Objectives: To determine whether human exposure to vehicle motion specifically affects performance on a similar, yet uncorrelated, driving task and to observe the motion/simulator sickness symptoms that were associated with the real vehicle motion and the driving task. Background: Past research has shown uncoupled motion can affect a person's performance on a task as well as induce motion sickness. Methods: Ten participants (age range = 19-25 years) completed an uncorrelated driving task while seated in a stationary real vehicle and a moving real vehicle. Results: The results show participants took longer to complete the motion condition, t(9) = 1.96, p < .05, and were less accurate, t(9) = 3.73, p < .05. Scores for the Motion Sickness Assessment Questionnaire, t(9) = 3.37, p < .05, and the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, t(9) = 3.30, p < .05, were significantly higher during the motion condition. Conclusions: Performance on the task was degraded and motion sickness heightened during the motion condition. Application: This research has potential implications for military-related tasks such as operating a command and control station or controlling a remote vehicle while simultaneously being a passenger in a real vehicle, as well as for civilian applications such as interacting with a moving map navigation system while driving a car.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Cowings, P. S., Toscano, W. B., DeRoshia, C., & Tauson, R. (2000). Effects of command and control vehicle (C2V) operational environment on soldier health and performance (NASA/TM-2000-208786), Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
2.
Crossland, P., & Lloyd, A.R.J.M. (1993). Experiments to quantify the effects of ship motions on crew task performance - Phase I, motion induced interruptions and motion induced fatigue (DRA/AWMH/ TR/93025). Farnborough, UK: Defense Research Agency.
3.
Gianaros, P. J., Muth, E. R., Mordkoff, J. T., Levine, M. E., & Stern, R. M. (2001). A questionnaire for the assessment of the multiple dimensions of motion sickness. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 72, 115–119.
4.
Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M. G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 203–220.
5.
Lawson, B. D., & Mead, A. M. (1998). The sopite syndrome revisited: Drowsiness and mood changes during real or apparent motion. Acta Astronautica, 43(3-6), 181–192.
6.
McLeod, P., Poulton, C., Du Ross, H., & Lewis, W. (1980) The influence of ship motion on manual control skills. Ergonomics, 23, 623–634.
7.
Miller, K. E., & Muth, E. R. (2004). Efficacy of acupressure and acustimulation bands for the prevention of motion sickness. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75, 227–234.
8.
Muth, E. R., & Brooks, J. (2002, September-October). User considerations in virtual environments. Talk presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD.
9.
Muth, E. R., & Lawson, B. (2003). Using flight simulators aboard ships: Human side effects of an optimal scenario with smooth seas. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 74, 497–505.
10.
Probst, T., & Schmidt, U. (1998). The sensory conflict concept for the generation of nausea. Journal of Psychophysiology, 12(Suppl. 1), 34–49.
11.
Reason, J. T., & Brand, J. J. (1975). Motion sickness. London: Academic Press.
12.
Wertheim, A. H. (1998). Working in a moving environment. Ergonomics, 41, 1845–1858.
13.
Wertheim, A. H., Heus, R., & Vrijkotte, T. G. M. (1995). Human energy expenditure, task performance and sea sickness during simulated ship movements (IZF-1993-B-10). Soesterberg, Netherlands: TNO Human Factors Research Institute.
14.
Wientjes, C. J. E., & Bles, W. (1989). Situational awareness and vestibular stimulation: The influence of rotational movement on task performance (IZF 1989-14). Soesterberg, Netherlands: TNO Human Factors Research Institute.
