A comparison of cybersickness symptoms across 360-degree hazard perception and hazard prediction tests for drivers

Hazard perception assessment may benefit from VR-presentation by removing field-of-view restrictions imposed by single-screen tests. One concern is whether VR-induced 'cybersickness' will offset any benefits. Self-reported cybersickness ratings were recorded from 77 participants viewing two variants of a 360-degree hazard test: hazard perception and hazard prediction. The latter was hypothesised to be particularly susceptible as clips abruptly cut to a probe question at hazard onset. Such sudden occlusions are thought to increase cybersickness. Overall cybersickness levels were low, with only four participants excluded for above-threshold sickness ratings. The remaining participants showed unexpectedly lower symptoms for the hazard prediction test and rated this test format as more comfortable and engaging. These findings mitigate concerns over the use of 360-degree videos in formative hazard assessments, even when clips involve sudden occlusions. Nonetheless, removal of any participants due to cybersickness raises problems for using VR for formal assessments of hazard perception skill.