Reclined Posture for Enabling Autonomous Driving

  • Dominique BohrmannEmail author
  • Klaus BenglerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1026)


As the future of mobility develops, automated vehicles (AV) will change road transportation and promise an improved quality of life. Within this development, however, the primary weakness, is the human per se. Due to physiological thresholds, many occupants react by developing symptoms of motion sickness (MS) when performing non-driving related tasks (NDRTs). This work describes approaches essential to mitigating MS with respect to interior design. Therefore, a real test-driving experiment with 25 volunteers was carried out at a test track in Sindelfingen. The effects of backrest angle and sitting direction were observed in consideration of predetermined NDRTs. The analysis showed that a reclined backrest angle leads to a significant (p < 0.0001) decrease in MS. Furthermore, the effect of seat direction appears likely to be less significant than the effect of backrest rotation. A second experiment was conducted on the Mercedes-Benz Ride Simulator in order to identify the acceptance of innovative sitting positions.


Human factors Autonomous driving Motion sickness Interior requirements Non-driving related tasks Sitting posture 


  1. 1.
    Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., de Winter, J.C.F.: Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. In: Transportation Research. Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 32, pp. 127–140 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mc Cauley, M.E., Sharkey, T.J.: Cybersickness: perception of self-motion in virtual environments. Presence 1(3), 311–3185 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diels, C., Bos, J.: Self driving carsickness. Appl. Ergon. 53, 374–382 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brickenkamp, R., Schmidt-Atzert, L., Liepmann, D.: d2-R: test d2-revision: Aufmerksamkeits- und Konzentrationstest. National Center for Biotechn. Information, Göttingen (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keshavarz, B., Hecht, H.: Validating an efficient method to quantify motion sickness. Hum. Factors 53(4), 415–426 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gianaros, P.J., Muth, E.R., Mordkoff, T., Levine, M.E., Stern, R.M.: A questionnaire for the assessment of the multiple dimensions of motion sickness. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 72(2), 115–119 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bos, J.E.: Less sickness with more motion and/or mental distraction. J. Vestib. Res.: Equilibr. Orient. 25(1), 23–33 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lamb, S., Kwok, K.C.S.: MSSQ-short norms may underestimate highly susceptible individuals: updating the MSSQ-short norms. Hum. Factors 57(4), 622–633 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bohrmann, D., Lehnert, K., Scholly, U., Bengler, K.: Der Mensch als bestimmender Faktor zukünftiger Mobilitätskonzepte. In: 34. VDI/VW-Gemeinschaftstagung Fahrerassistenzsysteme und automatisiertes Fahren, vol. 2335, pp. 345–359. VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bohrmann, D., Lehnert, K., Scholly, U., Bengler, K.: Kinetosis as a challenge of future mobility concepts and highly automated vehicles. In: 27th Aachen Colloquium Automobile and Engine Technology, Aachen, pp. 1309–1335 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salter, S., Diels, C., Herriotts, P., Kanarachosa, S., Thakea, D.: Motion sickness in automated vehicles with forward and rearward facing seating orientations. Appl. Ergon. 78, 54–61 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mercedes-Benz Technology CenterDaimler AGSindelfingenGermany
  2. 2.Chair of ErgonomicsTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations