Barnaby E Donohew1, Michael J Griffin. 1. Human Factors Research Unit, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, England.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During lateral acceleration, the addition of an appropriate roll motion can improve comfort, but some combinations of lateral and roll motion increase motion sickness. OBJECTIVES: To determine how motion sickness caused by lateral oscillation fully compensated by roll oscillation (so subjects feel no lateral acceleration) depends on the frequency of oscillation and compare sickness with that caused by uncompensated lateral oscillation. METHOD: A total of 160 subjects (8 groups of 20) were exposed for 30 min to fully roll-compensated sinusoidal lateral oscillation at one of 8 frequencies (0.05, 0.08, 0.125, 0.16, 0.20, 0.315, 0.5, 0.8 Hz). A further 60 subjects (3 groups of 20) were exposed to lateral oscillation (at 0.315, 0.5, or 0.8 Hz) to allow comparison of sickness with that caused by uncompensated lateral oscillation at frequencies not previously studied. Subjects rated symptoms at 1-min intervals. RESULTS: With fully roll-compensated lateral oscillation, illness ratings tended to increase with increasing frequency of oscillation from 0.05 to 0.2 Hz (with peak lateral velocity, +/- 1.0 m x s(-1)) and tended to decrease from 0.315 to 0.8 Hz (with peak lateral jerk, +/- 1.96 m x s(-3)). Roll compensation significantly reduced the duration before subjects developed nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Motion sickness is increased by roll oscillation used to compensate fully for low-frequency lateral oscillation. In general, when roll oscillation is combined with low-frequency lateral oscillation, motion sickness cannot be predicted from either the roll oscillation or the lateral oscillation alone. The dependence of motion sickness on the frequency of oscillation is broadly similar for pure lateral oscillation and 100% roll-compensated lateral oscillation.
BACKGROUND: During lateral acceleration, the addition of an appropriate roll motion can improve comfort, but some combinations of lateral and roll motion increase motion sickness. OBJECTIVES: To determine how motion sickness caused by lateral oscillation fully compensated by roll oscillation (so subjects feel no lateral acceleration) depends on the frequency of oscillation and compare sickness with that caused by uncompensated lateral oscillation. METHOD: A total of 160 subjects (8 groups of 20) were exposed for 30 min to fully roll-compensated sinusoidal lateral oscillation at one of 8 frequencies (0.05, 0.08, 0.125, 0.16, 0.20, 0.315, 0.5, 0.8 Hz). A further 60 subjects (3 groups of 20) were exposed to lateral oscillation (at 0.315, 0.5, or 0.8 Hz) to allow comparison of sickness with that caused by uncompensated lateral oscillation at frequencies not previously studied. Subjects rated symptoms at 1-min intervals. RESULTS: With fully roll-compensated lateral oscillation, illness ratings tended to increase with increasing frequency of oscillation from 0.05 to 0.2 Hz (with peak lateral velocity, +/- 1.0 m x s(-1)) and tended to decrease from 0.315 to 0.8 Hz (with peak lateral jerk, +/- 1.96 m x s(-3)). Roll compensation significantly reduced the duration before subjects developed nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Motion sickness is increased by roll oscillation used to compensate fully for low-frequency lateral oscillation. In general, when roll oscillation is combined with low-frequency lateral oscillation, motion sickness cannot be predicted from either the roll oscillation or the lateral oscillation alone. The dependence of motion sickness on the frequency of oscillation is broadly similar for pure lateral oscillation and 100% roll-compensated lateral oscillation.
Authors: Bernard Cohen; Mingjia Dai; Dmitri Ogorodnikov; Jean Laurens; Theodore Raphan; Philippe Müller; Alexiou Athanasios; Jürgen Edmaier; Thomas Grossenbacher; Klaus Stadtmüller; Ueli Brugger; Gerald Hauser; Dominik Straumann Journal: FASEB J Date: 2011-07-25 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Giovanni Bertolini; Meek Angela Durmaz; Kim Ferrari; Alexander Küffer; Charlotte Lambert; Dominik Straumann Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 4.003