Motion Sickness Susceptibility: A Retrospective Comparison of Laboratory Tests.

Lentz, J. M.; Guedry, Fred E.

doi:10.21236/ada053161

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such stimuli are commonly regarded as highly provocative of motion sickness, yet the mean rating on stomach awareness and nausea was 2.4 (as compared with 2.8), and only 3 percent The salient feature of the present study is that visual data acquisition from a head-fixed complex display was degraded equally by high-frequency low peak velocity whole-body oscillation or by low-frequency high peak velocity whole-body oscillation, but only the low-frequency oscillation produced substantial signs and symptoms of I motion sickness. That the latter condition coupled with the visual data retrieval task is consistently nauseogenic to the degree observed in the present study has been substantiated by a number of subsequent observations (15,16). Substantiating data from other groups are not available for results of the high-frequency oscillation, although the absence of signs and symptoms of sickness in the group so exposed in the present study was striking.…”

Section: Indices Of Motion Sicknesssupporting

confidence: 75%

Influence of a Visual Display and Frequency of Whole-Body Angular Oscillation on Incidence of Motion Sickness.

Guedry¹,

Benson²,

Moore³

1978

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Indices Of Motion Sicknesssupporting

confidence: 75%

Influence of a Visual Display and Frequency of Whole-Body Angular Oscillation on Incidence of Motion Sickness.

Guedry¹,

Benson²,

Moore³

1978

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The diagnostic scale employed in this study was developed by a U.S. Navy research group (Graybiel et al, 1968) and has been used extensively by researchers in this field (Cowings et al, 1986;Cowings et al, 1990;Cowings & Toscano, 1982;Lentz & Guedry, 1978). It consists of easy-to-understand questions regarding specific symptoms experienced, which are later subjected to a standardized scoring method that allows comparisons across many studies and environmental conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of the command and Control Vehicle (C2V) operational environment on soldier health and performance

Cowings¹,

Toscano²,

Deroshia³

et al. 1999

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. AbstractThe command and control vehicle (C2V) was developed to support U.S. Army tactical operation centers in heavy forces. The requirements for the C2V stipulate that it must support mobile operations and that it must support command and control (C2) from within the confines of the vehicle. However, in early testing, some human operators exhibited motion sickness during moving operations. As a result, the Human Research and Engineering Directorate of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, in cooperation with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Life Sciences Division, was directed to perform a study to quantify the incidence and severity of motion sickness and any associated performance decrement. The study would discriminate between motion effects in the C2V in parked, moving, and short halt in each seat in three seat configurations.Twenty-four soldiers were exposed to each of 12 seats (four seats in three vehicle configurations) for a 4-hour "cell." During a cell, subjects completed a motion sickness and mood scale and the Delta cognitive battery. Half the subjects were also instrumented to record physiological correlates of motion sickness. Each cell included an initial (parked) administration of the test batteries followed by two test batteries while moving and three test batteries during short halts.Fifty-five percent of the subjects reported an average motion sickness score, indicating moderate to severe symptoms. Symptoms were not mitigated by short halts. One subject was withdrawn from the study because of severe and persistent symptoms.Performance was significantly worse during moving operations than in parked, with a partial recovery during short halts. Performance degradation was comparable to blood alcohol equivalencies at or above 0.08% in 35% of the soldiers during movement and 22% during short halts.There was no significant difference between seat or vehicles in any of the measurements. CONTENTS

show abstract

“…Individuals with a strong susceptibility to one set of conflicting motion stimuli do not necessarily display an equal susceptibility to a different set of motion stimuli (6) .. If a single laboratory test of motion sickness susceptibility is to'be used as a selection device, the specific set of conflicting motion stimuli should closely approximate stimuli encountered in the operational environment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%