VR and health

As far as I'm aware there's no indication, or reason to believe, that it materially differs from using a regular LCD regarding the eyes. I'm not aware of any long-term research either. There's a lot of literature on cybersickness, however.
 
As far as I'm aware there's no indication, or reason to believe, that it materially differs from using a regular LCD regarding the eyes. I'm not aware of any long-term research either. There's a lot of literature on cybersickness, however.

Using a regular LCD 2inches from your face.
 
Using a regular LCD 2inches from your face.

There's coralation between short distance focusing and increases in miopia. There isn't any proven causation though.

On top of that, you're not focusing on an LCD 2 inches from your face. The focal plane is at distance. As far as your eyes are concerned, you're looking at something at a distance at indoor light levels. The amount of light output by the lcds is tiny compared to being outdoors.

Edit: The whole "sitting close to the screen is bad for you" stems from the early days of CRT TVs, where there was a small risk from the screen coating. It wasn't an issue with more modern CRTs, and doesn't apply to LCDs.
 
Last edited:
There's coralation between short distance focusing and increases in miopia. There isn't any proven causation though.

On top of that, you're not focusing on an LCD 2 inches from your face. The focal plane is at distance. As far as your eyes are concerned, you're looking at something at a distance at indoor light levels. The amount of light output by the lcds is tiny compared to being outdoors.

Many times it has been said there is no difference between two things only to discover that there is a difference, it just wasn't immediately apparent. Perhaps there is no significant difference but I would like to see some long term study results.

Edit: The whole "sitting close to the screen is bad for you" stems from the early days of CRT TVs, where there was a small risk from the screen coating. It wasn't an issue with more modern CRTs, and doesn't apply to LCDs.

No. The screen coating was not the only issue.
 
No. The screen coating was not the only issue.

It was a single model of GE TV in the 60's that output of 100000 times the recommended safe level of radiation, which was then recalled. It was related to the interaction between the electron beam and the coating they used. Thus the "don't sit too close to the TV" myth was born.

There's no physical basis for assuming the LCD could cause any issue. Of course we could discover something but in what ballpark exactly? It's not going to be radiation. It's not going to be short distance focus issues. It's not going to be retinal damage from high light levels.

When we get to varifocus HMDs I do wonder if a badly calibrated one could cause some issues. Likewise with HDR displays.
 
What are the risks, especially WRT eyes?

How much research there is about the long-term cumulative affects?
There are two main effects that might be of concern: eyestrain and limited focus.

Eyestrain can come from the fact that our eyes have multiple ways of determining distance, not just binocular vision. One of those ways is through focus: the muscles which control the focus of the lens in our eyes is reported to our brain and contributes to our feeling of distance. I was viscerally demonstrated this fact during an optics lab where I had to find the distance of a virtual image (a real image is an image projected on a display: a virtual image is one you see through a lens). Because of the setup, we had to find the distance to the virtual image by looking through the apparatus with one eye, and it was generally pretty easy to determine the distance to within a few centimeters without any hints coming from either size or binocular vision.

3D vision inherently has issues with this because it provides one signal (binocular vision) which presents an image at one distance, and a different signal (focus) which presents an image at a different distance. This discrepancy can confuse our brains leading to eyestrain as our eyes have difficulty focusing at the right distance due to the contradictory feedback we're getting.

The second issue is a potential issue with computer displays in general: lack of focal range. If we do not move our eyes around and focus on things at different distances, the muscles which control focus in the eye can weaken, which can cause various issues. This is why it's really good if you work (or play for long periods) on a computer display to not have a wall immediately behind your computer, so you can look behind the display and focus on things at different distances periodically.

Neither of these problems is likely to present issues long-term unless you play VR for multiple hours per day. But in any case the issues you experience are far more likely to be short-term than long term. Things like headaches and pain in/around the eyes, as well as having difficulty focusing when you step away from the VR.

Oh, and there's one last complication, but it's one that has to do with any computer display, not just VR: they can fuck with your sleep cycle. And having a bad sleep cycle causes all sorts of health issues. So best to keep on top of that and make sure you're getting enough sleep. For some people, avoiding screens late at night can be important, and some people think that using nighttime filters which redden the display might help.
 
There's no physical basis for assuming the LCD could cause any issue. Of course we could discover something but in what ballpark exactly? It's not going to be radiation. It's not going to be short distance focus issues. It's not going to be retinal damage from high light levels.

There is reportedly lots of evidence of risk from exposure to both extremely low freq and radiofrequency EMFs well within current official safety levels.
 
And you can add the research backing up your claims and we will have something to talk about.

I listed things there was no evidence of their being harm to eye sight from, sitting close to the TV being one of them. You can take the AAO's word on that if you like.

