|
Bieżący numer
Archiwum
Artykuły zaakceptowane
O czasopiśmie
Rada naukowa
Bazy indeksacyjne
Prenumerata
Kontakt
Zasady publikacji prac
Standardy etyczne i procedury
Panel Redakcyjny
Zgłaszanie i recenzowanie prac online
|
1/2026
vol. 30 Artykuł przeglądowy
Assessment of cybersickness symptoms during stimulation of an extreme scenario in virtual reality – one-shot case study
Piotr Hałka
1
,
Aleksandra Katarzyna Nowakowska
2
,
Magdalena Nowak
2
,
David Lucena-Anton
3
,
Sebastian Rutkowski
1
Research, Physiotherapy Review, 2026, 30(1), 34-44
Data publikacji online: 2026/03/26
Plik artykułu:
- art4_1_2026.pdf
[0.37 MB]
ENW EndNote
BIB JabRef, Mendeley
RIS Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
1. Levin MF. What is the potential of virtual reality for post-stroke sensorimotor rehabilitation? Expert Rev Neurother. 2020; 20 (3): 195–197. 2.
Rubio-Tamayo J, Gertrudix Barrio M, García García F. Immersive environments and virtual reality: systematic review and advances in communication, interaction and simulation. Multimodal Technol Interact. 2017; 1 (4): 21. 3.
Benjamin DR, Van De Water ATM, Peiris CL. Effects of exercise on diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle in the antenatal and postnatal periods: a systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2014; 100 (1): 1–8. 4.
Mandal S. Brief introduction of virtual reality and its challenges. 2013. 5.
Huang W, Roscoe RD, Johnson-Glenberg MC, Craig SD. Motivation, engagement, and performance across multiple virtual reality sessions and levels of immersion. J Comput Assist Learn. 2021; 37 (3): 745–758. 6.
Rose T, Nam CS, Chen KB. Immersion of virtual reality for rehabilitation – review. Appl Ergon. 2018; 69: 153–161. 7.
Wohlgenannt I, Simons A, Stieglitz S. Virtual reality. Bus Inf Syst Eng. 2020; 62 (5): 455–461. 8.
Mayor J, Raya L, Sanchez A. A comparative study of virtual reality methods of interaction and locomotion based on presence, cybersickness, and usability. IEEE Trans Emerg Top Comput. 2021; 9 (3): 1542–1553. 9.
Pottle J. Virtual reality and the transformation of medical education. Future Healthc J. 2019; 6 (3): 181–185. 10.
Cabero J, Barroso J. The educational possibilities of augmented reality. J New Approaches Educ Res. 2016; 5 (1): 44–50. 44 Physiotherapy Review | Volume XXX Issue 1/2026 11.
Valente L, Feijó B, Ribeiro A, Clua E. The concept of pervasive virtuality and its application in digital entertainment systems. In: Wallner G, Kriglstein S, Hlavacs H, Malaka R, Lugmayr A, Yang HS, editors. Entertainment Computing – ICEC 2016. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 187–198. 12.
Cao S. Virtual reality applications in rehabilitation.In: Kurosu M, editor. Human-Computer Interaction:Theory, Design, Development and Practice. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 3–10. 13.
Molhemi F, Monjezi S, Mehravar M, Shaterzadeh- Yazdi MJ, Salehi R, Hesam S, et al. Effects of virtual reality vs conventional balance training on balance and falls in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021; 102 (2): 290–299. 14.
Truijen S, Abdullahi A, Bijsterbosch D, Van Zoest E, Conijn M, Wang Y, et al. Effect of home-based virtual reality training and telerehabilitation on balance in individuals with Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurol Sci. 2022; 43 (5): 2995–3006. 15.
Kourtesis P, Linnell J, Amir R, Argelaguet F, MacPherson SE. Cybersickness in virtual reality questionnaire (CSQ-VR): a validation and comparison against SSQ and VRSQ. Virtual Worlds. 2023; 2 (1): 16–35. 16.
Ramaseri Chandra AN, El Jamiy F, Reza H. A systematic survey on cybersickness in virtual environments. Computers. 2022; 11 (4): 51. 17.
Kim H, Kim DJ, Chung WH, Park KA, Kim JDK, Kim D, et al. Clinical predictors of cybersickness in virtual reality (VR) among highly stressed people. Sci Rep. 2021; 11 (1): 12139. 18.
Simón Vicente L, Rodríguez-Cano S, Delgado-Benito V, Ausín V, Cubo E. Cybersickness: a systematic literature review of adverse effects related to virtual reality. Neurologia. 2022. 19.
Weech S, Kenny S, Barnett-Cowan M. Presence and cybersickness in virtual reality are negatively related: a review. Front Psychol. 2019; 10: 158. 20.
Saredakis D, Szpak A, Birckhead B, Keage HAD, Rizzo A, Loetscher T. Factors associated with virtual reality sickness in head-mounted displays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020; 14: 96. 21.
Howard MC, Van Zandt EC. A meta-analysis of the virtual reality problem: unequal effects of virtual reality sickness across individual differences. Virtual Reality. 2021; 25 (4): 1221–1246. 22.
Kim YS, Won J, Jang SW, Ko J. Effects of cybersickness caused by head-mounted display–based virtual reality on physiological responses: cross-sectional study. JMIR Serious Games. 2022; 10 (4): e37938. 23.
Bouchard S, Berthiaume M, Robillard G, Forget H, Daudelin-Peltier C, Renaud P, et al. Arguing in favor of revising the simulator sickness questionnaire factor structure when assessing side effects induced by immersions in virtual reality. Front Psychiatry. 2021; 12: 739742. 24.
Stanney K, Fidopiastis C, Foster L. Virtual reality is sexist: but it does not have to be. Front Robot AI. 2020; 7: 4. 25.
Stanney K, Lawson BD, Rokers B, Dennison M, Fidopiastis C, Stoffregen T, et al. Identifying causes of and solutions for cybersickness in immersive technology: reformulation of a research and development agenda. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2020; 36 (19): 1783–1803. 26.
Tian N, Lopes P, Boulic R. A review of cybersickness in head-mounted displays: raising attention to individual susceptibility. Virtual Reality. 2022; 26 (4): 1409–1441.
|
 |
ENGLISH
