Breathing rate is considered one of the fundamental vital signs and a highly informative indicator of physiological state. Given that the monitoring of heart activity is less complex than the monitoring of breathing, a variety of algorithms have been developed to estimate breathing activity from heart activity. However, estimating breathing rate from heart activity outside of laboratory conditions is still a challenge. The challenge is even greater when new wearable devices with novel sensor placements are being used. In this paper, we present a novel algorithm for breathing rate estimation from photoplethysmography (PPG) data acquired from a head-worn virtual reality mask equipped with a PPG sensor placed on the forehead of a subject. The algorithm is based on advanced signal processing and machine learning techniques and includes a novel quality assessment and motion artifacts removal procedure. The proposed algorithm is evaluated and compared to existing approaches from the related work using two separate datasets that contains data from a total of 37 subjects overall. Numerous experiments show that the proposed algorithm outperforms the compared algorithms, achieving a mean absolute error of 1.38 breaths per minute and a Pearson\'s correlation coefficient of 0.86. These results indicate that reliable estimation of breathing rate is possible based on PPG data acquired from a head-worn device.

OBJECTIVE: Blinking plays an important role in protecting the eyes, and the use of computers has been associated with a reduction in the blink rate. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of a virtual reality headset on blinking and lipid layer thickness and to compare these data to those associated with a conventional desktop monitor.
METHODS: Two experiments were performed to compare the effect of 20minutes of use of a virtual reality headset (FOVE) and 20minutes of use of a desktop monitor on the frequency and length of blinks (experiment 1, 15 participants) and on the thickness of the lipid layer as measured by Lipiview (experiment 2, 12 participants).
RESULTS: In the first experiment, the blink rate [F(1.83)=4.3, P=0.04, β=0.36] and duration [F(1.83)=13, P=0.001, β=0.35] increased with time under both conditions, but no statistical difference was found between the two conditions (headset vs. desktop monitor) either for blink rate [rmANOVA F(1.11)=0.01, P=0.92; headset: 15.1 blinks, 95% CI: 12.6 to 17.6 blinks; desktop: 14.6 blinks, 95% CI: 13.6 to 15.7 blinks] or for blink duration [rmANOVA F(1.11)=4.534, P=0.06; headset: 205.75ms, 95% CI: 200.9 to 210.6ms; desktop: 202.82ms, 95% CI: 198.2 to 207.5ms]. However, strong individual variations were observed. Evaluation of simulator sickness and visual fatigue by questionnaire showed no significant differences between the two conditions (SSQ simulator sickness questionnaire: V=46, P=0.62; VFQ visual fatigue questionnaire: V=15.5, P=0.13). In the second experiment, the lipid layer thickness increased significantly after use of the VR headset [F(1.18)=11.03, P=0.004, headset: 76.2nm, desktop: 58.8nm].
CONCLUSIONS: In terms of recommendations, the effect of virtual reality headsets on blink duration and frequency during a moderate exposure (20minutes) is comparable to that of a conventional desktop monitor. However, the strong individual variations observed, the lack of reliable tests to evaluate this individual sensitivity, and the significant increase in lipid layer thickness in experiment 2 suggest the value of a more detailed investigation, in particular with consideration of a longer exposure time and other tear film parameters.

It is currently not fully understood where people precisely locate themselves in their bodies, particularly in virtual reality. To investigate this, we asked participants to point directly at themselves and to several of their body parts with a virtual pointer, in two virtual reality (VR) setups, a VR headset and a large-screen immersive display (LSID). There was a difference in distance error in pointing to body parts depending on VR setup. Participants pointed relatively accurately to many of their body parts (i.e., eyes, nose, chin, shoulders, and waist). However, in both VR setups when pointing to the feet and the knees they pointed too low, and for the top of the head too high (to larger extents in the VR headset). Taking these distortions into account, the locations found for pointing to self were considered in terms of perceived bodies, based on where the participants had pointed to their body parts in the two VR setups. Pointing to self in terms of the perceived body was mostly to the face, the upper followed by the lower, as well as some to the torso regions. There was no significant overall effect of VR condition for pointing to self in terms of the perceived body (but there was a significant effect of VR if only the physical body (as measured) was considered). In a paper-and-pencil task outside of VR, performed by pointing on a picture of a simple body outline (body template task), participants pointed most to the upper torso. Possible explanations for the differences between pointing to self in the VR setups and the body template task are discussed. The main finding of this study is that the VR setup influences where people point to their body parts, but not to themselves, when perceived and not physical body parts are considered.

BACKGROUND: Consumer virtual reality (VR) devices are becoming more prevalent in the market, but cybersickness induced by VR devices limits their potential application and promotion. Acustimulation has been found effective in reducing cybersickness symptoms. However, in previous forms, the more effective way of acustimulation is either intrusive or electrical which is hard to be applied to daily VR use.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to find a both simple and more effective acustimulation approach, acupressure plus acupaste (AcP+) to reducing the adverse effects caused by cybersickness from VR applications.
METHODS: In this study, we set three conditions: acupressure plus acupaste (AcP+) (main condition of interest), acupressure with fake acupaste (AcP), and a no acustimulation condition (NoAcP). In AcP and AcP + conditions, we applied acupressure or acupressure with true acupaste on P6 point before conducting video-watching tasks using VR headsets, while in NoAcP condition, participants received no special treatment before video-watching tasks. We used questionnaires to measure symptoms of cybersickness and compared the results between these 3 conditions, especially between acupressure plus acupaste (AcP+) and acupressure (AcP) to examine the effect of AcP+, and compared AcP and AcP+ with NoAcP to confirm the effect of acustimulation.
RESULTS: Participants reported significant fewer symptoms of cybersickness nausea feelings in both acustimulation methods, compared with NoAcP; and AcP+ was more effective than AcP against cybersickness on visual oculomotor aspect, and facilitated cybersickness recovery.
CONCLUSIONS: It would be promising to develop acupressure equipment and apply stimulation before VR application to reduce cybersickness.