Joint and individual effectiveness of galvanic cutaneous stimulation and tactile stimulation at decreasing Simulator Adaptation Syndrome

Mixing transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation and galvanic cutaneous stimulation to decrease simulator adaptation syndrome

Purpose

Simulator Adaptation Syndrome arises from a perceptual discordance between expected and actual motion, giving rise to symptoms such as nausea and disorientation. This research focused on determining the benefit of Transcutaneous Vagal Nerve Stimulation (tVNS) and Galvanic Cutaneous Stimulation (GCS), where both were applied in conjunction, as compared to their administration in isolation, to decrease Simulator Adaptation Syndrome (SAS).

Method

A driving simulation study was proposed where SAS, body balance, and driving performance were measured. These measurements were taken during seven different stimulation scenarios with a baseline condition without stimulation compared against tVNS and GCS conditions.

Results

The main result showed that the combination of tVNS and GCS reduced SAS and improved body balance and driving performance more successfully than their administration in isolation.

Conclusion

Similar neuromodulation in the temporoparietal junction is proposed to mitigate SAS for GCS and tVNS (although additional explanations are discussed). Applying both techniques simultaneously is encouraged to decrease SAS in future interventions.

The use of transcutaneous Vagal Nerve Stimulation as an effective countermeasure for Simulator Adaptation Syndrome

This research focused on investigating the effectiveness of Transcutaneous Vagal Nerve Stimulation (tVNS) as compared to Galvanic Cutaneous Stimulation (GCS) at mitigating Simulator Adaptation Syndrome (SAS). Fifty drivers (mean age = 23.04 ± 17.71 years old, twenty-two men) participated in a driving simulation experiment. The total scores of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, head movements (body balance index), and driving performance variables were measured under five stimulation conditions: i) baseline (no stimulation delivered), ii) sham GCS, iii) sham tVNS, iv) active GCS, and v) active tNVS. The results showed that tVNS alleviated SAS and improved driving performance variables more effectively than GCS. We conclude that GCS and tVNS have similar neurological mechanisms to reduce SAS, providing possible explanations for the greater effectiveness of tVNS. We encourage the use of tVNS to decrease SAS.

Motion sickness: current concepts and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Motion sickness is an ancient phenomenon that affects many people. Nausea, vomiting, disorientation, sweating, fatigue, and headache are just few of the many signs and symptoms that are commonly experienced during an episode of motion sickness. In the present review, we will provide an overview of the current research trends and topics in the domain of motion sickness, including theoretical considerations, physiological and neural mechanisms, individual risk factors, and treatment options, as well as recommendations for future research directions.

RECENT FINDINGS

More recently, motion sickness has been in the focus of attention in the context of two global technological trends, namely automated vehicles and virtual reality. Both technologies bear the potential to revolutionize our daily lives in many ways; however, motion sickness is considered a serious concern that threatens their success and acceptance. The majority of recent research on motion sickness focuses on one of these two areas.

SUMMARY

Aside from medication (e.g. antimuscarinics, antihistamines), habituation remains the most effective nonpharmacological method to reduce motion sickness. A variety of novel techniques has been investigated with promising results, but an efficient method to reliably prevent or minimize motion sickness has yet to emerge.