Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T00:07:33.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preliminary findings on the Virtual Environment for Radiotherapy Training (VERT) system: simulator sickness and presence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

David M. Flinton  and
Nick White
David M. Flinton*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiography, City University, Northampton Square, London, UK
Nick White
Affiliation:
Division of Radiography, Birmingham City University, Perry Barr, Birmingham, UK
*
Correspondence to: David M. Flinton, Department of Radiography, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1M 0HB, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Virtual environments in medical education are becoming increasingly popular as a learning tool. However, there is a large amount of evidence linking these systems to adverse effects that mimic motion sickness. It is also proposed that the efficacy of such systems is affected by how well they engage the user, which is often referred to as presence.

Purpose: This primary purpose of this study was to look at the side effects experienced and presence in the Virtual Environment for Radiotherapy Training (VERT) system which has recently been introduced.

Method: A pre-VERT questionnaire was given to 84 subjects to ascertain general health of the subjects. The simulator sickness questionnaire was utilised to determine the side effects experienced, whereas the igroup presence questionnaire was used to measure presence. Both questionnaires were given immediately after use of the VERT system.

Results: The majority of symptoms were minor; the two most commonly reported symptoms relating to ocular issues. No relationship was seen between simulator sickness and presence although subjects with a higher susceptibility to travel sickness had reported higher levels of disorientation and nausea. There was also a decrease in involvement with the system in subjects with a higher susceptibility to travel sickness.

Keywords

VERTSSQsicknesspresenceradiotherapy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 169 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Kneebone, R. Simulation in surgical training: educational issues and practical implications. Med Edu 2003; 37: 267–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dayal, R, Faries, PL, Lin, SC et al. Computer simulation as a component of catheter-based training. J Vasc Surg 2004; 40: 1112–1117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seropian, MA, Brown, K, Gavilanes, JS, Driggers, B. Simulation: not just a manikin. J Nurs Edu 2004; 43: 164–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaba, DMThe future vision of simulation in health care. Qual Saf Healthcare 2004; S1: i2–i10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridge, P, Appleyard, RM, Ward, JW et al. The development and evaluation of a virtual radiotherapy treatment machine using an immersive visualisation environment. Comp Edu 2007; 49: 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, DM. Introduction to and review of simulator sickness research. US Army Research Institute Research Report 1832, 2005.Google Scholar
La Viola, JJ. A Discussion of Cybersickness in Virtual Environments. SIGCHI Bull 2000; 32: 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick-Evans, LA, Symons, N, Fitch, T, Burrows, L. Evaluating sensory conflict and postural instability. Theories of motion sickness. Brain Res Bull 1998; 47, 465–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jerome, CJ, Witmer, B. Immersive tendency, feeling of presence, and simulator sickness: formulation of a causal model. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, Virtual Environments, 2002, pp. 2197–2201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheume, MJ, Van der Straaten, P, Krijn, M et al. Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey. Cyberpsychol Behav 2001; 4: 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmer, BG, Singer, MJ. Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 1998; 7: 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seay, AF, Krum, DM, Hodges, L, Ribarsky, W. Simulator sickness and presence in a high FOV virtual environment, 2001, pp. 299–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, RS, Lane, NE. Simulator sickness Questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 1993; 3: 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, T, Friedmann, F, Regenbrecht, H. The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence 2001; 10: 266–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantin, C, Grigorovici, D. Virtual Environments and the Sense of Being There: An SEM Model of Presence. Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Workshop on Presence. The International Society for Presence Research (ISPR), 2003.Google Scholar
Department of Health. Report to Ministers from National Radiotherapy Advisory Group. DH, London, 2007.Google Scholar
Kennedy, RS, Stanney, KM, Dunlap, WP. Duration and exposure to virtual environments: sickness curves during and across sessions. Presence 2000; 1: 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar