5 ms·

It amazes, and bothers me, just how little discussion of the potential health impact of VR there is in the new hype cycle. My understanding from 10+ years ago w

It amazes, and bothers me, just how little discussion of the potential health impact of VR there is in the new hype cycle. My understanding from 10+ years ago was people would have invested in getting over the latency problems if they hadn't discovered it's actually really bad for you, not in the sense of being heavy, but messing with your depth perception when back in reality. The technology has clearly improved, not least that a decent phone now has more graphics power than an SGI Onyx of the era of the experiments, but nothing has magically changed about the people.

ehsanu1 13y ago
Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex instead of bothering with all the issues screens+optics brings. Then it won't matter that it's VR, given high-fidelity, accurate input. Current VR systems like the Oculus are "just" a stepping stone to something much greater. That said, could you be more specific about the problems caused with our current VR technology, and the reason they happen?
- msutherl 13y ago
  > Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex instead of bothering with all the issues screens+optics brings. This will not work. The visual system is not an "information processing" system like a computer. In order to wire an "accurate input" into your brain, you would need to duplicate all of the nonlinear optical, electrical, and chemical transformations performed by the eye, in which case you might as well just use your eye. In other words, we don't just see what comes out of the screen, so wiring that data into your brain will be gibberish at worst and a somewhat compromised new sense organ at best.
  - comex 13y ago
    Yes, but once you solve those issues, you don't need a super high resolution, light field based (or otherwise adjustable focus) display that's very small and has very high battery life, to achieve the same portability. Your face doesn't need to have a weird-looking and -feeling object on it, and if you can hook into the original eye signal, you get a free dual camera for AR. Oh, and on a less geeky note, it gives sight to the blind. The resolution and the focus will certainly be solved long before an implant could give remotely similar performance, but an implant would sure be neat for the other reasons.
- fidotron 13y ago
  I don't have access to the academic papers, but a Google of things like VR and human factors will get you to a whole subfield of research.
  - ehsanu1 13y ago
    I realize I can do some digging. I was just hoping for pointers to make that process easier and more fruitful - otherwise I will probably not bother myself to be honest. I imagined you would have something more relevant to share about this topic, compared to a search, since you say it bothers you that there is no discussion about this. I'm inviting you to start some discussion.
  - rschmitty 13y ago
    You should at least be able to find the Abstracts. You are worried about supposed problems that came from 10+ year old tech. I think if you wanted to show concern you could point people towards real problems when you make claims like that.
- glimcat 13y ago
  > Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex This comes somewhere on the tech tree after "practical flying cars" and "solving world hunger." But eventually, sure, why not. > That said, could you be more specific about the problems caused with our current VR technology, and the reason they happen? The most common and superficial health issue with VR (and AR) would be simulator sickness. The visual cues don't match what the brain expects via other sense data, so you get sick. It happens to some people much more easily than others. More direct hazards: Safety issues, e.g. tripping on stuff you can't see while operating a VR headset, or being distracted due to virtual stimuli. Vision impairment, primarily in children younger than 6-10 years, but potentially also in older users with compromised vision systems. Temporary visual impairment, typically after sessions longer than 20 minutes. Pronounced eyestrain due to unnatural focal behavior, object tracking, display quality, and optical alignment. Nice papers to read: Costello, "Health and Safety