Manipulations to reduce simulator-related transient adverse health effects during simulated driving

  • M. Jäger
  • N. Gruber
  • R. Müri
  • U. P. Mosimann
  • T. Nef
Original Article


User comfort during simulated driving is of key importance, since reduced comfort can confound the experiment and increase dropout rates. A common comfort-affecting factor is simulator-related transient adverse health effect (SHE). In this study, we propose and evaluate methods to adapt a virtual driving scene to reduce SHEs. In contrast to the manufacturer-provided high-sensory conflict scene (high-SCS), we developed a low-sensory conflict scene (low-SCS). Twenty young, healthy participants drove in both the high-SCS and the low-SCS scene for 10 min on two different days (same time of day, randomized order). Before and after driving, participants rated SHEs by completing the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ). During driving, several physiological parameters were recorded. After driving in the high-SCS, the SSQ score increased in average by 129.4 (122.9 %, p = 0.002) compared to an increase of 5.0 (3.4 %, p = 0.878) after driving in the low-SCS. In the low-SCS, skin conductance decreased by 13.8 % (p < 0.01) and saccade amplitudes increased by 16.1 % (p < 0.01). Results show that the investigated methods reduce SHEs in a younger population, and the low-SCS is well accepted by the users. We expect that these measures will improve user comfort.


