Table 2.

Guidelines for possible general demographic factors (CYB_10 to 14) and mental attributes (CYB_15 to 17) influencing cybersickness.

ID_factor Evidence level	Factors	Description	Guidelines
CYB_10 VII	Age	Fifty years old and older are more susceptible to report cybersickness than younger people (Arns and Cerney, 2005; Petri et al., 2020; Kim H. et al., 2021). Children aged between 4 and 10 seem less susceptible than adults (Tychsen and Foeller, 2020), although they are practically not susceptible to using VR for work	Take extra care and expose for shorter time users of 50 years old and older to VR (Arns and Cerney, 2005; Petri et al., 2020; Kim H. et al., 2021)
CYB_11 V	Gender	Women are supposed to be more susceptible to cybersickness (Grassini and Laumann, 2020; Howard and Van Zandt, 2021). Although, there is no consensus because of contradictory results (Porcino et al., 2020a; MacArthur et al., 2021; Varmaghani et al., 2021). The observed difference is mainly explained by tuning lenses distance not matching womens' IPD (Stanney et al., 2020a)	Choosing HMDs allowing the widest tuning of lenses to match women's IPD and using eye tracking (or psychometric measures) to guide users when they tune the distance between lenses (Grassini and Laumann, 2020; Stanney et al., 2020a; Howard and Van Zandt, 2021)
CYB_12 V	Ethnicity	According to some studies (Klosterhalfen et al., 2005; Stanney et al., 2020a,b), Asians are more susceptible than African Americans and Caucasians	Be extra careful with ethnicity identified as being more susceptible to present side effects (Klosterhalfen et al., 2005; Stanney et al., 2020a,b)
CYB_13 V	Vision correction	Using glasses and/or contacts makes the user more susceptible to report cybersickness (Rebenitsch and Owen, 2014). However, contradictory results have been found (Rangelova et al., 2020)	Take extra care of users wearing lenses or glasses by encouraging to shorter immersion duration and more acclimation to simulators/3D video games (Rebenitsch and Owen, 2014; Howard and Van Zandt, 2021)
CYB_14 V	History of motion sickness	Prior history of motion sickness increase risks of cybersickness (Stanney et al., 2003a; Mittelstaedt et al., 2018; Mittelstaedt, 2020)	Determining if the user has a history of motion sickness to adapt exposure to him/her with questionnaires such as Visually Induced Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire (Keshavarz et al., 2021)
CYB_15 VI	Concentration level	Announced to influence cybersickness but without experimental data (Rangelova and Andre, 2019; Grassini et al., 2021; Rebenitsch and Owen, 2021)	Not clear in the cybersickness literature if “concentration” relates to attention abilities in general (Moran, 1763; Fawcett et al., 2015). Therefore, making sure that users can concentrate on tasks during immersion with eye tracking could help integrate this factor (Clay et al., 2019)
CYB_16 VI	Mental rotation ability	Sex differences have been raise (Parsons et al., 2004; Guzsvinecz et al., 2021), although contradicting results exist (Toth and Campbell, 2019). Mental rotation ability could be an unreliable factor affecting cybersickness (Mittelstaedt et al., 2019), although it is listed as possibly impacting symptoms (Stanney et al., 2020a)	Performing mental rotation tests (Shepard and Metzler, 1971). In VR paradigms exist (Csincsák, 2020) and hypothesizing that lower results would advocate for higher cybersickness risks
CYB_17 –	Perceptual style	Perceptual style influencing motion sickness is proposed in an old contribution (Barrett and Thornton, 1968). However, perceptual style is linked to learning style, criticized as a neuromyth (Willingham et al., 2015; Kirschner, 2017)	Since very little experimental proof and this factor might be linked to a neuromyth (Willingham et al., 2015; Kirschner, 2017), it can be ignored for now