Advertisement

VR Evaluation of Motion Sickness Solution in Automated Driving

  • Quinate Chioma Ihemedu-Steinke
  • Prashanth Halady
  • Gerrit Meixner
  • Michael Weber
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10909)

Abstract

The sensory conflict theory describes the occurrence of motion sickness caused by the discrepancy between the motion felt and the motion visually perceived. During driving, drivers monitor the environment while performing driving tasks, this enables them to get the visual perception of the motion felt. Visual cues help drivers to anticipate the direction of movement and thus, eliminate confusion, which could lead to anxiety, and thus motion sickness. Occupants of highly automated vehicles will have the luxury of performing activities such as reading or interacting with their mobile devices while the system performs the driving tasks. However, if the passenger takes his eyes off the surrounding traffic environment, sensory conflict is likely to occur. We implemented a concept in virtual reality to prevent motion sickness during automated driving based on a split screen technology. A part of the screen shows a video capture of the car surrounding in real time, while the other part is free to be used for individual applications. This additional data enables visual cues, which makes it possible to monitor the direction of movement of the vehicle. This minimizes sensory conflict and prevents motion sickness. An experiment was conducted with fourteen participants on a virtual reality automated driving simulator with an integrated motion platform. The result shows that the video streaming of the horizon presented to the passengers on a display helps them to feel comfortable and also reduced motion sickness during automated driving.

Keywords

Virtual reality Automated driving Motion sickness Driving simulator Visual cues Sensory conflict 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Vincent Musch for his contribution during the virtual prototype development and the user evaluation experience. Our appreciation also goes to Martina Deininger and Kerstin Mayr for their contributions. This motion sickness solution in automated vehicle has been registered as a patent in Germany by Robert Bosch GmbH.

References

  1. 1.
    Reason, J.T., Brand, J.J.: Motion Sickness. Academic Press, London (1975)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oman, C.M.: Motion sickness: a synthesis and evaluation of the sensory conflict theory. Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 68(2), 294–303 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ihemedu-Steinke, Q.C., et al.: Simulation sickness related to virtual reality driving simulation. In: Human Computer Interaction International 2017, Vancouver (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diels, C., Bos, J.E.: User interface considerations to prevent self-driving carsickness. In: AutomotiveUI 2015 Adjunct, Nottingham (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hars, A.: Autonomous cars: the next revolution looms. In: Inventivio Innovation Briefs 2010-01, Nuremberg (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sivak, M., Schoettle, B.: Motion sickness in self-driving vehicles. Michigan (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miksch, M., et al.: Motion sickness prevention system (MSPS) – reading between the lines. In: AutomotiveUI 2016, Michigan (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Green, P.: Motion Sickness and Concerns for Self-Driving Vehicles: A Literature Review. Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), The University of Michigan, Michigan (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Onuki, Y., Ono, S., Kumazawa, I.: Air cushion: a pilot study of the passive technique to mitigate simulator sickness by responding to vection. In: IEEE Virtual Reality 2017, Los Angeles, CA (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuipera, O.X., Bosa, J.E., Cyriel, D.: Looking forward: in-vehicle auxiliary display positioning affects carsickness. Appl. Ergon. 68, 169–175 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morimoto, A., Isu, N., Okumura, T., Araki, Y., Kawa, A., Masui, F.: Image rendering for reducing carsickness in watching onboard video display. In: Digest of Technical Papers - International Conference on Consumer Electronics, Las Vegas (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Scholz, M., Orozco Idrobo, A.M.: Supporting the implementation of driving simulator environments through established GIS approaches by extending the geospatial data abstraction library with OpenDrive. In: Driving Simulation Conference 2017, Stuttgart (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bosch Mobility Solutions, Bosch (2015). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPMwes6HoOA
  16. 16.
    Musch, V.: Virtual Reality Fahrsimulation mit autonomen Fahren - Bericht zur Praxisphase, Leonberg (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kennedy, R., et al.: Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3, 203–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aykent, B., Merienne, F., Guillet, C., Paillot, D., Kemeny, A.: Motion sickness evaluation and comparison for a static driving simulator and a dynamic driving simulator. Proc. IMechE, Part D: J. Automob. Eng. 228, 818–839 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diels, C.: Will autonomous vehicles make us sick? In: Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Quinate Chioma Ihemedu-Steinke
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Prashanth Halady
    • 1
  • Gerrit Meixner
    • 2
  • Michael Weber
    • 3
  1. 1.Robert Bosch GmbHStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.UniTyLabHeilbronn UniversityHeilbronnGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Media InformaticsUniversity of UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations