# Countering the Novelty Effect: A Tutorial for Immersive Virtual Reality Learning Environments
## 5 Discussion
With regard to cybersickness, as shown in Table 3, it strongly reduced the satisfaction and usability of the experience, except in the case of the moderate cybersickness level, with a neutral result (+0.58% of average compared to no- cybersickness). The result of moderate cybersickness could be due to the small sample of users in this group (just one), and a mistaken self-evaluation of the user's perceived level of cybersickness. Although the user reported moderate cybersickness, he could perform the whole experience at the same time as users with no cybersickness, raising doubts over the validity of his self-perceived level of cybersickness. Besides, the result was similar in the study of [PERSON] et al. [65], which lends support to the idea that presence indicates success in iVR experience satisfaction, as in this case presence scored as highly as the no-cybersickness group. In the case of low cybersickness (Figure 9), all components achieved slightly worse results than the no-cybersickness group. The average results were reduced by around 10%. Skill was the most affected component, a finding also echoed in the work of [PERSON] et al. [66]. Their study showed that skill and workload were positively correlated with cybersickness. Therefore, if participants had difficulty with some tasks (as the negative aspects of the survey showed), both the workload and the symptoms of cybersickness also increased. In contrast, flow was the least affected. The difficulties with interaction may explain the difference in the percentage of flow. Both the no-cybersickness and low-cybersickness groups had difficulties when interacting with the objects, so both rated flow lower than the other components. In the case of strong cybersickness, the results were reduced by around 38% compared to the no-cybersickness group. A stronger effect was expected than low cybersickness in all the components, due to the discomfort that cybersickness generated, which meant that the user was unable to enjoy the iVR learning experience. Nevertheless, although true for four components, engagement remained unaffected (\(-13\%\) from the no-cybersickness group, the same reduction as for the low cybersickness group). The worst-affected component was immersion, which coincided with the study of [PERSON] et al. [14]. It showed that cybersickness negatively affected immersion and task performance, which may also explain why flow was very negatively affected. The same levels of satisfaction in low and strong cybersickness groups can also be explained, because the iVR learning experience was enjoyable despite the cybersickness in both cases. Finally, although this group only included one user, his self-perception of cybersickness must be considered true, because he had to stop the experience after a while. Low skill values meant low flow values as well, due to the user having to stop the experience. If cybersickness events are to be reduced, then the iVR tutorial needs to be improved. The design must include more visual cues to reduce text lengths. It would be helpful for some users with cybersickness who reported motion sickness when reading the text. Applying the coherence principle in more situations could also be helpful to simplify the environments and introduce the iVR world to these users at a slower pace.