Issues associated with Virtual Reality - A Review of Current Literature" http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.3025&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.3... Viire, "Health and safety issues for VR". It gets cited around lots even though it's over 10 years old now, but I couldn't find a free copy. Look it up on ACM if you have access. You can preview the first page at the following URL. http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/health-and-safety-issues-for-vr-wOI06QQ7aE http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machine... Stanney, "Realizing the full potential of virtual reality: human factors issues that could stand in the way." Starts on page 39 of the following PDF. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232654060_Pen-based_force_display_for_precision_manipulation_in_virtual_environments/file/72e7e51f1b1991a916.pdf#page=39 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232654060_Pen-based_... You'll note that these are all late 90s. VR research was much better funded then. You can find more recent stuff though, at least with appropriate database access. More work did get done, but shoehorned under different keywords since "virtual reality" stopped being trendy. > You are worried about supposed problems that came from 10+ year old tech. (from sibling's child) Nope. The main difference between 10 year old VR headsets and the ones you can buy today is that the use of bulky CRT eyepieces vs. LED-based eyepieces. The middle ground being LEDs with gradually improving dot pitch. The human issues remain more or less the same, seeing as nobody has re-engineered the human body in the last 10 years. My grad advisor had been involved in VR & AR research going back - I forget, 20 or 30 years. So I did a fair amount of reading on the topic. You can make slightly better headsets today, particularly if money is no object - but the core limitations are really the human factors, and the timing constraints necessary to accommodate human senses and rate of motion.
codelap 13y ago
We're pliable, we'll adapt. VR doesn't physically alter your body, so with repeat usage, we'll adapt. The garbage in processed foods is likely damaging us far far more, as those lab created ingredients actually become a part of us.
- fidotron 13y ago
  Actually, it does kind of alter you physically. The case that used to scare the hell out of the lab techs I ran into was that of someone using a simulator at work for a few hours a day, but driving to and from the office. The context switching is far from instant, and acclimatising to it could be the eye based equivalent of giving yourself a calluses through repeat gentle stabbing with a needle. Additionally, if you spend a good proportion of your waking hours in a device setup for you to focus at infinity, what happens when you take it off and need to focus elsewhere? The muscles won't have been exercised and you won't be used to using them when looking at objects you judge to be at different distances. This is on top of the classic intro, which would be "welcome to VR - we're going to show you 20 new ways to make someone fall over with surprisingly little effort", and many of those don't even need head mounted displays. As far as I could tell AR got a lot of early support largely because using see through displays eliminates most of the problems while preserving the most interesting non-gaming applications (i.e. keyhole surgery overlays on the patient) though the calibration requirements are insane.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    One time when I was walking through the halls in my high school, my brain started playing Mario Kart 64. It was weird.
  - codelap 13y ago
    Actually, it really doesn't. You can prove me wrong by linking to any study where a VR rig has caused any physical change in the human body. Otherwise, you're just spewing FUD.
    - fidotron 13y ago
modeless 13y ago
Safety and comfort are top priority for Oculus right now. If you look at their documentation you'll find all sorts of information about it, and the hardware improvements they're working on (latency, low persistence, resolution, position tracking) are all aimed directly at it. Oculus knows that they can't sell a consumer product unless it is completely safe and doesn't make people sick.

