing motion sickness symptoms and impacting immersion.
Besides, several researchers focus on assessing motion sickness
using bio signals [15, 27].
Since the screen changes instantly, teleportation reduces thesensation of moving and suppresses simulator sickness [2, 13]. A
study comparing the severity of sickness for steering (the user
continuously perceives the scene along a path to the destination)with the severity for jumping reported significantly lower scores forjumping. In the same experiment, steering tended to be preferred
for the task of allowing users to freely explore the VR space [26].
Some studies have minimized decreasing presence by dynamically controlling the FOV. They obtain the user’s movement velocity
and angular velocity and control the FOV accordingly to ensure asense of presence while reducing simulator sickness [6]. The Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) is a widely used tool to assess
these symptoms [14].
We wanted to provide a wearable solution to the problem of
motion sickness [16]. To the best of our knowledge, we are the firstresearchers presenting a wearable device that blocks part of theperipheral vision to reduce motion sickness in VR/AR and real life
situations. Most other approaches are implemented in software. We
see them as complimentary to our approach.

1.2

2

EXPERIMENTS

Our experimental protocol has three conditions. We use an ordinary lensless frame as the baseline condition. Condition two is
wearing a frame with our dynamic peripheral vision blocking film
while the dynamic clear-opaque mode is locked in its opaque state,
which means the glasses work as FOV narrowed glasses. The third
condition is wearing a frame with our peripheral vision blocking
film while its clear-opaque mode is set to dynamic.
Participants and Recruitment: We recruited 19 participantsin total: 13 participants identified as female and 6 as male. They
were on average 25.1 years old (SD = 2.0, Min = 21, Max = 30).
Seventeen of them reported they experienced light to strong motion
sickness. Fifteen of them reported that they had experienced VR
games before. All participants of our experiment were required towear their contact lenses if they were nearsighted, to make sure allparticipants were able to see the fast-moving scenery as clearly as
possible.
All participants joined with informed consent, the experimenter
explained the experimental setup, they signed the consent formand could stop the experiment at any time. The experimental setup
was approved by the ethics committee of Keio Media Design, Keio
University.
Protocol and Conduction: As location for the experiment, weused a soundproof room (music studio) to keep potential noisefrom affecting the outcome. For showing the visual stimuli to theparticipants, we used an Oculus Quest 2 head-mounted display. As
visual stimuli we used a VR game called Epic Roller Coasters [7]that we pre-installed on the Quest 2 headset. To make sure thatparticipants watch the same contents at the same speed, we set up
the game settings in advance (e.g., classical mode, dinosaur park,
default roller coaster).
Instead of evaluating motion sickness directly, we used the SSQ[4, 21, 23]. Simulator and motion sickness are closely related. We

Approach and Hardware Design

In order to build a device that can narrow its user’s FOV, especially
one that prevents its user from seeing visual information via peripheral vision, we use a switchable film instead of an optical lens,
known as polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) switchable smart
film (see figure 2). Even when the film is in its transparent mode, it
is not as clear as a regular optical lens. Due to this limitation, we
cut out the area between both pupils. Regarding the cut out area,
we measured 16 college students (8 male and 8 female) in advanceand found their average interpupillary distance was 63.3 mm (SD =49

