2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103282
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficacy of augmented visual environments for reducing sickness in autonomous vehicles

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The cue consisted of simultaneously activating the six actuators at 125 Hz for a duration of 150 ms. In three anticipatory sessions, the onset of the cue was always prior to the onset of forward motion: either at 0.33, 1, or 3 s. We selected these three equidistant anticipatory intervals, because previous cueing studies used intervals within this range (de Winkel et al 2021 ; Diels and Bos 2021 ; Hainich et al 2021 ; Karjanto et al 2018 , 2021 ; Kuiper et al 2020a ; Li and Chen 2022 ; Maculewicz et al 2021 ; Yusof et al 2020 ). To account for any effect of the cue itself (rather than its predictive information), we included a control session in which the onset of a non-informative cue was 2–6 s after the onset of forward motion.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The cue consisted of simultaneously activating the six actuators at 125 Hz for a duration of 150 ms. In three anticipatory sessions, the onset of the cue was always prior to the onset of forward motion: either at 0.33, 1, or 3 s. We selected these three equidistant anticipatory intervals, because previous cueing studies used intervals within this range (de Winkel et al 2021 ; Diels and Bos 2021 ; Hainich et al 2021 ; Karjanto et al 2018 , 2021 ; Kuiper et al 2020a ; Li and Chen 2022 ; Maculewicz et al 2021 ; Yusof et al 2020 ). To account for any effect of the cue itself (rather than its predictive information), we included a control session in which the onset of a non-informative cue was 2–6 s after the onset of forward motion.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, the passenger's seating arrangement inside the vehicle affects the severity and likelihood of motion sickness, with rear facing positions causing more motion sickness than forward facing and sitting in the backseat being more provocative than sitting in the front row [5 ▪▪ ]. Providing passengers with a view of the outside of the vehicle helps to anticipate the upcoming motion of the vehicle and significantly reduces motion sickness [3,38,39]), although severe episodes of motion sickness can also occur despite a clear view of the road ahead [5 ▪▪ ].…”
Section: Influencing Factors and Individual Susceptibilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It achieves that with sensory augmentation and sensory substitution, i.e. transforming inertial data sensed from the motion of the vehicle into visual cues floating around the occupants' space [32]. This enhances the feeling of motion and contact with the road, reducing symptoms of motion sickness, while at the same time reduces obtrusiveness within the visual field.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Conceptsmentioning
confidence: 99%