Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates comfort optimization in VR devices, suggesting improved user experience outcomes.
The user experience of virtual reality (VR) devices is restricted by heat accumulation, pressure on the face, and a lack of tactile feedback from the materials. Long periods of use lead to thermal and moisture imbalances and structural compression since the way the materials interact with the human micro-environment creates these issues. In this paper, a new decision-making methodology is presented that applies a multi-objective conflict solution approach that integrates the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Quality Function Deployment (QFD). The core user comfort requirement weights were generated through the AHP method. Using QFD, these weights were mapped directly to the technical material properties, and their relative importance was ranked (the top three being fiber diameter ≤10 μm, thermal conductivity ≥5 W/m K, and bending stiffness ≤10 mN m). A Pareto front analysis was used to create a balance of conflicting objectives and direct the development of a collaborative optimization solution. Experimental validation of the optimized solution (a polyester-viscose blended substrate with plasma treatment, a graphene thermal conductive layer, and a gradient support structure) results in significant increases in overall user experience comfort. There was a decrease in microenvironment temperature rise by 35.8%, from 8.1 to 5.2 °C (compared to the unoptimized group), as well as a decrease in subjective thermal discomfort score by 39.5%, from 3.8 to 2.3. In addition, bending stiffness decreased to 33% (8.4 mN m), effective load-bearing nodes increased to 92.3% (13% increase), and peak pressure in the nose pad area decreased by 50% (half). Although there was an 8.9% increase in manufacturing costs, overall user satisfaction was improved by 40.6%, and ROI increased to 4.39, indicating that the framework provided was effective for achieving thermal, moisture, and force multiphysics comfort and cost constraint objectives. This paper presented a systematic multi-objective decision-making process for designing comfortable VR wearable materials and identified an engineering path for optimizing materials, processes, and structures in a coordinated manner.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: