A Preliminary Investigation Into The Effect Of Nauseogenic Vection And Whole‐Body Heating On Motion Sickness Severity: A Combined And Individual Stressors Approach

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe use of virtual reality for training, medical and recreational applications is limited by the side effects of prolonged exposure to vection. Secondary factors such as environmental temperature may be crucial in modulating the onset and severity of these side effects. To understand the role of environmental temperature in modulating nausea in virtual reality, this preliminary investigation explored the differential impacts of ambient temperature and vection on motion sickness severity using an individual and combined stressors approach.METHODSThirteen healthy individuals (eight female, five male, 24.8 ± 3.1 yrs) watched a 22 min pre‐recorded driving simulator video in four different conditions, which included: 1) Computer screen in a neutral temperature of 22°C, 50% rH; 2) Virtual reality in a neutral temperature of 22°C, 50% rH; 3) Computer screen in a hot temperature of 35°C, 50% rH; 4) Virtual reality in a hot temperature of 35°C, 50% rH. Subjective measures for visually induced motion sickness were explored using the fast motion sickness scale (FMS; 0–20 visual analogue scale) and the simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ) both during and following exposure to each condition. To explore the effect of vection and whole‐body heating on physiological indices of motion sickness, local sweat rate (via ventilated sweat capsules), rectal temperature, skin blood flow (via laser Doppler flowmetry), skin temperature, blood pressure and heart rate were examined.RESULTSThe results from FMS ratings indicate that, when taken independently, vection significantly increased sickness severity (computer screen, 0.6 ± 0.8 vs. virtual reality, 4.3 ± 3.1; p<0.001), with an onset time of ~3.5 mins across VR trials. A significant independent influence of ambient temperature was also observed on FMS ratings (neutral conditions, 2.1 ± 2.3 vs. hot conditions, 2.8 ± 3.4; p=0.04). However, no interaction between vection and ambient temperature was observed (p=0.2), indicating an additive response between factors. The SSQ ratings immediately following each trial paralleled FMS observations, demonstrating significant independent main effects for vection (p<0.001) and ambient temperature (p=0.009) on reported motion sickness severity, yet without interaction (p=0.07). No main effects were seen in SSQ rating 2 hrs post trials. Local sweat rate, skin temperature, and heart rate each increased (p<0.03) with whole‐body heating (17.4 ± 10.5 ml.m−2.hr−1; 2.7 ± 6.5 °C; 4.1 ± 9.0 bpm), but were not affected by vection (p>0.6); furthermore, with no interactions observed (p>0.4). No main effects were observed for blood flow, mean arterial pressure or rectal temperature (p>0.1).CONCLUSIONThis preliminary study shows no interaction between ambient temperature and a mild‐moderate vection stimulus on motion sickness severity. Investigations into true motion, responders and non‐responders, as well as stimulus strength, may better highlight any interactions that may exist in this area.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.