Vection does not necessitate visually induced motion sickness

Vection, i.e. a visually induced illusory sense of self-motion, is assumed to play an essential role in visually induced motion sickness (VIMS). However, its precise role is unknown. Following the sensory conflict theory, a constant state of vection is not expected to lead to a visual-vestibular conflict whereas variability in vection, i.e. change in vection strength over time, would. In this study we investigated whether variability in vection rather than vection caused VIMS in participants exposed to constant optic flow using a head-mounted display. Strongest possible vection (i.e. 100% on a 0–100% scale) was reported by 16 out of 18 participants at some point during the experiment, with a total average vection score over the experiment of 58.6%. Initial motion sickness symptoms were reported by 15 out of 18 participants, although only averaging 1.78 on an 11-point scale. Neither average vection strength nor variability in vection were significantly correlated with motion sickness. Relating our findings to the literature, we argue that vection should be understood not as a direct cause of VIMS, but as a perceptual state still depending on other visual factors before VIMS occurs. Vection by itself, even if it is experienced strongly, does not necessitate VIMS.

[1]  J. Golding,et al.  Pathophysiology and treatment of motion sickness. , 2015, Current opinion in neurology.

[2]  Benoît G. Bardy,et al.  Visually Induced Motion Sickness Predicted by Postural Instability , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[3]  Cyriel Diels,et al.  Frequency Characteristics of Visually Induced Motion Sickness , 2013, Hum. Factors.

[4]  Jelte E. Bos,et al.  Theoretical considerations on canal–otolith interaction and an observer model , 2002, Biological Cybernetics.

[5]  L. Harris,et al.  Visual and non-visual cues in the perception of linear self motion , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  J. Golding.  Predicting individual differences in motion sickness susceptibility by questionnaire , 2006 .

[7]  C. L. Thornton,et al.  Relationship between perceptual style and simulator sickness. , 1968, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  E Brenner,et al.  Detecting Changes in One's Own Velocity from the Optic Flow , 1994, Perception.

[9]  M. Griffin,et al.  Eye movement, vection, and motion sickness with foveal and peripheral vision. , 2003, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[10]  T A Furness,et al.  The use of an independent visual background to reduce simulator side-effects. , 1999, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[11]  J. O'hanlon,et al.  Motion sickness incidence as a function of the frequency and acceleration of vertical sinusoidal motion. , 1973, Aerospace medicine.

[12]  Stephen Palmisano,et al.  Vertical display oscillation effects on forward vection and simulator sickness. , 2007, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[13]  Jelte E Bos,et al.  Motion sickness symptoms in a ship motion simulator: effects of inside, outside, and no view. , 2005, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[14]  J T Reason,et al.  Motion Sickness Adaptation: A Neural Mismatch Model 1 , 1978, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[15]  Richard H. Y. So,et al.  Isolating the Effects of Vection and Optokinetic Nystagmus on Optokinetic Rotation-Induced Motion Sickness , 2009, Hum. Factors.

[16]  Heiko Hecht,et al.  Vection is the main contributor to motion sickness induced by visual yaw rotation: Implications for conflict and eye movement theories , 2017, PloS one.

[17]  W. Bles,et al.  Modelling motion sickness and subjective vertical mismatch detailed for vertical motions , 1998, Brain Research Bulletin.

[18]  Julie M. Drexler,et al.  Research in visually induced motion sickness. , 2010, Applied ergonomics.

[19]  J. Golding,et al.  Impairment of spatial cognitive function with preservation of verbal performance during spatial disorientation , 2003, Current Biology.

[20]  Stephen A. Palmisano,et al.  Vection Change Exacerbates Simulator Sickness in Virtual Environments , 2008, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.

[21]  R. Barry,et al.  Future challenges for vection research: definitions, functional significance, measures, and neural bases , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[22]  Cyriel Diels,et al.  Visually induced motion sickness: Single- versus dual-axis motion , 2011, Displays.

[23]  Jennifer L. Campos,et al.  Vection and visually induced motion sickness: how are they related? , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[24]  Behrang Keshavarz,et al.  Illusory Self-motion in Virtual Environments , 2014 .

[25]  Kay M. Stanney,et al.  The psychometrics of cybersickness , 1997, CACM.

[26]  W. Bles,et al.  Motion sickness: only one provocative conflict? , 1998, Brain Research Bulletin.

[27]  M. Griffin,et al.  Optokinetic stimuli: motion sickness, visual acuity, and eye movements. , 2002, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[28]  C. Oman,et al.  Motion sickness: a synthesis and evaluation of the sensory conflict theory. , 1990, Canadian journal of physiology and pharmacology.

[29]  Jelte E. Bos,et al.  A theory on visually induced motion sickness , 2008, Displays.

[30]  Stephen Palmisano,et al.  The Oscillating Potential Model of Visually Induced Vection , 2017, i-Perception.

[31]  Behrang Keshavarz,et al.  Effect of Different Display Types on Vection and Its Interaction With Motion Direction and Field Dependence , 2017, i-Perception.

[32]  Jelte E. Bos,et al.  Interaction between Depth Order and Density Affects Vection and Postural Sway , 2015, PloS one.

[33]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. , 1993 .

[34]  Ian P Howard,et al.  The Contribution of Motion, the Visual Frame, and Visual Polarity to Sensations of Body Tilt , 1994, Perception.