Tunnel Vision

ISWC ’21, September 21–26, 2021, Virtual, USA

game settings, glasses setting) was finished, each participant was
informed of the duration of each condition and told that they could
stop the experiment at any time.
We recorded the game’s running time on a Macbook Air laptop(duration using the described settings when not stopped early by theparticipant: 4 minutes 30 seconds). If participants stopped the first
condition of their test, then we stopped the rest of the conditions
after the same amount of time, which enabled us to compare thevariations within the participants. When the game was finished,
they were asked to finish another SSQ to reveal their present motion
sickness status. At each stage of the experiment, participants wererequired to answer two SSQs, one before the game started andone after finishing the game. Between each condition, there wasa break of 25 minutes. The participants were told they could dorecovery activities during this break, but not ask for experimentrelated details since we would answer questions related to our study
after all experiments would be finished.
To examine the difference in immersion, we compared two conditions, one was wearing an ordinary lensless frame, the other was
wearing clear-opaque peripheral vision adjusting glasses with dynamic mode activated. In this immersive comparison section, mostof the procedures remained the same as before, for instance, theorder we show stimuli to participants (counter balanced using Latin
square). In the immersion comparison section, the participants werealso required to answer one customised immersive experience questionnaire [11] after each condition. This is a widely used evaluation
method to measure immersion [22]. Most of the questions remained
the same as the original one. We used the roller coaster game as
fast-moving scenery rather than treating it as a game, thus thequestions which were not highly related to our test were removed,for example, "How much effort did you put into playing the game?","To what extent did you find the game challenging?", or "How well
do you think you performed in the game?". Additionally, participants did not have access to the Quest 2 controllers while the gamewas running.
This section aims to examine whether our peripheral vision
blocking glasses can reduce the symptoms of motion sickness without sacrificing immersion while experiencing fast-moving sceneryin a VR environment. Before participants put on the glasses, they
were instructed on how to control them ("If you direct your gaze
anywhere in your field of view and keep it there for 3.5 seconds
without moving your eyes, the glasses will become opaque, andif you move your eyes, the glasses will become clear."). After they
were able to successfully control the glasses, we helped them puton the Quest 2 and started the game. After each participant hadfinished the experiment, we conducted interviews to collect qualitative responses as well as to get a deeper understanding of their
physiological and mental reactions while playing.

Figure 2: Above, lensless frame; below, frame plus dynamic
peripheral vision blocking film and its control system.

Figure 3: Left, Quest2 with dynamic glasses; right, Quest2
with ordinary lensless frame.
conducted our experiments in virtual reality to be more reproducible, and the SSQ is a standard method to evaluate motion sickness and similar symptoms in VR setups [9].
Before starting the roller coaster game in the VR headset, we first
had participants answer questions (gender, age, if they have myopia,
how often they experience motion sickness, how often they play VR
games, how often they experience cybersickness). These questions
are designed to find potential correlations between motion sickness
levels and each individual’s personal characteristics. After that,they were asked to answer the SSQ to reveal a person’s present
motion sickness level.
After the participant finished the first SSQ, we adjusted the Quest
2’s interpupillary distance setting to match their interpupillary
distance, which we had measured beforehand, ensuring that every
participant was able to see the visual contents in the VR headset
clearly.
We used a Latin square to decide in which order the glasses
are chosen. Making sure that participants have no problem using
both Quest 2 and our glasses, we pre-installed the glasses spacer of
Quest 2. The way we set the lensless frame or the dynamic glass islike figure 3 indicates. When the setup of the headset (IPD setting,

3

RESULTS

Figure 4 indicates that in most cases wearing our prototype withits dynamic clear-opaque mode on or off resulted in less severe
motion sickness symptoms compared to wearing lensless glasses,
except for "headache" and "increased salivation", in which the "dynamic clear-opaque mode on" condition had the lowest score. In
other words, using peripheral vision blocking glasses significantly

50

ISWC ’21, September 21–26, 2021, Virtual, USA

Zhang and Kunze, et al.

To what extent
1. did the game hold your attention?
2. did you feel you were focused on the game?
3. did you lose track of time?
4. did you feel consciously aware of being in the real world?
5. did you forget about your everyday concerns?
6. were you aware of yourself
in your surroundings?
7. did you notice events taking place around you?
8. did you feel the urge at any point to stop and see
what was happening around you?
9. did you feel that you were interactingwith the environment?
10. did you feel as though you wereseparated from your real-world environment?
11. did you feel that the game was something
you were experiencing, rather than something
you were just doing?
12. was your sense of being in the environment
stronger than your sense of being in the real world?
13. were you interested in seeing
how the events would progress?
14. did you enjoy the graphics and the imagery?
15. Would you like to repeat the experience?
Table 1: Glossary of figure 5; immersion questionnaire questions (Q1-Q15), some edited for brevity to fit the table, seeJennett et al. for details [12].

Figure 4: SSQ score difference (scores after the experimentminus scores before) comparing the three conditions (static
blocking, dynamic blocking and lensless frame).

of discomfort occurred at a relatively smooth rising curve, whichleft them with more cognitive resources to see and recognize morevisual contents in the VR environment than when they used thelensless glasses.