ehsanu1 13y ago

Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex instead of bothering with all the issues screens+optics brings. Then it won't matter that it's VR, given high-fidelity, accurate input. Current VR systems like the Oculus are "just" a stepping stone to something much greater. That said, could you be more specific about the problems caused with our current VR technology, and the reason they happen?

msutherl 13y ago
> Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex instead of bothering with all the issues screens+optics brings. This will not work. The visual system is not an "information processing" system like a computer. In order to wire an "accurate input" into your brain, you would need to duplicate all of the nonlinear optical, electrical, and chemical transformations performed by the eye, in which case you might as well just use your eye. In other words, we don't just see what comes out of the screen, so wiring that data into your brain will be gibberish at worst and a somewhat compromised new sense organ at best.
- comex 13y ago
  Yes, but once you solve those issues, you don't need a super high resolution, light field based (or otherwise adjustable focus) display that's very small and has very high battery life, to achieve the same portability. Your face doesn't need to have a weird-looking and -feeling object on it, and if you can hook into the original eye signal, you get a free dual camera for AR. Oh, and on a less geeky note, it gives sight to the blind. The resolution and the focus will certainly be solved long before an implant could give remotely similar performance, but an implant would sure be neat for the other reasons.
fidotron 13y ago
I don't have access to the academic papers, but a Google of things like VR and human factors will get you to a whole subfield of research.
- ehsanu1 13y ago
  I realize I can do some digging. I was just hoping for pointers to make that process easier and more fruitful - otherwise I will probably not bother myself to be honest. I imagined you would have something more relevant to share about this topic, compared to a search, since you say it bothers you that there is no discussion about this. I'm inviting you to start some discussion.
- rschmitty 13y ago
  You should at least be able to find the Abstracts. You are worried about supposed problems that came from 10+ year old tech. I think if you wanted to show concern you could point people towards real problems when you make claims like that.
glimcat 13y ago
> Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex This comes somewhere on the tech tree after "practical flying cars" and "solving world hunger." But eventually, sure, why not. > That said, could you be more specific about the problems caused with our current VR technology, and the reason they happen? The most common and superficial health issue with VR (and AR) would be simulator sickness. The visual cues don't match what the brain expects via other sense data, so you get sick. It happens to some people much more easily than others. More direct hazards: Safety issues, e.g. tripping on stuff you can't see while operating a VR headset, or being distracted due to virtual stimuli. Vision impairment, primarily in children younger than 6-10 years, but potentially also in older users with compromised vision systems. Temporary visual impairment, typically after sessions longer than 20 minutes. Pronounced eyestrain due to unnatural focal behavior, object tracking, display quality, and optical alignment. Nice papers to read: Costello, "Health and Safety Issues associated with Virtual Reality - A Review of Current Literature" http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.3025&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.3... Viire, "Health and safety issues for VR". It gets cited around lots even though it's over 10 years old now, but I couldn't find a free copy. Look it up on ACM if you have access. You can preview the first page at the following URL. http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/health-and-safety-issues-for-vr-wOI06QQ7aE http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machine... Stanney, "Realizing the full potential of virtual reality: human factors issues that could stand in the way." Starts on page 39 of the following PDF. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232654060_Pen-based_force_display_for_precision_manipulation_in_virtual_environments/file/72e7e51f1b1991a916.pdf#page=39 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232654060_Pen-based_... You'll note that these are all late 90s. VR research was much better funded then. You can find more recent stuff though, at least with appropriate database access. More work did get done, but shoehorned under different keywords since "virtual reality" stopped being trendy. > You are worried about supposed problems that came from 10+ year old tech. (from sibling's child) Nope. The main difference between 10 year old VR headsets and the ones you can buy today is that the use of bulky CRT eyepieces vs. LED-based eyepieces. The middle ground being LEDs with gradually improving dot pitch. The human issues remain more or less the same, seeing as nobody has re-engineered the human body in the last 10 years. My grad advisor had been involved in VR & AR research going back - I forget, 20 or 30 years. So I did a fair amount of reading on the topic. You can make slightly better headsets today, particularly if money is no object - but the core limitations are really the human factors, and the timing constraints necessary to accommodate human senses and rate of motion.

codelap 13y ago

We're pliable, we'll adapt. VR doesn't physically alter your body, so with repeat usage, we'll adapt. The garbage in processed foods is likely damaging us far far more, as those lab created ingredients actually become a part of us.

fidotron 13y ago
Actually, it does kind of alter you physically. The case that used to scare the hell out of the lab techs I ran into was that of someone using a simulator at work for a few hours a day, but driving to and from the office. The context switching is far from instant, and acclimatising to it could be the eye based equivalent of giving yourself a calluses through repeat gentle stabbing with a needle. Additionally, if you spend a good proportion of your waking hours in a device setup for you to focus at infinity, what happens when you take it off and need to focus elsewhere? The muscles won't have been exercised and you won't be used to using them when looking at objects you judge to be at different distances. This is on top of the classic intro, which would be "welcome to VR - we're going to show you 20 new ways to make someone fall over with surprisingly little effort", and many of those don't even need head mounted displays. As far as I could tell AR got a lot of early support largely because using see through displays eliminates most of the problems while preserving the most interesting non-gaming applications (i.e. keyhole surgery overlays on the patient) though the calibration requirements are insane.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  One time when I was walking through the halls in my high school, my brain started playing Mario Kart 64. It was weird.
- codelap 13y ago
  Actually, it really doesn't. You can prove me wrong by linking to any study where a VR rig has caused any physical change in the human body. Otherwise, you're just spewing FUD.
  - fidotron 13y ago

modeless 13y ago

Safety and comfort are top priority for Oculus right now. If you look at their documentation you'll find all sorts of information about it, and the hardware improvements they're working on (latency, low persistence, resolution, position tracking) are all aimed directly at it. Oculus knows that they can't sell a consumer product unless it is completely safe and doesn't make people sick.