BACKGROUND: It is commonly assumed that motion sickness caused by moving visual scenes arises from the illusion of self-motion (i.e., vection). HYPOTHESES: Both studies reported here investigated whether sickness and vection were correlated. The first study compared sickness and vection created by real and virtual visual displays. The second study investigated whether visual fixation to suppress eye movements affected motion sickness or vection. METHOD: In the first experiment subjects viewed an optokinetic drum and a virtual simulation of the optokinetic drum. The second experiment investigated two conditions on a virtual display: a) moving black and white stripes; and b) moving black and white stripes with a stationary cross on which subjects fixated to reduce eye movements. RESULTS: In the first study, ratings of motion sickness were correlated between the conditions (real and the virtual drum), as were ratings of vection. With both conditions, subjects with poor visual acuity experienced greater sickness. There was no correlation between ratings of vection and ratings of sickness in either condition. In the second study, fixation reduced motion sickness but had no affect on vection. Motion sickness was correlated with visual acuity without fixation, but not with fixation. Again, there was no correlation between vection and motion sickness. CONCLUSIONS: Vection is not the primary cause of sickness with optokinetic stimuli. Vection appears to be influenced by peripheral vision whereas motion sickness is influenced by central vision. When the eyes are free to track moving stimuli, there is an association between visual acuity and motion sickness. Virtual displays can create vection and may be used to investigate visually induced motion sickness.
BACKGROUND: It is commonly assumed that motion sickness caused by moving visual scenes arises from the illusion of self-motion (i.e., vection). HYPOTHESES: Both studies reported here investigated whether sickness and vection were correlated. The first study compared sickness and vection created by real and virtual visual displays. The second study investigated whether visual fixation to suppress eye movements affected motion sickness or vection. METHOD: In the first experiment subjects viewed an optokinetic drum and a virtual simulation of the optokinetic drum. The second experiment investigated two conditions on a virtual display: a) moving black and white stripes; and b) moving black and white stripes with a stationary cross on which subjects fixated to reduce eye movements. RESULTS: In the first study, ratings of motion sickness were correlated between the conditions (real and the virtual drum), as were ratings of vection. With both conditions, subjects with poor visual acuity experienced greater sickness. There was no correlation between ratings of vection and ratings of sickness in either condition. In the second study, fixation reduced motion sickness but had no affect on vection. Motion sickness was correlated with visual acuity without fixation, but not with fixation. Again, there was no correlation between vection and motion sickness. CONCLUSIONS: Vection is not the primary cause of sickness with optokinetic stimuli. Vection appears to be influenced by peripheral vision whereas motion sickness is influenced by central vision. When the eyes are free to track moving stimuli, there is an association between visual acuity and motion sickness. Virtual displays can create vection and may be used to investigate visually induced motion sickness.