4

Figure 5: Immersion comparison between lensless frameand dynamic peripheral vision blocking glasses.
reduced almost all motion sickness symptoms listed in the SSQ
compared to using a lensless frame. In particular, there was a statistically significant difference between groups in the case of "difficulty
concentrating" (F(2,35) = 4.121, p = 0.025) along with "fullness ofhead" (F(2,35) = 3.231, p = 0.051) and "nausea" as determined by
one-way ANOVA (F(2,35) = 3.145, p = 0.055).
In terms of immersion difference (average), the results are as
figure 5 represents: Questions 1, 2, 6, 11, and 15 show a reduced
immersion score when compared to the condition of wearing lensless glasses. On the contrary, questions 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and14 show increased scores. However, the result of the t-test showsthat there were no statistically significant differences between thelensless condition (M = 2.6, SD = 1.2) and the dynamic clear-opaqueswitchable glasses condition (M = 3.4, SD = 1.1); t(22) = -1.8, p =0.083. That is the lowest p value within our immersion comparison result. Meanwhile, the statistical significance of the rest of theoptions are all above 0.2. This indicates that there is no statistically significant immersive difference between the two conditions(wearing a lensless frame and peripheral vision blocking glasses).
Regarding qualitative feedback, some participants mentionedthat when they used the dynamic clear-opaque glasses, the feeling

APPLICATION CASE

In addition to the described experiment, we conducted a short use
case test with two users who had reported a very high susceptibility
to motion sickness during their regular commute to work. They
wore the static version (narrow FOV) of the glasses and turned
it on for the 20 min train ride. Both users reported lower motion
sickness symptoms using the system and wished to use the systemregularly. One user found the clear version of the glasses slightly
distracting (due to the type of PDLC used). The PDLC is not completely transparent even when activated. This will be addressed in
the next iteration of the glasses.

5

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

Our study presents a potential method to reduce motion sickness
symptoms while having less impact on immersion. It may fit reallife scenarios as well since its portable design was not exclusively
created for use in a VR environment. Our experimental results showthat there was a statistically significant difference in the following
SSQ items without impacting immersion scores.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is partly supported by JSPS Kakenhi Kiban B Grant No.
18H03278.

