Evaluation of a Human–Machine Interface for Motion Sickness Mitigation Utilizing Anticipatory Ambient Light Cues in a Realistic Automated Driving Setting

Abstract

Motion sickness (MS) is a syndrome associated with symptoms like nausea, dizziness, and other forms of physical discomfort. Automated vehicles (AVs) are potent at inducing MS because users are not adapted to this novel form of transportation, are provided with less information about the own vehicle’s trajectory, and are likely to engage in non-driving related tasks. Because individuals with an especially high MS susceptibility could be limited in their use of AVs, the demand for MS mitigation strategies is high. Passenger anticipation has been shown to have a modulating effect on symptoms, thus mitigating MS. To find an effective mitigation strategy, the prototype of a human–machine interface (HMI) that presents anticipatory ambient light cues for the AV’s next turn to the passenger was evaluated. In a realistic driving study with participants (N = 16) in an AV on a test track, an MS mitigation effect was evaluated based on the MS increase during the trial. An MS mitigation effect was found within a highly susceptible subsample through the presentation of anticipatory ambient light cues. The HMI prototype was proven to be effective regarding highly susceptible users. Future iterations could alleviate MS in field settings and improve the acceptance of AVs.

Self-motion perception without sensory motion

“…Although our participants experienced similar levels of motion sickness in the two conditions, the reported percepts of oscillatory self-motion show some support for the existence of internal models. They may explain the effectiveness of anticipatory cues that communicate upcoming vehicle motion in reducing motion sickness (e.g., Diels and Bos 2021 ; Feenstra et al 2011 ; Hainich et al 2021 ; Kuiper et al 2020 ). Such cues allow for a more accurate prediction of self-motion, thereby minimizing a (potential) neural conflict and hence the development of motion sickness.…”

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

“…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.…”

“…Helping individuals to anticipate certain vehicle motions has shown to be a promising solution to mitigate motion sickness. This anticipation can be provided via anticipatory cues which alert occupants of changes in the upcoming motion trajectory via vision (Feenstra et al 2011 ; Hainich et al 2021 ; Karjanto et al 2018 ) or sound (Kuiper et al 2020a ; Diels and Bos 2021 ; Maculewicz et al 2021 ). However, visual cues sometimes aggravate a neural mismatch, provoking rather than mitigating motion sickness (Stauffert et al 2020 ; Karjanto et al 2021 ).…”

Meeting User Needs in Vehicle Automation

“…Addressing the user's NTU with regard to the AV's motions to prevent kinetosis (Hainich et al, 2021).…”

“…Method & Main Results. In a realistic driving study (Hainich et al, 2021) an iHMI concept that has already been tested in another context of use (Dziennus et al, 2016) was applied to provide the AV's user with transparency regarding the driving behavior of the automation. With the help of a LED light-band installed in the vehicle interior, an iHMI was realized with the aid of direction-resolved light signals.…”