Driving simulator Physiological measures Eye-tracking 


  1. 1.
    Allen RW, Park G, Cook M, Rosenthal TJ, Fiorentino D, Viirre E (2003) Novice driver training results and experience with a PC based simulator. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle designGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertin R, Collet C, Espié S, Graf W (2005) Objective measurement of simulator sickness and the role of visual-vestibular conflict situations. In: Driving simulation conference North AmericaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertin R, Guillot A, Collet C, Vienne F, Espié S, Graf W (2004) Objective measurement of simulator sickness and the role of visual-vestibular conflict situations: a study with vestibular-loss (a-reflexive) subjects. In: Proceedings of Neuroscience meeting, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boff KR, Lincoln JE (1988) Engineering data compendium: human perception and performance, vol 3. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, OhioGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks JO, Goodenough RR, Crisler MC, Klein ND, Alley RL, Koon BL, Logan WC Jr, Ogle JH, Tyrrell RA, Wills RF (2010) Simulator sickness during driving simulation studies. Accid Anal Prev 42(3):788–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown LB, Ott BR (2004) Driving and dementia: a review of the literature. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 17(4):232–240PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campbell FW, Wurtz RH (1978) Saccadic omission: why we do not see a grey-out during a saccadic eye movement. Vis Res 18(10):1297–1303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Classen S, Bewernitz M, Shechtman O (2011) Driving simulator sickness: an evidence-based review of the literature. Am J Occup Ther 65(2):179–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cobb SVG, Nichols S, Ramsey A, Wilson JR (1999) Virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects (VRISE). Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 8(2):169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cowings PS, Suter S, Toscano WB, Kamiya J, Naifeh K (1986) General autonomic components of motion sickness. Psychophysiology 23(5):542–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yong GI (2012) Effects of age and gender differences on automobile instrument cluster design. Advances in affective and pleasurable design. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 22–212Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duh HB-L, Parker DE, Furness TA (2001) An independent visual background reduced balance disturbance envoked by visual scene motion: implication for alleviating simulator sickness. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Seattle, Washington, USA. ACM, pp 85–89Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duh HBL, Abi-Rached H, Parker DE, Furness TA (2001) Effects on balance disturbance of manipulating depth of an independent visual background in a stereographic display. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duh HBL, Parker DE, Furness TA (2004) An independent visual background reduced simulator sickness in a driving simulator. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 13(5):578–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisher D, Pollatsek A, Pradhan A (2006) Can novice drivers be trained to scan for information that will reduce their likelihood of a crash? Inj Prev 12(Suppl 1):i25–i29PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fisher DL (2011) Handbook of driving simulation for engineering, medicine, and psychology. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gianaros PJ, Muth ER, Mordkoff JT, Levine ME, Stern RM (2001) A questionnaire for the assessment of the multiple dimensions of motion sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med 72(2):115PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gibson JJ (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hettinger LJ, Berbaum KS, Kennedy RS, Dunlap WP, Nolan MD (1990) Vection and simulator sickness. Mil Psychol 2(3):171–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hill K, Howarth P (2000) Habituation to the side effects of immersion in a virtual environment. Displays 21(1):25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horn BKP, Schunck BG (1981) Determining optical flow. Artif Intell 17(1):185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Howarth P, Costello P (1997) The occurrence of virtual simulation sickness symptoms when an HMD was used as a personal viewing system. Displays 18(2):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hu S, Grant WF, Stern RM, Koch KL (1991) Motion sickness severity and physiological correlates during repeated exposures to a rotating optokinetic drum. Aviat Space Environ Med 62(4):308–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnson DM (2005) Introduction to and review of simulator sickness research. US Army Research Institute for the Behavior Sciences, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kartiko I, Kavakli M, Ken C (2009) The impacts of animated-virtual actors’ visual complexity and simulator sickness in virtual reality applications. In: Sixth international conference on computer graphics, imaging and visualizationGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kellogg RS, Kennedy RS, Graybiel A (1964) Motion sickness symptomatology of labyrinthine defective and normal subjects during zero gravity maneuvers. Aerosp Med 36:315–318Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG (1993) Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 3(3):203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Grizzard MC, Stanney KM, Kingdon K, Lanham S (2001) Use of a motion history questionnaire to predict simulator sickness. In: Driving simulation conferenceGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim YY, Kim HJ, Kim EN, Ko HD, Kim HT (2005) Characteristic changes in the physiological components of cybersickness. Psychophysiology 42(5):616–625PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kolasinski EM (1995) Simulator sickness in virtual environments. Technical report of the U.S. Army Research Institute 1027Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee HC, Cameron D, Lee AH (2003) Assessing the driving performance of older adult drivers: on-road versus simulated driving. Accid Anal Prev 35(5):797–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee HC, Lee AH, Cameron D, Li-Tsang C (2003) Using a driving simulator to identify older drivers at inflated risk of motor vehicle crashes. J Saf Res 34(4):453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lerman Y, Sadovsky G, Goldberg E, Kedem R, Peritz E, Pines A (1993) Correlates of military tank simulator sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med 64(7):619–622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lin JJW, Abi-Rached H, Kim DH, Parker DE, Furness TA (2002) A “natural” independent visual background reduced simulator sickness. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lukas A, Nikolaus T (2009) Driving ability and dementia. Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie: Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie 42(3):205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Min BC, Chung SC, Min YK, Sakamoto K (2004) Psychophysiological evaluation of simulator sickness evoked by a graphic simulator. Appl Ergon 35(6):549–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mourant RR, Rengarajan P, Cox D, Lin Y, Jaeger BK (2007) The effect of driving environments on simulator sickness. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mourant RR, Thattacherry TR (2000) Simulator sickness in a virtual environments driving simulator. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Prothero JD, Draper MH, Furness TA, Parker DE, Wells MJ (1999) The use of an independent visual background to reduce simulator side-effects. Aviat Space Environ Med 70(3):277–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prothero JD, Draper MH, Furness TA, Parker DE, Wells MJ (1997) Do visual background manipulations reduce simulator sickness. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on motion sickness: medical and human factorsGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reason JT, Brand JJ (1975) Motion sickness. Academic Press, Oxford, 310 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Regan C (1995) An investigation into nausea and other side-effects of head-coupled immersive virtual reality. Virtual Real 1(1):17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schultheis MT, Rizzo AA (2001) The application of virtual reality technology in rehabilitation. Rehabil Psychol 46(3):296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stanney KM, Mourant RR, Kennedy RS (1998) Human factors issues in virtual environments: a review of the literature. Presence 7(4):327–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ungs TJ (1989) Simulator induced syndrome: evidence for long-term after effects. Aviat Space Environ Med 60:252–255Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Watson TL, Krekelberg B (2009) The relationship between saccadic suppression and perceptual stability. Curr Biol 19(12):1040–1043PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yin Z, Mourant RR (2009). The perception of optical flow in driving simulators. In: Proceedings of the 5th international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training, and vehicle designGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Jäger
    • 1
  • N. Gruber
    • 1
  • R. Müri
    • 1
    • 2
  • U. P. Mosimann
    • 1
    • 3
  • T. Nef
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Gerontechnology and Rehabilitation GroupUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Division of Cognitive and Restorative Neurology, Department of Neurology, InselspitalUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Old Age Psychiatry, University Hospital of PsychiatryUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  4. 4.ARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering ResearchUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations