Studies of motion sickness: XVI. The effects upon sickness rates of waves of various frequencies but identical acceleration.

Abstract

This is the last of a series of investigations done by means of the vertical accelerator at Wesleyan University. 2 It was designed to discover how motion sickness rates are affected by wave frequency when the accelerations in the waves are held fixed. Using waves with a constant acceleration of 0.20 g, frequency was controlled by control of the duration of application of upward and downward accelerations. By this means wave frequencies of 13, 16, 22 and 32 cycles per min. were obtained, having amplitudes of 9 feet, 5 feet 4 in., 2 feet 6 in., and I foot i in. These frequencies are the same as were used in previous studies in this series, where time between accelerations, level of acceleration and other aspects of the waves were varied. Other significant variables were counterbalanced or controlled. The results on 120 Ss showed that sickness varied with the energy per wave; the biggest wave produced the most sickness, the smallest wave the least. The obtained sickness rates were 37, 37, 10 and 7 percent in going from the large slow wave to the small fast wave.

The effects of 0.2Hz varying latency with 20–100ms varying amplitude on simulator sickness in a helmet mounted display

“…No previous studies exist regarding the relationship between frequency of latency and SS in an HMD. Previous research regarding frequency of motion in real world situations [1,9,[10][11][12][13][14] indicate that exposure to low frequencies between 0.1 Hz and 1.0 Hz can be sickening.…”

“…The observed latency drift varied at frequencies from 0.5 to 1.0 Hz with amplitude of approximately 20-100 ms. These frequencies fall within the same range known to provoke MS using horizontal oscillations [9][10][11] and vertical oscillations [1,[12][13][14] in non-VE, real world environments. It was hypothesized that varying latency due to head tracker error may explain the differences in findings regarding SS associations with latency in head tracked HMDs vs. non head tracked HMDs.…”

Relations Between Motion Sickness Susceptibility, the Spiral After‐effect and Loudness Estimation

“…In the first place, it is tempting to theorize that individual proneness to motion sickness is to some extent determined by the characteristic level of sensory response elicited by a given quantity of effective motion stimulation. This idea that susceptibility is linked to the idiosyncratic coding of motion intensity receives some support from the experimental observation (Alexander et al, 1947) that, amongst a group of subjects, the incidence of 'sickness' increases as a function of the amplitude of the imposed wave-form. It can be argued, therefore, that highly susceptible individuals 'receive ' sufficient stimulation to trigger the symptoms of motion sickness at relatively mild levels of intensity, whilst less susceptible individuals require greater physical intensity levels to evoke the same condition.…”

Virtual Reality Is Sexist: But It Does Not Have to Be

“…• Off-vertical axis rotation (visual OVAR; e.g., rollercoaster wraparounds, spinning track), as OVAR can be expected to lead to extreme levels of nauseogenicity (Golding et al, 2009); • Variable velocity, forward acceleration, and vertical acceleration via humps in the track that provided visual oscillation, as these motions are known to be provocative (Alexander et al, 1947;Lawther and Griffin, 1986); • High level of optic flow (implemented via movement through support structures, maintenance gangways, ground tunnels, and other visual details), which tends to drive visually induced motion sickness (Smart et al, 2014);…”