Job Simulator- Perception neuron

I didn't
said that Touch controllers are related to Nausea: -since I have neither
purchased it-.



I said that nausea is related to all Oculus hardware and softwares.



From The assembly to Mission Apollo, from Demo Gourmet Quest to many others

every single software has unbelievable problems of Accessibility, Naturalness
movements,

Inconsistency, User control freedom and many other User Experience issues I
won't express here.



For example The assembly has direction commands of one type in a game section
but

then it changes them into another section.

Even -basic- consistency direction commands with arrows is not respected.

If you use playstation controllers you are asked to move the character of the
game

with unitelligible front left commands -in one section- when in another
direction commands changes again.



What cause Nausea -Cybersickness- is neural data inconsistency.



I neither consider the -Touch- cause is evident that they can't supply

-minimal- finger accuracy required for naturalness of commands.



Is evident that all Oculus development has -never-

taken in consideration Jacob Nielsen User Experience guide lines.



If they would had it they would had immediately seen their hardware

has not -the minimal- respect to those guidelines, probably cause

Cognitive ergonomy of the head-set has been taken in consideration

just for external design.



In fact all softwares has the described problems.



They can have won all possible Awards of this planet:

-putting users to play Job Simulator in (non realistic) situations

(like is the non required body movements tasks)- but the reality

of daily living User Experience is different.



If Oculus staff would have really basically considered User Experience

from the beginning of its early development stages they would have

immediately seen the described lack of respect to related Nielsen guidelines.



The fact that they don't supply -neither the minimal- support for

external peripherals demonstrate which is their professional level.



If then I would have to consider some basic facts:

1- Costs 599,00 Euro for a total passive experience with unbelievable

    -very basic- cognitive ergonomy problems.

2- Facts as they have been acquired from Facebook for more than 3 billion $,

    they have the best available researchers in the field, adapt
environments to do research,

    money, thousands of developers around the globe.

3- Three  development kits (Dk1, Dk2, Crescent bay) worked on

    for years

I would say: -and they're still at this level-?



Technically for all these issues, current Oculus headset is not considerable as

-Consumer Version 1- but just as -Basic Development Kit Prototype-.



If then I consider the related Neuro-ergonomics of the headset I would

say that even with a basic EEG analysis they would have seen the layout

changing -if compared to the same user baseline- after Oculus usage cause

of cyber-sickness.



And I'm just talking about the -basic- of Cognitive Ergonomy (...).



Remaning in -the basic- other things are clear.



Researchers has never considered nor neurophysiology neither neuropsychology

related to Oculus User Exeperience, if they would had it

they would immediately seen nausea consequences related to

neural data incosistency.



And they anyway don't supply external peripherals support

to resolve related neurophysiological issues?



What a professional of Cognitive ergonomy, neuro-psychology and neurophysiology

would say in this situation?

probably would say:



1- After all described problems they still continue to sell Oculus head set

    as -Consumer version 1- when it would be responsible to

    call it -Oculus First Development Kit Prototype-.

2- They declare to have the best available researchers on the field

    but is evident they neither did -a basic- cognitive ergonomy
explorative research

    during the early development steps.

    Is also clear they don't neither far consider the related
neurophysiology

    to Oculus head-set usage.

3- They had three development kits (Dk1, Dk2, Crescent Bay)

     with thousands of developers around the globe -for
years-

     and they're still at this level.

4- After few months in the market Oculus company and its owner -Zuckerberg-

    has been involved in ZeniMax affair (...), decisevely -Not-
a good

    pubblicity for the -Company reliability-.

5- If you see in the net, the next undertaken step from Oculus and

    Facebook is the Human Body tracing by infra-red rays, thing

    that alone demonstrate that they still haven't understood the

    issues related to the -lack of knowledge- of

    infra-red technology using cameras.



    Which is the problem? none problem, the only issue is that
they

    will -always- have problems of hands tracing. In fact there will
always be some positions

    where hand's fingers cover other hands's fingers.



 



Reassuming current data, their behavior and managing decisions are considerable

as -Not- professional.



We're all professionists and we have to be guided by and Ethics and being
honest.



A correct ethics in owr job should be the interest of the user and (for us
neuropsychologists and

neuro-scientists) the patient's interest. So as neuro-ergonomist the research
and technology

development's target should be the -User's Centered Design-.



If instead all your decisions are guided by -doing money ethics-, -Yes- you
will achieve the target of being

rich but, as soon as you get rich as soon you will return into poverty.

In fact for the Cognitive Ergonomy principle of -Trust- once you've lost the
trust of your User,

it's -Very, Very- difficult to reconquer it.



For all these reasons a professionist who get in contact with Oculus technology
and its technology,

would say also that after all these years of development and described

data, Oculus researchers staff has not solved the discussed issues cause

they're simply unable to do it.

Best regards and good luck also to you.

Nicolò Zago

Good evening Js2k.

I apologize for the delay in my answer and

for the two repetitive answers posts -there was

an error in the Operative System of the machine which I use to
post

here-.



