The (in)effectiveness of anticipatory vibrotactile cues in mitigating motion sickness

The introduction of (fully) automated vehicles has generated a re-interest in motion sickness, given that passengers suffer much more from motion sickness compared to car drivers. A suggested solution is to improve the anticipation of passive self-motion via cues that alert passengers of changes in the upcoming motion trajectory. We already know that auditory or visual cues can mitigate motion sickness. In this study, we used anticipatory vibrotactile cues that do not interfere with the (audio)visual tasks passengers may want to perform. We wanted to investigate (1) whether anticipatory vibrotactile cues mitigate motion sickness, and (2) whether the timing of the cue is of influence. We therefore exposed participants to four sessions on a linear sled with displacements unpredictable in motion onset. In three sessions, an anticipatory cue was presented 0.33, 1, or 3 s prior to the onset of forward motion. Using a new pre-registered measure, we quantified the reduction in motion sickness across multiple sickness scores in these sessions relative to a control session. Under the chosen experimental conditions, our results did not show a significant mitigation of motion sickness by the anticipatory vibrotactile cues, irrespective of their timing. Participants yet indicated that the cues were helpful. Considering that motion sickness is influenced by the unpredictability of displacements, vibrotactile cues may mitigate sickness when motions have more (unpredictable) variability than those studied here.

Self-motion perception without sensory motion

Various studies have demonstrated a role for cognition on self-motion perception. Those studies all concerned modulations of the perception of a physical or visual motion stimulus. In our study, however, we investigated whether cognitive cues could elicit a percept of oscillatory self-motion in the absence of sensory motion. If so, we could use this percept to investigate if the resulting mismatch between estimated self-motion and a lack of corresponding sensory signals is motion sickening. To that end, we seated blindfolded participants on a swing that remained motionless during two conditions, apart from a deliberate perturbation at the start of each condition. The conditions only differed regarding instructions, a secondary task and a demonstration, which suggested either a quick halt (“Distraction”) or continuing oscillations of the swing (“Focus”). Participants reported that the swing oscillated with larger peak-to-peak displacements and for a longer period of time in the Focus condition. That increase was not reflected in the reported motion sickness scores, which did not differ between the two conditions. As the reported motion was rather small, the lack of an effect on the motion sickness response can be explained by assuming a subthreshold neural conflict. Our results support the existence of internal models relevant to sensorimotor processing and the potential of cognitive (behavioral) therapies to alleviate undesirable perceptual issues to some extent. We conclude that oscillatory self-motion can be perceived in the absence of related sensory stimulation, which advocates for the acknowledgement of cognitive cues in studies on self-motion perception.

How feelings of unpleasantness develop during the progression of motion sickness symptoms

To mitigate motion sickness in self-driving cars and virtual reality, one should be able to quantify its progression unambiguously. Self-report rating scales either focus on general feelings of unpleasantness or specific symptomatology. Although one generally feels worse as symptoms progress, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting a non-monotonic relationship between unpleasantness and symptomatology. This implies that individuals could (temporarily) feel better as symptoms progress, which could trouble an unambiguous measurement of motion sickness progression. Here we explicitly investigated the temporal development of both unpleasantness and symptomatology using subjective reports, as well as their mutual dependence using psychophysical scaling techniques. We found symptoms to manifest in a fixed order, while unpleasantness increased non-monotonically. Later manifesting symptoms were generally judged as more unpleasant, except for a reduction at the onset of nausea, which corresponded to feeling better. Although we cannot explicate the origin of this reduction, its existence is of importance to the quantification of motion sickness. Specifically, the reduction at nausea onset implies that rating how bad someone feels does not give you an answer to the question of how close someone is to the point of vomiting. We conclude that unpleasantness can unambiguously be inferred from symptomatology, but an ambiguity exists when inferring symptomatology from unpleasantness. These results speak in favor of rating symptomatology when prioritizing an unambiguous quantification of motion sickness progression.