Abstract
Minimizing simulator sickness is crucial for ensuring the well-being of users and for guaranteeing the integrity of driving performance data. Here, we compared the effect of direct and indirect airflow as potential countermeasures against simulator sickness in a high-fidelity driving simulator, further exploring the relationship between airflow, body temperature, and subjective comfort. Twenty-three healthy adults completed a 25 km simulated drive (incl. 1.7 km practice) while their simulator sickness level was monitored. To study the effects of airflow direction on simulator sickness, the car’s vents were positioned to either generate airflow directly to the driver’s torso and head (direct airflow condition) or towards the vehicle’s ceiling avoiding any contact with the driver (indirect airflow condition). Results suggested that simulator sickness did not differ between the two airflow conditions. Body temperature was lower in the indirect compared to the direct airflow condition, but no significant correlations with simulator sickness were observed. Overall, participants reported a higher level of comfort when airflow was directed to the car’s ceiling, suggesting that indirect airflow may be the favoured setting for driving simulation studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Note that data collection had to be terminated prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated disruptions in research at KITE-UHN, resulting in a smaller sample size than originally anticipated. No sex-related difference showed in any of the simulator sickness measures and, given the small sample size, are not further reported here.
- 2.
Ambient temperature inside the car was recorded during the drive using a thermistor sensor placed in the back of the driver’s seat. Due to recording issues, ambient room temperature data could not be recorded for 7 participants, we therefore do not include this measure in the data analysis.
- 3.
Note that driving performance metrics were collected but are not of relevance in the context of the present publication. These results will be reported elsewhere.
References
Classen, S., Bewernitz, M., Shechtman, O.: Driving simulator sickness: an evidence-based review of the literature. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 65, 179–188 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2011.000802
Johnson, D.M.: Introduction to and review of simulator sickness research. Rotary-Wing Aviation Research Unit, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (2005)
Mourant, R.R., Thattacherry, T.R.: Simulator sickness in a virtual environments driving simulator. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 44, pp. 534–537 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004400513
Kennedy, R.S., Hettinger, L.J., Lilienthal, M.G.: Simulator sickness. In: Crampton, G.H. (ed.) Motion and Space Sickness, Boca Raton, FL (1990)
Reason, J.T., Brand, J.J.: Motion sickness. Academic Press, London; New York (1975)
Cha, Y.-H., et al.: Motion sickness diagnostic criteria: consensus document of the classification committee of the Bárány society. J. Vestib. Res. (2021). https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-200005
Keshavarz, B., Golding, J.F.: Motion sickness: current concepts and management. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 35, 107–112 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000001018
Keshavarz, B., Hecht, H., Lawson, B.D.: Visually induced motion sickness: characteristics, causes, and countermeasures. In: Hale, K.S., Stanney, K.M. (eds.) Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications, pp. 648–697. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2014)
Brooks, J.O., et al.: Simulator sickness during driving simulation studies. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42, 788–796 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.04.013
Domeyer, J.E., Cassavaugh, N.D., Backs, R.W.: The use of adaptation to reduce simulator sickness in driving assessment and research. Accid. Anal. Prev. 53, 127–132 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.12.039
Rebenitsch, L., Owen, C.: Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Reality 20(2), 101–125 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0285-9
Reason, J.T.: Motion sickness adaptation: a neural mismatch model. J. Roy. Soc Med. 71, 819–829 (1978)
Palmisano, S., Allison, R.S., Schira, M.M., Barry, R.J.: Future challenges for vection research: definitions, functional significance, measures, and neural bases. Front. Psychol. 6, 193 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00193
Berti, S., Keshavarz, B.: Neuropsychological approaches to visually-induced vection: an overview and evaluation of neuroimaging and neurophysiological studies. Multisens. Res. 34, 153–186 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-bja10035
Treisman, M.: Motion sickness: an evolutionary hypothesis. Science 197, 493–495 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.301659
Yen Pik Sang, F.D., Golding, J.F., Gresty, M.A.: Suppression of sickness by controlled breathing during mildly nauseogenic motion. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 74, 998–1002 (2003)
Peck, K., Russo, F., Campos, J.L., Keshavarz, B.: Examining potential effects of arousal, valence, and likability of music on visually induced motion sickness. Exp. Brain Res. 238(10), 2347–2358 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05871-2
Bonnet, C.T., Faugloire, E., Riley, M.A., Bardy, B.G., Stoffregen, T.A.: Self-induced motion sickness and body movement during passive restraint. Ecol. Psychol. 20, 121–145 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/10407410801949289
Chang, C.-H., Pan, W.-W., Chen, F.-C., Stoffregen, T.A.: Console video games, postural activity, and motion sickness during passive restraint. Exp. Brain Res. 229, 235–242 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3609-y
Weech, S., Moon, J., Troje, N.F.: Influence of bone-conducted vibration on simulator sickness in virtual reality. PLoS ONE 13, e0194137 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194137
Bos, J.E.: Less sickness with more motion and/or mental distraction. J. Vestib. Res. 25, 23–33 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-150541
D’Amour, S., Bos, J.E., Keshavarz, B.: The efficacy of airflow and seat vibration on reducing visually induced motion sickness. Exp. Brain Res. 235(9), 2811–2820 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5009-1
Nalivaiko, E.: Thermoregulation and nausea. Handb Clin Neurol. 156, 445–456 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63912-7.00027-8
Nalivaiko, E., Rudd, J.A., So, R.H.: Motion sickness, nausea and thermoregulation: the “toxic” hypothesis. Temperature (Austin). 1, 164–171 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4161/23328940.2014.982047
Graybiel, A., Lackner, J.R.: Evaluation of the relationship between motion sickness symptomatology and blood pressure, heart rate, and body temperature. Aviat Space Environ Med. 51, 211–214 (1980)
Nobel, G., Tribukait, A., Mekjavic, I.B., Eiken, O.: Effects of motion sickness on thermoregulatory responses in a thermoneutral air environment. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 112, 1717–1723 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-2142-6
Nobel, G., Eiken, O., Tribukait, A., Kölegård, R., Mekjavic, I.B.: Motion sickness increases the risk of accidental hypothermia. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 98, 48–55 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-006-0217-6
Keshavarz, B., Hecht, H.: Validating an efficient method to quantify motion sickness. Hum. Factors 53, 415–426 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811403736
Kennedy, R.S., Lane, N.E., Berbaum, K.S., Lilienthal, M.G.: Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3, 203–220 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3
Money, K.E.: Motion sickness. Physiol. Rev. 50, 1–39 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.1970.50.1.1
Mekjavic, I.B., Tipton, M.J., Gennser, M., Eiken, O.: Motion sickness potentiates core cooling during immersion in humans. J. Physiol. 535, 619–623 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.00619.x
Acknowledgments
We thank Susan Gorski and Robert Shewaga for technical support as well as Niki Akbarian and Karinna Pe for their help with data collection. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council (NSERC) of Canada (Discovery Grant, RGPIN-2017-04387). The funding source had no direct involvement in any research activities related to this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Igoshina, E., Russo, F.A., Haycock, B., Keshavarz, B. (2022). Comparing the Effect of Airflow Direction on Simulator Sickness and User Comfort in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator. In: Chen, J.Y.C., Fragomeni, G. (eds) Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: Applications in Education, Aviation and Industry. HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13318. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06015-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06015-1_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-06014-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-06015-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)