Application of the subjective vertical–horizontal-conflict physiological motion sickness model to the field trials of contemporary vessels

Hassan Khalid, Osman Turan, Jelte E. Bos, Atilla Incecik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Subjective-vertical conflict theory (Bles et al., 1998) postulates that all motion sickness provoking situations are characterized by a condition in which the vertical (gravity) sensed by the visual, vestibular and non-vestibular proprioceptors are at variance with the subjective (expected) vertical. SV-conflict models have successfully been used by Bos and Bles (2000), Verveniotis and Turan (2002b), Bos et al. (2002a) and Dallinga et al. (2002), to predict motion sickness of passenger ferries. However, considering the prevalence of significantly high level of horizontal acceleration aboard contemporary vessels, Khalid et al. (in press) proposed a further elaboration of a physiological (subjective-vertical–horizontal, SVH-conflict) model that explicitly incorporates the effects of horizontal accelerations. They hypothesized that the explanation of motion sickness variability may improve, by considering the combined effects of subjective vertical as well as subjective horizontal conflicts (difference between the sensed and 'expected' horizontal accelerations). This paper briefly presents the SVH-conflict model and demonstrates its application to 68 field trials of 10 different vessels. Percentages of seasick passengers, observed during the field trials, are statistically compared with physiological and descriptive (O’Hanlon and McCauley, 1974; ISO 2631-1, 1997) motion sickness models. In general, SVH-conflict is statistically outperforming the descriptive models and displaying improvement over the SV-conflict model.
LanguageEnglish
Pages22-33
Number of pages12
JournalOcean Engineering
Volume38
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2011

Fingerprint

Gravitation

Keywords

  • motion sickness
  • subjective vertical
  • subjective vertical-horizontal
  • field trials
  • sonsory conflict
  • vestibular system

Cite this

@article{1c75ac34bb0842f9aede53284b6a8af8,
title = "Application of the subjective vertical–horizontal-conflict physiological motion sickness model to the field trials of contemporary vessels",
abstract = "Subjective-vertical conflict theory (Bles et al., 1998) postulates that all motion sickness provoking situations are characterized by a condition in which the vertical (gravity) sensed by the visual, vestibular and non-vestibular proprioceptors are at variance with the subjective (expected) vertical. SV-conflict models have successfully been used by Bos and Bles (2000), Verveniotis and Turan (2002b), Bos et al. (2002a) and Dallinga et al. (2002), to predict motion sickness of passenger ferries. However, considering the prevalence of significantly high level of horizontal acceleration aboard contemporary vessels, Khalid et al. (in press) proposed a further elaboration of a physiological (subjective-vertical–horizontal, SVH-conflict) model that explicitly incorporates the effects of horizontal accelerations. They hypothesized that the explanation of motion sickness variability may improve, by considering the combined effects of subjective vertical as well as subjective horizontal conflicts (difference between the sensed and 'expected' horizontal accelerations). This paper briefly presents the SVH-conflict model and demonstrates its application to 68 field trials of 10 different vessels. Percentages of seasick passengers, observed during the field trials, are statistically compared with physiological and descriptive (O’Hanlon and McCauley, 1974; ISO 2631-1, 1997) motion sickness models. In general, SVH-conflict is statistically outperforming the descriptive models and displaying improvement over the SV-conflict model.",
keywords = "motion sickness, subjective vertical, subjective vertical-horizontal, field trials, sonsory conflict, vestibular system",
author = "Hassan Khalid and Osman Turan and Bos, {Jelte E.} and Atilla Incecik",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.09.008",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "22--33",
journal = "Ocean Engineering",
issn = "0029-8018",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

Application of the subjective vertical–horizontal-conflict physiological motion sickness model to the field trials of contemporary vessels. / Khalid, Hassan; Turan, Osman; Bos, Jelte E.; Incecik, Atilla.

In: Ocean Engineering, Vol. 38, No. 1, 01.2011, p. 22-33.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Application of the subjective vertical–horizontal-conflict physiological motion sickness model to the field trials of contemporary vessels

AU - Khalid, Hassan

AU - Turan, Osman

AU - Bos, Jelte E.

AU - Incecik, Atilla

PY - 2011/1

Y1 - 2011/1

N2 - Subjective-vertical conflict theory (Bles et al., 1998) postulates that all motion sickness provoking situations are characterized by a condition in which the vertical (gravity) sensed by the visual, vestibular and non-vestibular proprioceptors are at variance with the subjective (expected) vertical. SV-conflict models have successfully been used by Bos and Bles (2000), Verveniotis and Turan (2002b), Bos et al. (2002a) and Dallinga et al. (2002), to predict motion sickness of passenger ferries. However, considering the prevalence of significantly high level of horizontal acceleration aboard contemporary vessels, Khalid et al. (in press) proposed a further elaboration of a physiological (subjective-vertical–horizontal, SVH-conflict) model that explicitly incorporates the effects of horizontal accelerations. They hypothesized that the explanation of motion sickness variability may improve, by considering the combined effects of subjective vertical as well as subjective horizontal conflicts (difference between the sensed and 'expected' horizontal accelerations). This paper briefly presents the SVH-conflict model and demonstrates its application to 68 field trials of 10 different vessels. Percentages of seasick passengers, observed during the field trials, are statistically compared with physiological and descriptive (O’Hanlon and McCauley, 1974; ISO 2631-1, 1997) motion sickness models. In general, SVH-conflict is statistically outperforming the descriptive models and displaying improvement over the SV-conflict model.

AB - Subjective-vertical conflict theory (Bles et al., 1998) postulates that all motion sickness provoking situations are characterized by a condition in which the vertical (gravity) sensed by the visual, vestibular and non-vestibular proprioceptors are at variance with the subjective (expected) vertical. SV-conflict models have successfully been used by Bos and Bles (2000), Verveniotis and Turan (2002b), Bos et al. (2002a) and Dallinga et al. (2002), to predict motion sickness of passenger ferries. However, considering the prevalence of significantly high level of horizontal acceleration aboard contemporary vessels, Khalid et al. (in press) proposed a further elaboration of a physiological (subjective-vertical–horizontal, SVH-conflict) model that explicitly incorporates the effects of horizontal accelerations. They hypothesized that the explanation of motion sickness variability may improve, by considering the combined effects of subjective vertical as well as subjective horizontal conflicts (difference between the sensed and 'expected' horizontal accelerations). This paper briefly presents the SVH-conflict model and demonstrates its application to 68 field trials of 10 different vessels. Percentages of seasick passengers, observed during the field trials, are statistically compared with physiological and descriptive (O’Hanlon and McCauley, 1974; ISO 2631-1, 1997) motion sickness models. In general, SVH-conflict is statistically outperforming the descriptive models and displaying improvement over the SV-conflict model.

KW - motion sickness

KW - subjective vertical

KW - subjective vertical-horizontal

KW - field trials

KW - sonsory conflict

KW - vestibular system

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78651485772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.09.008

DO - 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.09.008

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 22

EP - 33

JO - Ocean Engineering

T2 - Ocean Engineering

JF - Ocean Engineering

SN - 0029-8018

IS - 1

ER -