Chewing gum reduces visually induced motion sickness

Katharina De Coninck,Mara Kaufeld,Heiko Hecht,Jennifer Schmidt

doi:10.1007/s00221-021-06303-5

Abstract

Visually induced motion sickness (VIMS) is a common side-effect of exposure to virtual reality (VR). Its unpleasant symptoms may limit the acceptance of VR technologies for training or clinical purposes. Mechanical stimulation of the mastoid and diverting attention to pleasant stimuli-like odors or music have been found to ameliorate VIMS. Chewing gum combines both in an easy-to-administer fashion and should thus be an effective countermeasure against VIMS. Our study investigated whether gustatory-motor stimulation by chewing gum leads to a reduction of VIMS symptoms. 77 subjects were assigned to three experimental groups (control, peppermint gum, and ginger gum) and completed a 15-min virtual helicopter flight, using a VR head-mounted display. Before and after VR exposure, we assessed VIMS with the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ), and during the virtual flight once every minute with the Fast Motion Sickness Scale (FMS). Chewing gum (peppermint gum: M = 2.44, SD = 2.67; ginger gum: M = 2.57, SD = 3.30) reduced the peak FMS scores by 2.05 (SE = 0.76) points as compared with the control group (M = 4.56, SD = 3.52), p < 0.01, d = 0.65. Additionally, taste ratings correlated slightly negatively with both the SSQ and the peak FMS scores, suggesting that pleasant taste of the chewing gum is associated with less VIMS. Thus, chewing gum may be useful as an affordable, accepted, and easy-to-access way to mitigate VIMS in numerous applications like education or training. Possible mechanisms behind the effect are discussed.

Highlights

Virtual reality (VR) technologies and the use of headmounted displays (HMD) are growing in popularity for a variety of applications, including entertainment, education, and emergency response training (see, e.g., Ahir et al 2020; Communicated by Bill J Yates.The study was pre-registered with https://aspredicted.org/ (Identifier #41329).Caserman et al 2018; Grabowski and Jankowski 2015; Hartmann and Fox 2020; Kinateder et al 2014)
We found no significant differences among the groups with regard to age [F(2,74) = 0.98, p = 0.382], gender [χ2(2) = 0.41, p = 0.814], and Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire (MSSQ) scores [F(2,74) = 1.22, p = 0.301]
A one-way ANOVA on the pre-Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) scores with group as between-subjects factor revealed no significant differences between the groups for the subscales nausea, F(2, The mixed ANOVA on the SSQ scores yielded significant main effects of time for all subscales [Nausea: F(1, 74) = 27.16, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.27, Oculomotor: F(1, 74) = 9.98, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.12, Disorientation: F(1, 74) = 28.49, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.28], and the total score (F(1, 74) = 27.54, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.27), indicating that SSQ scores were higher after virtual reality (VR) exposure than before

Summary

Introduction

Virtual reality (VR) technologies and the use of headmounted displays (HMD) are growing in popularity for a variety of applications, including entertainment, education, and emergency response training (see, e.g., Ahir et al 2020; Communicated by Bill J Yates.The study was pre-registered with https://aspredicted.org/ (Identifier #41329).Caserman et al 2018; Grabowski and Jankowski 2015; Hartmann and Fox 2020; Kinateder et al 2014). Many users experience mild or severe motion sickness symptoms, such as nausea, disorientation, or oculomotor difficulties (Kennedy et al 1993; Moss and Muth 2011). If these symptoms are not triggered by physical motion alone, but rather involve visual stimuli at odds with the other senses, this malaise is referred to as visually induced motion sickness (VIMS) (for an overview, see Bronstein et al 2020; Caserman et al 2021; Golding and Gresty 2015; Keshavarz et al 2014) or as cybersickness. The Bárány Society developed more specific diagnostic criteria for motion sickness and VIMS regarding various adverse reactions and their occurrence, duration, and remission (see Cha et al 2021)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion