Twenty-four healthy men, 22 to 25 years of age, were exposed to stressful accelerations in a rotating room until acute mild motion sickness was elicited. Thirteen subjects in one group were exposed first with eyes open and later with eyes covered; the reverse order was used with the remaining eleven in the other group. The stressful accelerations were generated by requiring the subject to execute 120 standardized head movements at each 1-rpm increase in angular velocity until the desired endpoint was reached. When susceptibility to motion sickness with eyes open and covered is compared, 19 subjects were more susceptible with eyes open, three with eyes covered, and in the remaining two susceptibility was the same. The maximum difference in velocity between trial 1 and 2 was 7 rpm when susceptibility was greater with eyes open and 3 rpm when it was greater with eyes covered; the means, respectively, were 3.2 and 2.0 rpm. Among subjects manifesting greater susceptibility with eyes open than covered the group differences were small, indicating little or no adaptation effects. The findings are discussed mainly on the basis that vision may act also to decrease susceptibility under the stimulus conditions described

Cramer, D. B.

Graybiel, A.

Oosterveld, W. J.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

JAMRU1149
THE INFLUENCE OF VISION ON SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ACUTE MOTION SICKNESS
STUDIED UNDER QUANTIFIABLE STIMULUS-RESPONSE CONDITIONS
Wilhelmus J. Oosterveld, Ashron Graybiel, and D. Bryant Cramer
CASE FILEc
 COPY
NAVAL AEROSRftCE MEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
November 1971
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION tuuittuted.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19720008353 2020-03-11T18:45:30+00:00Z
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
THE INFLUENCE OF VISION ON SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ACUTE MOTION SICKNESS
STUDIED UNDER QUANTIFIABLE STIMULUS-RESPONSE CONDITIONS
Wilhelmus J. Oosterveld, Ashton Graybiel, and D. Bryant Cramer
Order No. L-43518
Office of Advanced Research and Technology
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
17 November 1971
Released by
Captain N. W. Allebach, MC USN
Officer in Charge
Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory
Naval Aerospace Medical Institute
Naval Aerospace Medical Center
Pensacola, Florida 32512
SUMMARY PAGE
THE PROBLEM
Twenty-four healthy men, 22 to 25 years of age, were exposed to stressful accel-
erations in a rotating room until acute mild motion sickness was elicited. Thirteen
subjects in one group were exposed first with eyes open and later with eyes covered;
the reverse order was used with the remaining eleven in the other group. The stressful
accelerations were generated by requiring the subject to execute 120 standardized head
movements at each 1-rpm increase in angular velocity until the desired endpoint was
reached. This endpoint was 12 units on a scale where a score of 15 points represented
the highest level of mild motion sickness and a score of 16, the lowest level of frank
motion sickness. In the 48 experimental trials the average was 12.2 points when the
endpoint was reached, and the range was 10 to 16 points. Thus, the terminal angular
velocity required to achieve a given endpoint furnished a single value for comparing
susceptibility between and among subjects; the range was 4 to 14 rpm.
FINDINGS
When susceptibility to motion sickness with eyes open and covered is compared, 19
subjects were more susceptible with eyes open, three with eyes covered, and in the re-
maining two susceptibility was the same. The maximum difference in velocity between
trial 1 and 2 was 7 rpm when susceptibility was greater with eyes open and 3 rpm when
it was greater with eyes covered; the means, respectively, were 3.2 and 2.0 rpm. Among
subjects manifesting greater susceptibility with eyes open than covered the group differ-
ences were small, indicating little or no adaptation effects. The findings are discussed
mainly on the basis that vision may act also to decrease susceptibility under the stimulus
conditions described.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Grateful acknowledgment is extended to personnel of the Navy Medical Corps who
assisted in carrying out this study.
Dr. Oosterveld's present address is University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
ii
INTRODUCTION
There is general agreement that the vestibular organs are essential to the genesis
of motion sickness and that vision is an important secondary etiological factor that tends
to increase or decrease susceptibility, sometimes to a striking degree. Money (1) has
recently reviewed the literature dealing both with the role of vision in the elicitation
of motion sickness and with the elicitation of symptoms characteristic of motion sickness
in the absence of motion, and it is apparent that 1) the independent role of vision in
causing symptoms characteristic of motion sickness is small by comparison with that of
the role of vestibular system, and 2) few-syctormo studies have been conducted. The re-
port to follow deals with the influence of vision on susceptibility to motion sickness in a
slow rotation room (SRR) whereon the experimenter has excellent control over the stress-
ful accelerations, and collaboration between subject and observers, in grading levels of
severity of motion sickness, is facilitated.
Previous studies dealing with the influence of vision in the elicitation of motion
sickness and involving slow rotation rooms fall into two categories. One involves vision
and absence of vision under otherwise similar circumstances in the SRR and the other, a
comparison of susceptibility (in the same subjects) with eyes open in the SRR and eyes
covered when exposed to similar accelerative stimuli in rotating chairs. Among studies
in the first category the most relevant (2) involved comparisons between blind and sighted
subjects and comparisons in the latter group between eyes open and eyes covered. Sig-
nificant differences in susceptibility between blind and sighted subjects (with eyes cov-
ered)were not found, but 10 of 12 sighted subjects were found to be more susceptible to
motion sickness with eyes open than with eyes covered.
Although the main objective of studies in the second category was not a comparison
between the subjects' susceptibility to motion in a rotating chair (with their eyes cov-
ered) and rotating room (with their eyes open), such comparisons may be made in studies
where the subjects executed similar head movements in both devices (3,4). The findings
show that considerably higher velocities of the chair (nearly twofold greater) were re-
quired to reach the endpoint, creating the impression that susceptibility was far higher
with eyes covered than with eyes open.
PROCEDURE
SUBJECTS
Twenty-five healthy men, 22 to 25 years of age, served as subjects. Subjects
participated only if they had been in their usual state of fitness for 7 days prior to test-
ing, had not taken drugs (including alcohol) for at least 24 hours, and had not suffered
from lack of sleep the previous night. There was one abort, however, in the experiment
when one subject showed a sudden increase in severity of symptoms (avalanche phenome-
non). This necessitated discontinuance of his tests, and he was excused from further
participation, leaving 24 subjects who completed the study.
THE STRESS PROFILE
The stressful accelerations were generated by having the subject actively rotate his
head (and body) out of the plane of the room's rotation. The head movements were
executed while the subject was seated on a specially designed chair that had adjustable
pads (front, back, left, and right) acting as "stops" limiting the head movements in four
quadrants; in the present experiment the stops permitted head rotation through arcs of
90 degrees. Eight head movements, "bend" and "return," in the four quadrants were
randomized, and a taped recording set the cadence at one movement every 2 seconds.
The stress profile is shown in Figure 1. Beginning at 1 rpm, 120 head movements were
executed at each incremental step of 1 rpm (with 60-second pauses between steps) until
the desired endpoint was reached. The terminal velocity at endpoint was used as a
score that measured interindividual and intraindividual differences in susceptibility to
motion sickness.
THE MOTION SICKNESS ENDPOINT
The criteria used in estimating the levels of severity of motion sickness symptoms
have been described in detail elsewhere (5). The endpoint chosen here was 12 points on
a scale where 15 points represented the highest level of mild motion sickness and 16
points, the lowest level of frank motion sickness. The problem was to minimize under-
shooting or overshooting the endpoint, and this sometimes required a decision whether
to '"go" for the next higher rpm.
OPERATIONAL PLAN
Each subject was tested individually on two occasions separated by a period of at
least two days. Group A (13 subjects) were exposed first with eyes open, then with
eyes covered by an opaque patch; the order was reversed for the remaining 11 subjects
(Group B). The only factor in selection was keeping the groups about equal in size.
All of the instructions regarding the execution of head movements during the test were
provided by playing the taped recording. During the 1-minute interval between steps
there was ample opportunity to evaluate the motion sickness symptomatology.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results are summarized in Table I. The endpoint was achieved in the 24 sub-
jects within the range of 10 to 16 points, and the mean was 12.2 points. When suscep-
tibility to motion sickness with eyes open and covered is compared, 19 subjects were
more susceptible with their eyes open, 3 were more susceptible with their eyes covered,
and in 2 susceptibility was the same under each condition. The terminal velocity at
endpoint for the 24 subjects when their eyes were open ranged from 4 rpm to 14 rpm with
a mean of 7.3, and, with eyes covered, ranged from 6 rpm to 13 rpm with a mean of
9.6 rpm. The mean difference between the two conditions was 2.3 rpm.
Group A contained the three subjects who manifested greater susceptibility with
their eyes covered and Group B included the two subjects who manifested the same
susceptibility with their eyes open and covered. Leaving these five subjects out of
account, the group differences were very small, and there was no evidence of an order
effect; i.e., the mean difference in rpm between trial 1 (eyes open) and 2 (eyes cov-
ered) for Group A was +3.2 rpm, and between trial 1 (eyes covered) and trial 2 (eyes
open)for Group B was -3.1 rpm. The differences in rpm between trial 1 and 2 for the
three subjects with greater susceptibility with their eyes covered were -1 rpm, -2 rpm,
and -3 rpm. It is worth noting that these differences were exceeded in only 8 of 19
subjects manifesting greater susceptibility with their eyes open. The explanation is not
to be found in lower endpoint scores; the largest individual difference was only 2 points
on the scale. Subjects may differ in susceptibility from time to time, but if this ex-
planation is used, then it also applies to the 11 additional subjects with differences
in terminal velocity at endpoint between trial 1 and 2 no greater than 3 rpm. Even if
we are dealing with intraindividual differences, which seems unlikely, the findings
point to the need to look for unknown secondary etiological factors of greater signifi-
cance than vision. If we are measuring mainly interindividual differences, then we
cannot avoid invoking qualitative as well as quantitative differences in the role played
by vision. A striking example of this curious behavior is seen in the changes in sus-
ceptibility that occur on transition into weightlessness (6), some persons becoming far
more and others far less susceptible to motion sickness than under ground-based condi-
tions.
CONCLUSIONS
The impression (2) that susceptibility to motion sickness with eyes open on the SRR
was far higher than with eyes covered (chair) was not confirmed by the findings in the
present study. The finding that five subjects (21 percent) either demonstrated the same
or higher susceptibility with eyes covered than open receives a little support from the
earlier study in the SRR when 2 in a group of 12 subjects were found to be more sus-
ceptible with eyes open than covered.
Elucidation of the role of vision in the elicitation of motion sickness is worth pur-
suing both from the practical and theoretical point of view. The highly standardized
experimental conditions permitting quantification of stimulus and response in the present
experiment took into account visual and vestibular factors, but subtle factors such as
covert physiological, psychological, and even pathological factors still remain as pos-
sible, if minor, factors of etiologic significance.
O(1)
O)
c
I
a
(Uc
_0
CO
E
o
o
U
<
£
D.
(1)
U
v*
D
CO
c
o
>
M-
O
•4-
0
CO
Q_
1
0
•^
Q.
O
.C _g
"C CM
. 4-
£ jl °$
5 g- —
c
8,
o
trt
D
X O
LU CO jj
CM 2 O
CO
^ 0 .£
I fet
LU LU
-O <D
£ £ o
<U .5 U
> CO
0
u
<8 "5 .£
"~ a; c
.5 m
<^5 15"
Q. =
x ">
LU
c "o
» =CM
-oQ S-1"
0)
V
0
U £
v* Jp
*/> -<— O
a> S o
X CO
LU
]o
^ o .£
si 5 8.
Q. Q- -D
x a: c
UJ UJ
c co £
I) 5 0Q. •*• 0o ^
Wl
1^ O.|
•" S Q-
O IV* ^
•— piL.t—
53 .J.Q. <i
X 3
LU l/>
_
CM CM ^" ^~ 'O ^ CO CO "^ _^
1
 1
•
O
• ^ f C O L O O O l O C O ' ^ - C O C M
t— ^ w— •— t— ^ r- ^ ^
&.
N . r x o o L o r x o o - o o . u " ) ' 0
D^
O C O C M C M l O - ^ - C O C O C O
I— ^— ^— t— r~— r— ^— ^— r—
o
O O . C M O C M C M O C M o 2
"~
 >'
O
• • ^ f i o o o o - — • ^ • L D O - ^ I - C O
o •— •— i— •— CM _
uedo ssXa i|4iM J34D3J6 X4|||qi4deosn5
CM
- ^ 1 - p — C M C O - ^ - t X ^ - C O C M C M f O
O
O C M - i — C O C O C M ^ t - O C O T j -
^^^^
O
O I X O ' ™ - ' — C M O O O O C O C M o
t
O^
C M O C M C O C O C O - ^ ) - - — ^ - C O
i— i— •— i— t— • — • — • — , — •—
00
l o o i - v o o i v i O ' ^ - i n i — o " °
p— f-*.
D
o — c o o r x o c M c o o o o — " ^
• % _ — • — - - ^ C M C N o
,^
uedo sa/a IUIM J34D3J6 /4i|iqi4d3osng
IO
o o CM'
'•
D
•— LO
*~ ^
rv o co ,s.'
* •
Q n
"
- t
• ^~
^CO O
0 0
rx co 3 *
— CM cv^ <-
suoiii puoo L 40P
jspun 3LUDS X4'i|iqj4daosn5
CM — CO CM
i
CM CM -O
"^ co rv co
o^
CM CM -*
*— r— I—
O
*o ^ o
"~ """ >
o
CM O CM "^
— CM CO
"
pejeAOO saXa i|
J94D3J6 X4i|iq|4de
CM
+
>
LO
•
>
O
iO
rx
.
>
o
X
CO
~
JIM
ojng
UJ
^ "*
•s t >§ o z o
S s I < *
^ITs o
+ 8 1 '5
0 u
cvj g; <»
s 11
o o >CM F i
8 SS
~~ "^— i **• uO ^ z
— So
O <>= 2
CVJ
— ,,^ 2 "
O ^
O 2
CVJ 13
— 2
CVJ *^
— ?