51

Tunnel Vision

ISWC ’21, September 21–26, 2021, Virtual, USA

REFERENCES[22] Jacob M. Rigby, Sandy J.J. Gould, Duncan P. Brumby, and Anna L. Cox. 2019.
Development of a questionnaire to measure immersion in video media: The
Film IEQ. TVX 2019 - Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on
Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video (2019), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3317697.3323361[23] Sarah Sharples, Sue Cobb, Amanda Moody, and John R Wilson. 2008. Virtual
reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): Comparison of head mounted
display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Displays 29, 2 (2008),
58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2007.09.005[24] John J Stewart, Mary J Wood, Chares D Wood, and Malcolm E Mims. 1991. Effects
of ginger on motion sickness susceptibility and gastric function. Pharmacology
42, 2 (1991), 111–120.
[25] Nicholas A Webb and Michael J Griffin. 2003. Eye movement, vection, and motion
sickness with foveal and peripheral vision. Aviation, space, and environmental
medicine 74, 6 (2003), 622–625.
[26] T. Weissker, A. Kunert, B. Fröhlich, and A. Kulik. 2018. Spatial Updating and
Simulator Sickness During Steering and Jumping in Immersive Virtual Environments. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR).
97–104. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2018.8446620[27] Hiroo Yamamura, Holger Baldauf, and Kai Kunze. 2020. Pleasant Locomotion Towards Reducing Cybersickness using fNIRS during Walking Events in VR. UIST
2020 - Adjunct Publication of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface
Software and Technology 2 (2020), 56–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379350.3416184[1] O. Amft, F. Wahl, S. Ishimaru, and K. Kunze. 2015. Making Regular Eyeglasses
Smart. IEEE Pervasive Computing 14, 03 (jul 2015), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.
1109/MPRV.2015.60[2] Laurenz Berger and Katrin Wolf. 2018. WIM: fast locomotion in virtual reality
with spatial orientation gain & without motion sickness. In Proceedings of the
17th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. 19–24.
[3] Th Brandt, J Dichgans, and E Koenig. 1973. Differential effects of central versus
peripheral vision on egocentric and exocentric motion perception. Experimental
Brain Research 16, 5 (1973), 476–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00234474[4] Susan Bruck and Paul A Watters. 2009. Estimating cybersickness of simulated
motion using the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ): A controlled study.
Proceedings of the 2009 6th International Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging
and Visualization: New Advances and Trends, CGIV2009 (2009), 486–488. https://doi.org/10.1109/CGIV.2009.83[5] Ajoy S. Fernandes and Steven K. Feiner. 2016. Combating VR sickness throughsubtle dynamic field-of-view modification. 2016 IEEE Symposium on 3D User
Interfaces, 3DUI 2016 - Proceedings (2016), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.
2016.7460053[6] A. S. Fernandes and S. K. Feiner. 2016. Combating VR sickness through subtle
dynamic field-of-view modification. In 2016 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces(3DUI). 201–210.
[7] B4T Games. 2019. EPIC ROLLER COASTERS Quest 2. https://www.oculus.com/
experiences/quest/2299465166734471/[8] John F Golding. 2006. Motion sickness susceptibility. Autonomic Neuroscience
129, 1-2 (2006), 67–76.
[9] Teresa Hirzle, Maurice Cordts, Enrico Rukzio, Jan Gugenheimer, and Andreas
Bulling. 2021. A Critical Assessment of the Use of SSQ as a Measure of General
Discomfort in VR Head-Mounted Displays. (2021), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3411764.3445361[10] Shoya Ishimaru, Kai Kunze, Katsuma Tanaka, Yuji Uema, Koichi Kise, andMasahiko Inami. 2015. Smart eyewear for interaction and activity recognition.
In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. 307–310.
[11] Charlene Jennett, Anna L Cox, Paul Cairns, Samira Dhoparee, Andrew Epps,
Tim Tijs, and Alison Walton. 2008. Measuring and defining the experience of
immersion in games. International journal of human-computer studies 66, 9 (2008),
641–661.
[12] Charlene Jennett, Anna L. Cox, Paul Cairns, Samira Dhoparee, Andrew Epps,
Tim Tijs, and Alison Walton. 2008. Measuring and defining the experience of
immersion in games. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 66, 9(2008), 641–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.004[13] Robert S Kennedy, Jennifer E Fowlkes, Kevin S Berbaum, and Michael G Lilienthal.
1992. Use of a motion sickness history questionnaire for prediction of simulator
sickness. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 63, 7 (1992), 588–593.
[14] Robert S Kennedy, Norman E Lane, Kevin S Berbaum, and Michael G Lilienthal.
1993. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying
simulator sickness. The international journal of aviation psychology 3, 3 (1993),
203–220.
[15] Young Youn Kim, Eim Nam Kim, Min Jae Park, Kwang Suk Park, Hee Dong Ko,
and Hyun Taek Kim. 2008. The application of biosignal feedback for reducing
cybersickness from exposure to a virtual environment. Presence: Teleoperators
and Virtual Environments 17, 1 (2008), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.17.1.1[16] James F Knight, Daniel Deen-Williams, Theodoros N Arvanitis, Chris Baber,
Sofoklis Sotiriou, Stamatina Anastopoulou, and Michael Gargalakos. 2006. Assessing the wearability of wearable computers. In 2006 10th IEEE International
Symposium on Wearable Computers. IEEE, 75–82.
[17] Kai Kunze, Kazutaka Inoue, Katsutoshi Masai, Yuji Uema, Sean Shao-An Tsai,
Shoya Ishimaru, Katsuma Tanaka, Koichi Kise, and Masahiko Inami. 2015. MEME:
smart glasses to promote healthy habits for knowledge workers. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2015 Emerging Technologies. 1–1.
[18] James Jeng Weei Lin, Henry B.L. Duh, Donald E. Parker, Habib Abi-Rached,and Thomas A. Furness. 2002. Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment,
memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. Proceedings - Virtual
Reality Annual International Symposium January 2015 (2002), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1109/vr.2002.996519[19] Kristen E Miller and Eric R Muth. 2004. Efficacy of acupressure and acustimulation
bands for the prevention of motion sickness. Aviation, space, and environmental
medicine 75, 3 (2004), 227–234.
[20] Takuro Nakao, Masashi Nakatani, Liwei Chan, and Kai Kunze. 2016. Smartglasses with a peripheral vision display. In Proceedings of the 2016 Virtual Reality
International Conference. 1–3.
[21] Emilee Patrick, Dennis Cosgrove, Aleksandra Slavkovic, Jennifer Ann Rode,Thom Verratti, and Greg Chiselko. 2000. Using a large projection screen as
an alternative to head-mounted displays for virtual environments. Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings (2000), 478–485. https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332479

52
View publication stats