Certainly I agree with you in the fact I’m

-too scientific and academic (it’s my job and I have to act

In this way)-.

I’ve analyzed the papers wrote in the link

you gave me -obviously considerating just

those most updated -.

1-    
In Cognitive ergonomy of interfaces developing

(as in every single scientific materia),
the Rule is

-Never- consider papers, books older than 4
years of pubblishing.

2-    
You can see by your own that the most updated
papers in

that bibliography are of 2003, 2002.

3-    
There is only one Review -even pubblished in a
not important

Pubblication for the materia- and anyway
authors clearly states:

-As expected, as lenght of the exposure
increased, the total sickness

reported also increased-.

So exactly the contrary about what you
previously said.

4-    
In any case, -never- and I repeat -never-
consider papers older than 4 years.

In this area of Interface Technology
development according to scientific data

Pubblications older than 4 years are
considerable as -Stone age-.

5-    
There’s neither one updated paper Review and
neither one updated paper

of meta-analysis.

So to be objective I would have to say that
there are no data to support

nor your hypothesis neither the Oculus
Company one.

6-    
A professional would say: -I hope that Oculus
technology has not been built

on that bibliography, cause if that would
be truth would mean that

(now) is clear why they are not going
further in their technical progress

In Oculus technology-.

With the observed data I can only
confirm what told you.

Technically Oculus Company Staff
can’t be considerated as Professional.

The fact that all pubblished
papers are updated to 2003 with no believable Reviews,

the only “updated” review
contradicts the same assumptions on which Oculus Company

base its technology, none
meta-analysis, none pubblished
paper on important pubblications makes Oculus Company
technology exposed to multiple cross-fire.

You can’t say
that - There is little to none nausea for majority of people when the
experience is roomscale or teleportation with motion controllers- if you don’t
have significant data to say this.
I mean indeed the company -if the
bibliography you sent me is that

Oculus based its
technology- should be hitted from every front, if

also a developer
comes out with a phrase like yours is like pubblish a statement saying -we’re
not reliable-.

Even if would be
true the fact -anyway contradicted by the scientific litterature- that an user of Oculus
would not experience nausea or should grow resistance, the biological reality is that
these users grow up resistance cause they came resistant to the discomfort

(as in
down-regulation process).

In fact you’re
not administering a drug, a medicine. But you’re administering a continuos
incosistency of neural data which -differently from a medicine- doesn’t reduce itself, doesn’t change in time
progression. As neural data
incosistency persists the user will have a neural modification -cold neural plasticity-
associated to cyber-sickness with nausea.

but in the
reality subjects continue to experience nausea related symptomps and feelings.In fact -as you
can read by your own- subjects then refuse to continue to use Oculus for

Highly aversive sensation
of nausea (…..).

Yes they had used
an – Oculus Dk1- but we all know that the related nausea symptoms are caused by the
described inconsistency of neural data -which currently continue to exists-.

 -It is quite
likely that a larger number of VR sessions would cause further desensitizing
effects; the small number of sessions was the limitation of our study. It
was caused by the lack of enthusiasm in our participants to repetitively
experience the highly aversive sensation of nausea.The fact that
desensitization developsin response toboth vestibular- and
visually-induced provocations raises an intriguing question about the location of
neural structures whose plasticity is responsible for the reduced
sensitivity. There are at least two possibilities here: first, it may be
that habituation occurs separately in afferent vestibular or visual pathways.

An alternative
explanation is that changes are in the central

neural network
responsible for the genesis of nausea; this network is

Sclocco et al.,
2016). An indirect argument in favour of the latter sugges-tion is that
sensitivity to motion predicts sensitivity to visual provoca-tion (current
study and (Nalivaiko et al., 2015)). Furthermore, there is a limited evidence
of cross-desensitization, where repetitive sessions of optokinetic
drum provocation resulted in prolonged reduction of sus-ceptibility to
seasickness (Gavgani, 2017).

The described paper
is: Profiling subjective symptoms and autonomic changes associated with
cybersickness.

So using the same
Oculus method of publishing -just interested papers supporting their hypothesis- you can see there
are much more updated and in -better pubblications- which falsify their
hypothesis.

To be honest you
neither can say that Oculus deserve the -First generation Tag- when their pubblished
bibliography -from them own- that contradicts what they publicly states and
when for 599,00 Euro
they supply just a total passive experience. Even knowing that adding other
100,00 Euro the movements are decisevely -Not- accurate

nor natural,
neither gives freedom of user control.

Certainly I agree
with you when you say that PSVR fails cause its too controller -artificial locomotion-
and           

In fact I’ve
expressed the idea that Oculus can’t be considered as -Consumer Version 1- until they don’t
supply support for a -plug and play- (Oculus+ Perception neuron+ infra-red
technology).

This technologies have to be expected as co-related -Default
configuration- from the beggining of first Oculus experience.

  Bibliography:

Gavgani, A. M., Nesbitt, K. V., Blackmore, K. L., &
Nalivaiko, E. (2017). Profiling subjective symptoms and autonomic changes
associated with cybersickness. Autonomic Neuroscience, 203, 41-50.