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/ask-ophthalmologist-q/can-close-tv-viewing-damage-eyes

I'm not dismissive of the possibility of VR having potential side effects. I did want some good reading from @green.pixel, since there always lots of pseudo scientific stuff about electromagnetism.

KimB had some interesting points I thought. I'd forgotten about the who blue light thing and sleep. Mostly as have young twins I'm perminatly knackard. You could shine blue light in my eyes for hours before bedtime and I'd still be off in seconds. :)
 
There is reportedly lots of evidence of risk from exposure to both extremely low freq and radiofrequency EMFs well within current official safety levels.
That evidence is generally bullshit. The kinds of studies that present these results are generally of low quality with small sample sizes, or are studying systems that are very different from the real world (e.g. tissue cultures).
 
Good quality research? Care to add it to the thread.

Don't know how much "quality" it is, but the the biggest one I know of is this report from a couple of thousand papers:

http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

Background and Objectives

This Report is the product of an international research and public policy initiative to document what is known of biological effects that occur at low-intensity EMF exposures (for both radiofrequency radiation RF and power-frequency ELF, and various forms of combined exposures that are now known to be bioactive). The Report has been written to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health.

A working group composed of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has joined together to document the information that must be considered in the international debate about the adequacy (or inadequacy) of existing public exposure standards.

Recognizing that other bodies in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, many European Union and eastern European countries as well as the World Health Organization are actively debating this topic, the BioInitiative Working Group has conducted a independent science and public health policy review process.

Objectives

  1. To establish a working group
  2. To evaluate literature reviews for IEEE (2006) and WHO (2007) initiatives on standards that have resulted in (or continue to recommend) no change in thermally-based public exposure limits.
  3. To identify systematic screening-out techniques that consequently under-report, omit or overlook results of scientific studies reporting low-intensity bioeffects and/or potential health effects.
  4. To document key scientific studies and reviews that identify low-intensity effects for which any new human exposure standards should provide safety limits.
  5. To document key “chains of evidence” that must be taken into account in new human exposure standards (melatonin and free-radical production effects on DNA damage and/or repair; stress protein induction at low-intensity levels; etc.)
  6. To write a rationale for a biologically-based human exposure standard,
  7. To identify “next steps” in advancing biologically-based exposure standards that are protective of public health; that are derived in traditional public health approaches.

Eleven (11) chapters documenting key scientific studies and reviews that identify low-intensity effects of electromagnetic fields have been produced by the members of the BioInitiative Working Group; four additional chapters are provided that discuss public health considerations, how the scientific information should be evaluated in the context of prudent public health policy, and discussing the basis for taking precautionary and preventative actions that are proportionate to the knowledge at hand. Other scientific review bodies and agencies have reached different conclusions by adopting standards of evidence so unreasonably high as to exclude any finding of scientific concern, and thus justify retaining outdated thermal standards. The clear consensus of the BioInitiative Working Group members is that the existing public safety limits are inadequate. New approaches to development of public safety standards are needed based on biologically-based effects, rather than based solely on RF heating (or induced currents in the case of ELF). The Report concludes with recommended actions that are proportionate to the evidence and in accord with prudent public health policy.

The Report also presents information about what level of scientific evidence is sufficient to make changes now. It addresses the questions:
  • What is “proof”? Do we need proof before we take any action? Is an unreasonably high and overly-restrictive definition of “proof” what is keeping some governments from facing the evidence that the need for new public exposure limits is demonstrated?
  • What is sufficient evidence? How much evidence is needed? Do we have it yet?
  • Do scientists and public health experts differ on when action is warranted? If so, how?
  • What is the prudent course of action when the consequence of doing nothing is likely to have serious global consequences on public health, confidence in governments and social/economic resources?
  • What are the costs of guessing wrong and under-reacting? Or, of over-reacting?
  • Whose opinions should count in the process of deciding about health risks and harm?
  • Is the global, governmental process addressing these questions transparent and responsive to public concerns? Or, is it a cosmetic process giving the illusion of transparency and democratic participation? Are some countries ostracized for views and actions that are more protective of public health? How can we equitably decide on the appropriate level of public protection within each country, when it is obvious that some countries would be best off spending their time and money on basic medical needs and infrastructure improvements to save lives, when others need to look at prevailing disease endpoints relevant to their populations, and wish to act accordingly?
  • How has the effort for global harmonization of ELF and RF exposure standards thwarted the efforts of individual countries to read, reason and choose?
  • How much control have special interests exerted over harmonization goals and safety standards? How much over scientific funding, research design, dissemination of research results and media control? Are the interests of the public being conserved?
  • What actions are proportionate to the knowledge we now have? What is preventative action and how does it differ from precautionary action?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top