O 1
w *§
§
§
§
o m o m cCM — —
O
o ®
o £
O O D)
iti
CN "« TO
0
 -g ~
i S 1
_ o 0 4 - 3
P - 2 - o
o - *"8 •
"® uj S S-§
^ S a £
i - H §
O 5 0 C .E CN
" « S 1 -o o "
.S> '« "g 8§ ? ' IH.
O) 4) c * —
"fe p ®
"
 rt
 -s 1 1 -S
* H * '•§
•8 |^ |.^
a u u ™
-O S o > $i g
 c |
>
(wood Nouvioa wens)
REFERENCES
1. Money, K. E., Motion sickness. Physiol. Rev., 50:1-39, 1970.
2. Graybiel, A., Susceptibility to acute motion sickness in blind persons. Aerospace
Med., 4h 650-653, 1970.
3. Miller, E. F. II, and Graybiel, A., The semicircular canals as a primary etiological
factor in motion sickness. In: The Role of the Vestibular Organs in Space Ex-
ploration. NASA SP-187. "Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1970. Pp. 69-82.
4. Miller, E. F. II, and Graybiel, A., Motion sickness produced by head movement
as a function of rotational velocity. Aerospace Med., 41:1180-1184, 1970.
5. Graybiel, A., Wood, C. D., Miller, E. F. II, and Cramer, D. B., Diagnostic
criteria for grading the severity of acute motion sickness. Aerospace Med.,
39:453-455, 1968.
6. Miller, E. F. II, Graybiel, A., Kellogg, R. S., and O'Donnell, R. D., Motion
sickness susceptibility under weightless and hypergravity conditions generated
by parabolic flight. Aerospace Med., 40:862-868, 1969.
Security Classification
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R & D
(Security classification of title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when (he overall report is classified^
1. ORIGINATING A c Ti VI T Y (Corporate author)
Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory
Pensacola, Florida 32512
2a. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIF ICATION
Unclassified
2b. GROUP
N/A
3. REPORT TITLE
THE INFLUENCE OF VISION ON SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ACUTE MOTION SICKNESS STUDIED
UNDER QUANTIFIABLE STIMULUS-RESPONSE CONDITIONS.
4. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type of report and inclusive dates)
N/A
5. AUTHOR(S) (First name, middle initial, last name)
Wilhelmus J. Oosterveld, Ashton Graybiel, and D. Bryant Cramer
6. REPORT DA TE
17 November 1971
70. NO. OF REFS
8a. C O N T R A C T OR G R A N T NO.
NASA Order L-43518
b. PflOJEC T NO.
9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBERfS)
NAMRL-1149
96. OTHER REPORT NO(S) (Any other numbers that may be assigned
this report)
10. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Prepared for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
13. AB5-TRAC1twenty-four healthy men, 22 to 25 years of age, were exposed to stressful accelerations in a
rotating room until acute mild motion sickness was elicited. Thirteen subjects in one group were ex-
posed first with eyes open and later with eyes covered; the reverse order was used with the remaining
eleven in the other group. The stressful accelerations were generated by requiring the subject to
execute 120 standardized head movements at each 1-rpm increase in angular velocity until the de-
sired endpoint was reached. This endpoint was 12 units on a scale where a score of 15 points repre-
sented the highest level of mild motion sickness and a score of 16, the lowest level of frank motion
sickness. In the 48 experimental trials the average was 12.2 points when the endpoint was reached,
and the range was 10 to 16 points. Thus, the terminal angular velocity required to achieve a given
endpoint furnished a single value for comparing susceptibility between and among subjects; the range
was 4 to 14 rpm.
When susceptibility to motion sickness with eyes open and covered is compared, 19 subjects were
more susceptible with eyes open, three with eyes covered, and in the remaining two susceptibility
was the same. The maximum difference in velocity between trial 1 and 2 was 7 rpm when suscepti-
bility was greater with eyes open and 3 rpm when it was greater with eyes covered; the means, re-
spectively, were 3.2 and 2.0 rpm. Among subjects manifesting greater susceptibility with eyes open
than covered the group differences were small, indicating little or no adaptation effects. The find-
ings are discussed mainly on the basis that vision may act also to decrease susceptibility under the
stimulus conditions described.
DD
S/N 0101-807-6601
Unclassified
Security Classification
Unclassified
Security Classification
14.
KEY WO RDS
Vision
Motion sickness
Acceleration
Rotation
•x
LINK A
R O L E
LINK B LINK C
DD ,F°oRvM..1473 <B ACK) Unclassified
(PAGE 2) Security Classification


The influence of vision on susceptibility to acute motion sickness studied under quantifiable stimulus-response conditions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server