Advertisement

Motion Sickness in Automated Vehicles: The Elephant in the Room

  • Cyriel DielsEmail author
  • Jelte E. Bos
  • Katharina Hottelart
  • Patrice Reilhac
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)

Abstract

Automation disuse and associated loss of automation benefits may occur if users of automated vehicles experience motion sickness. Compared to conventional vehicles, motion sickness will be of greater concern due to the absence of vehicle control and the anticipated engagement in non-driving tasks. Furthermore, future users are expected to be less tolerant to the occurrence of motion sickness in automated vehicles compared to other means of transport. The risk of motion sickness may be manageable if we understand underlying causes and design our vehicles and driver-vehicle interactions appropriately. Guided by three fundamental principles, an initial set of design considerations are provided reflecting the incorporation of basic perceptual mechanisms.

Keywords

Vehicle automation Design Displays Motion sickness Carsickness Sensory conflict Anticipation 

References

  1. 1.
    Diels C, Will autonomous vehicles make us sick? In: Sharples S, Shorrock S (eds) Contemporary ergonomics and human factors. Taylor & Francis, pp 301–307Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diels C, Bos JE Self-driving carsickness. Appl Ergonom (in press)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diederichs F, Bischoff S, Widlroither H, Reilhac P, Hottelart K, Moizard J (2015) Smartphone integration and SAE level 3 car automation – a new cockpit concept and its evaluation in a car simulator. In: Proceedings of the 8th VDI conference Der Fahrer im 21. Jahrhundert [The driver in the 21st Century]. Braunschweig, Germany, Nov 10th–11th, 2015Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reason JT, Brand JJ (1975) Motion sickness. Academic Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Hanlon JF, McCauley ME (1974) Motion sickness incidence as a function of the frequency and acceleration of vertical sinusoidal motion. AeroSpace Med 45:366–369Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guignard JC, McCauley ME (1990) The accelerative stimulus for motion sickness. In: Crampton GH (ed) Motion and space sickness. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bles W, Bos JE, de Graaf B, Groen E, Wertheim AH (1998) Motion sickness: only one provocative conflict? Brain Res Bull 47(5):481–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Le Vine S, Zolfaghari A, Polak J (2015) The tension between autonomous cars’ impacts on intersection level-of-service and their occupants’ use of travel time for leisurely or economically-productive activities. In: Presented at the 94th annual meeting of the transportation research boardGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stanney KM, Hash P (1998) Locus of user-initiated control in virtual environments: influences on cybersickness. Presence 7(5):447–459Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turner M, Griffin MJ (1999) Motion sickness in public road transport: the relative importance of motion, vision and individual differences. Br J Psychol 90(Pt 4):519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feenstra PJ, Bos JE, Van Gent RNHW (2011) A visual display enhancing comfort by counteracting airsickness. Displays 32:194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weißgerber T, Dambock D, Kienle M, Bengler K (2012) Erprobung einer kontaktanalogen Anzeige für Fahrerassistenzsysteme beim hochautomatisierten Fahren (Evaluation of a Contact Analogue Head Up Display for Driver Assistance Systems in Highly Automated Driving. Unpublished Report, Technical University MunichGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kyriakidis M, Happee R, de Winter JCF (2015) Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transport Res Part F, Traffic Psychol Behav 32:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cowings PS, Toscano WB, DeRoshia C, Tauson RA (1999) The effects of the command and control vehicle (C2 V) operational environment on soldier health and performance (ARL-mr-468). U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MDGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kato K, Kitazaki S (2008) Improvement of ease of viewing images on an in-vehicle display and reduction of carsickness. In: Human factors in driving, seating comfort and automotive telematics, 2008 (SP-2210). SAE Technical Paper Series 2008-01-0565Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diels C, Bos JE, Hottelart K, Reilhac P The impact of in-vehicle display position in automated vehicles on the occurrence of motion sickness. Human Factors, submittedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diels C, Bos JE (2015) User interface considerations to prevent self-driving carsickness. In: adjunct proceedings of the 7th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. ACM, pp 14–19Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Howard IP (1982) Human visual orientation. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Houben MMJ, Bos JE (2010) Reduced seasickness by an artificial 3D Earth-fixed visual reference. In: Proceedings international conference on human performance at Sea, HPAS2010, Glasgow, UK, 16–18 June. Turan O, Bos J, Stark J, Colwell JL (Eds) Univ. Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, 2010, pp 263–270Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cyriel Diels
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jelte E. Bos
    • 2
  • Katharina Hottelart
    • 3
  • Patrice Reilhac
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Mobility and TransportCoventry UniversityCoventryUK
  2. 2.TNO Perceptual and Cognitive Systems, Soesterberg and Behavioural and Movement SciencesVrije Universiteit AmsterdamSoesterbergThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbHBietigheim-BissingenGermany

Personalised recommendations