This study aims to investigate the ability of auditory cues for predicting motion and lead times to mitigate visually induced motion sickness (VIMS).
Background
The vehicle information systems predominantly utilize visual displays, which can introduce conflicts between visual and vestibular motion cues, potentially resulting in VIMS. In these scenarios, auditory cues may provide a viable solution, especially when visual cues are diminished by fatigue or distractions.
Methods
In two distinct studies, a total of 180 participants were involved in investigating the impact of auditory cues on VIMS. In Study 1, participants were categorized based on the type of auditory cue they received (speech, nonspeech, or no-cue). Study 2 examined the effects of three different lead times (1 s, 2 s, and 3 s) between the activation of the auditory cue and the occurrence of car braking or turning in nonspeech conditions. VIMS severity was assessed with the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) before and after the simulation phase.
Results
Nonspeech cues significantly reduced VIMS compared to speech or no-cue. VIMS was notably lower with a 2 s lead time than with 1 s or 3 s lead times, and females reported higher levels of VIMS than males.
Conclusion
Results across two studies suggest using nonspeech cues with a 2-second lead time to reduce VIMS. It also recommends investigating the effects of duration, tone, and voice frequency. Furthermore, the study proposes extensive research into lead time settings for various scenarios such as driving fatigue, hillside roads, and traffic congestion.
Application
These findings offer potential value in designing auditory cues to reduce VIMS in autonomous driving, simulators, VR games, and films.
BeattieD.BaillieL.HalveyM. (2015). A comparison of artificial driving sounds for automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing (pp. 451–462). ACM.
2.
BlesW.BosJ. E.De GraafB.GroenE.WertheimA. H. (1998). Motion sickness: Only one provocative conflict?Brain Research Bulletin, 47(5), 481–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0361-9230(98)00115-4
3.
BosJ. E.BlesW. (1998). Modelling motion sickness and subjective vertical mismatch detailed for vertical motions. Brain Research Bulletin, 47(5), 537–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0361-9230(98)00088-4
4.
BosJ. E.BlesW. (2002). Theoretical considerations on canal-otolith interaction and an observer model. Biological Cybernetics, 86(3), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-001-0289-7
BosJ. E.MacKinnonS. N.PattersonA. (2005). Motion sickness symptoms in a ship motion simulator: Effects of inside, outside, and no view. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine, 76(12), 1111–1118.
7.
CampbellJ. L.RichmanJ.CarneyC. L. J. D. (2004) In-vehicle display icons and other information elements volume i: Guidelines. 1.
8.
CurryC.PetersonN.LiR.StoffregenT. A. (2020). Postural precursors of motion sickness in head-mounted displays: Drivers and passengers, women and men. Ergonomics, 63(12), 1502–1511. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1808713
9.
D’AmourS.BosJ. E.KeshavarzB. (2017). The efficacy of airflow and seat vibration on reducing visually induced motion sickness. Experimental Brain Research, 235(9), 2811–2820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5009-1
ErikssonA.StantonN. A. (2017). Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: Noncritical transitions to and from manual control. Human Factors, 59(4), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816685832
FagerlönnJ.LindbergS.SirkkaA. (2012). Graded auditory warnings during in-vehicle use: Using sound to guide drivers without additional noise. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (pp. 85–91). ACM.
FurrR. M. (2021). Psychometrics: An introduction. Sage publications.
16.
GoldC.DamböckD.LorenzL.BenglerK. (2013). “Take over!” how long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 57(1), 1938–1942. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571433
GonçalvesG.MeloM.BessaM. (2018). Virtual reality games: A study about the level of interaction vs. narrative and the gender in presence and cybersickness. In 2018 international conference on graphics and interaction (ICGI) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
19.
GrunfeldE.GrestyM. A. (1998). Relationship between motion sickness, migraine and menstruation in crew members of a “round the world” yacht race. Brain Research Bulletin, 47(5), 433–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0361-9230(98)00099-9
20.
