2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10010-021-00441-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of dynamic stimulation, visual perception and individual susceptibility to car sickness during controlled stop-and-go driving

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This result illustrates that although APMVs are driven at a lower speed than vehicles, their passengers also have a high risk of motion sickness when it frequently avoids obstacles or other pedestrians. However, many other studies have reported that passengers are prone to motion sickness when using cars [40], [41], [42]. or other vehicles, such as vessels [43], [44], and aircrafts [45], we reported unprecedented results of motion sickness in passengers when using miniaturized autonomous vehicles, such as APMV.…”
Section: Discussion a Reported Miscmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…This result illustrates that although APMVs are driven at a lower speed than vehicles, their passengers also have a high risk of motion sickness when it frequently avoids obstacles or other pedestrians. However, many other studies have reported that passengers are prone to motion sickness when using cars [40], [41], [42]. or other vehicles, such as vessels [43], [44], and aircrafts [45], we reported unprecedented results of motion sickness in passengers when using miniaturized autonomous vehicles, such as APMV.…”
Section: Discussion a Reported Miscmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…These 17 subjects were classified according to the described pre-experimental self-report of general motion sickness susceptibility according to Brietzke et al ( 2021a ) as follows: Six participants answered “never” and were classified as non-susceptible to motion sickness, while 11 participants answered other than “never” and were classified as susceptible. From the total cohort, eight (out of 17, 47%) experienced nausea symptoms, while the remaining nine (out of 17, 53%), including both non-susceptible and susceptible participants, did not experience nausea symptoms.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the end of the ride, two questions related to the documentary had to be answered to keep the participant focused. For more details on the experimental setup, see Brietzke et al ( 2021a , b ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, and Kuiper et al (2018) evaluated the impact on motion sickness with passengers using head-down versus head-up displays and found that the presence of peripheral vision afforded by head-up display configurations resulted in significantly lower levels of sickness. Similarly, Brietzke et al (2021) reported motion sickness levels twice as high when watching a movie using a head-down display compared to looking out of the vehicle. Salter et al (2019) showed that rearward facing seating arrangements that prevent the passenger from seeing the road ahead led to significantly elevated levels of motion sickness compared to conventional forward facing seating arrangements.…”
Section: Visionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…In addition, there is a proliferation of self-styled questionnaires and rating scales to, for example, accommodate cultural and language factors (e.g. Jones et al 2018;Brietzke et al, 2021). While acknowledging the desire to innovate assessment methods and respond to study-or population-specific needs, at this stage, this variability in assessment and evaluation methods is hampering comparisons across studies and our understanding of motion sickness.…”
Section: Motion Sickness Assessment and Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%