HendricksK. A. (1990). Anti-motion sickness apparatus [U.S. Patent No. 4,929,228].
21.
HettingerL. J.RiccioG. E. (1992). Visually induced motion sickness in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(3), 306–310. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.3.306
KennedyR. S.LaneN. E.BerbaumK. S.LilienthalM. G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3
24.
KeshavarzB.HechtH. (2014). Pleasant music as a countermeasure against visually induced motion sickness. Applied Ergonomics, 45(3), 521–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.07.009
25.
KeshavarzB.StelzmannD.PaillardA.HechtH. (2015). Visually induced motion sickness can be alleviated by pleasant odors. Experimental Brain Research, 233(5), 1353–1364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4209-9
KoslucherF.HaalandE.StoffregenT. A. (2016). Sex differences in visual performance and postural sway precede sex differences in visually induced motion sickness. Experimental Brain Research, 234(1), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4462-y
LiY.LiuA.DingL. (2019). Machine learning assessment of visually induced motion sickness levels based on multiple biosignals. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 49(7), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2018.12.007
30.
MeloM.Vasconcelos-RaposoJ.BessaM. (2018). Presence and cybersickness in immersive content: Effects of content type, exposure time and gender. Computers & Graphics, 71(1), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2017.11.007
31.
OmanC. M. (1982). A heuristic mathematical model for the dynamics of sensory conflict and motion sickness. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 94(sup392), 4–44. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016488209108197
32.
OmanC. M. (1990). Motion sickness: A synthesis and evaluation of the sensory conflict theory. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 68(2), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1139/y90-044
33.
OmanC. M. (1998). Sensory conflict theory and space sickness: Our changing perspective. Journal of Vestibular Research: Equilibrium & Orientation, 8(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-1998-8107
34.
PaillardA. C.QuarckG.PaolinoF.DeniseP.PaolinoM.GoldingJ. F.Ghulyan-BedikianV. (2013). Motion sickness susceptibility in healthy subjects and vestibular patients: Effects of gender, age and trait-anxiety. Journal of Vestibular Research: Equilibrium & Orientation, 23(4-5), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-130501
35.
PropperR. E.BonatoF.WardL.SumnerK. (2018). Findings of an effect of gender, but not handedness, on self-reported motion sickness propensity. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 12(1), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-018-0121-4
36.
ReasonJ. T.BrandJ. J. (1975). Motion sickness. Academic Press.
37.
RiccioG. E.StoffregenT. A. (1991). An ecological theory of motion sickness and postural instability. Ecological Psychology, 3(3), 195–240. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0303_2
38.
RigbyJ. M.BrumbyD. P.GouldS. J.CoxA. L. (2017). Film, interrupted: Investigating how mobile device notifications affect immersion during movies. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (pp. 1–8). ACM.
39.
SawadaY.ItaguchiY.HayashiM.AigoK.MiyagiT.MikiM.KimuraT.MiyazakiM. (2020). Effects of synchronised engine sound and vibration presentation on visually induced motion sickness. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 7553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64302-y
40.
ScottJ.GrayR. (2008). A comparison of tactile, visual, and auditory warnings for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving. Human Factors, 50(2), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X250674
41.
SeagullF. J.XiaoY.MackenzieC. F.WickensC. D. (2000). Auditory alarms: From alerting to informing. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 44(1), 223–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004400160
YangX.WangD.HuH.YueK. (2016). P-31: Visual fatigue assessment and modeling based on ECG and EOG caused by 2D and 3D displays. SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, 47(1), 1237–1240.
45.
YoungM. S.StantonN. A. (2007). Back to the future: Brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Ergonomics, 50(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600980789
46.
ZhangB.De WinterJ.VarottoS.HappeeR.MartensM. (2019). Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: A meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 64(1), 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.020
47.
ZhangX.KeX.ZhangL.JiangJ.WangY. (2022). Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the simulator sickness questionnaire in college students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 36(1), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2022.01.011
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
