Can we prevent motion sickness in the age of automated driving?

As automated vehicles position drivers as passive passengers and simulators become increasingly immersive, motion sickness has emerged as a critical barrier to user acceptance. Traditional models rely on group averages and focus on extreme outcomes, failing to capture the subtle, individual discomforts like nausea and dizziness that ruin the passenger experience.

This book presents a framework for predicting and mitigating motion sickness at the individual lev el by moving b eyond a one-size-fits-all approach. The research introduces a personalized modeling method that adapts to specific user sensitivities using two key parameters and proposes critical updates to sensory conflict models to better align visual perception with reality. These culminate in a novel control algorithm for simulators that reduces motion sickness by over 50% without sacrificing realism. This work aims to bridge the gap between biological variability and mechanical design to create a more comfortable experience.

As users transition from drivers to passengers in automated vehicles, they often take their eyes off the road to engage in non-driving activities. In driving simulators, visual motion is presented with scaled or without physical motion, leading to a mismatch between expected and perceived motion. Both conditions elicit motion sickness, calling for enhanced vehicle and simulator motion control strategies. Given the large differences in sickness susceptibility between individuals, effective countermeasures must address this at a personal level. This paper combines a group-averaged sensory conflict model with an individualized Accumulation Model (AM) to capture individual differences in motion sickness susceptibility across various conditions. The feasibility of this framework is verified using three datasets involving sickening conditions: (1) vehicle experiments with and without outside vision, (2) corresponding vehicle and driving simulator experiments, and (3) vehicle experiments with various non-driving-related tasks. All datasets involve passive motion, mirroring experience in automated vehicles. The preferred model (AM2) can fit individual motion sickness responses across conditions using only two individualized parameters (gain K1 and time constant T1) instead of the original five, ensuring unique parameters for each participant and generalisability across conditions. An average improvement factor of 1.7 in fitting individual motion sickness responses is achieved with the AM2 model compared to the group-averaged AM0 model. This framework demonstrates robustness by accurately modeling distinct motion and vision conditions. A Gaussian mixture model of the parameter distribution across a population is developed, which predicts motion sickness in an unseen dataset with an average RMSE of 0.47. This model reduces the need for large-scale population experiments, accelerating research and development

Ensuring safety remains one of the biggest challenges for the widespread adoption of automated vehicles (AVs). Remote operation of AVs is a promising approach to address this, allowing remote operators to intervene when AVs encounter edge cases. However, remote operators are out-of-the-loop from the conventional driver in vehicle environment interaction, impacting their situation awareness and ability to safely control or assist the vehicle. In the scenario of remote driving, this is more evident since multimodal feedback is required to replicate the conventional driver-vehicle environment-interaction. In addition to visual and auditory modalities, motion feedback has been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between remote driving and in-vehicle driving. However, since motion feedback is cost-intensive, it might hinder rapid upscaling of remote driving systems. Thus, this study evaluated whether motion feedback adds value to driving performance and experience of the remote operator in low-velocity scenarios. Driving performance and experience were assessed and compared using objective and subjective metrics in three conditions (in-vehicle driving, and remote driving with and without motion feedback). The findings show that in remote driving, motion feedback fails to provide significant improvements. When compared to in-vehicle driving, remote driving performance and experience remain significantly worse. This suggests that motion feedback, in its current form, is redundant in low-velocity scenarios and that a simplified Remote Driving Station (RDS) may be sufficient in these scenarios. Future work should optimize simplified RDS designs, enhance feedback and human-machine interfaces and explore different driving scenarios for safe and efficient remote driving.

We present a vehicle system capable of navigating safely and efficiently around Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs), such as pedestrians and cyclists. The system comprises key modules for environment perception, localization and mapping, motion planning, and control, integrated into a prototype vehicle. A key innovation is a motion planner based on Topology-driven Model Predictive Control (T-MPC). The guidance layer generates multiple trajectories in parallel, each representing a distinct strategy for obstacle avoidance or non-passing. The underlying trajectory optimization constrains the joint probability of collision with VRUs under generic uncertainties. To address extraordinary situations ('edge cases') that go beyond the autonomous capabilities - such as construction zones or encounters with emergency responders - the system includes an option for remote human operation, supported by visual and haptic guidance. In simulation, our motion planner outperforms three baseline approaches in terms of safety and efficiency. We also demonstrate the full system in prototype vehicle tests on a closed track, both in autonomous and remotely operated modes.

Users of automated vehicles will engage in other activities and take their eyes off the road, making them prone to motion sickness. To resolve this, the current paper validates models predicting sickness in response to motion and visual conditions. We validate published models of vestibular and visual sensory integration that have been used for predicting motion sickness through sensory conflict. We use naturalistic driving data and laboratory motion (and vection) paradigms, such as sinusoidal translation and rotation at different frequencies, Earth-Vertical Axis Rotation, Off-Vertical Axis Rotation, Centrifugation, Somatogravic Illusion, and Pseudo-Coriolis, to evaluate different models for both motion perception and motion sickness. We investigate the effects of visual motion perception in terms of rotational velocity (visual flow) and verticality. According to our findings, the SVC_I model, a 6DOF model based on the Subjective Vertical Conflict (SVC) theory, with visual rotational velocity input is effective at estimating motion sickness. However, it does not correctly replicate motion perception in paradigms such as roll-tilt perception during centrifuge, pitch perception during somatogravic illusion, and pitch perception during pseudo-Coriolis motions. On the other hand, the Multi-Sensory Observer Model (MSOM) accurately models motion perception in all considered paradigms, but does not effectively capture the frequency sensitivity of motion sickness, and the effects of vision on sickness. For both models (SVC_I and MSOM), the visual perception of rotational velocity strongly affects sickness and perception. Visual verticality perception does not (yet) contribute to sickness prediction, and contributes to perception prediction only for the somatogravic illusion. In conclusion, the SVC_I model with visual rotation velocity feedback is the current preferred option to design vehicle control algorithms for motion sickness reduction, while the MSOM best predicts perception. A unified model that jointly captures perception and motion sickness remains to be developed.

Users of automated vehicles will move away from being drivers to passengers, preferably engaged in other activities such as reading or using laptops and smartphones, which will strongly increase susceptibility to motion sickness. Similarly, in driving simulators, the presented visual motion with scaled or even without any physical motion causes an illusion of passive motion, creating a conflict between perceived and expected motion, and eliciting motion sickness. Given the very large differences in sickness susceptibility between individuals, we need to consider sickness at an individual level. This paper combines a group-averaged sensory conflict model (as in Wada, et al., 2020) with an individualized accumulation model (as in Irmak, et al., 2022; Irmak, Pool, and Happee, 2020; Oman, 1990) to capture individual differences in motion sickness susceptibility across various vision conditions. This consideration of the effect of vision is crucial in driving simulators where there is a strong contribution of visual cues. The model framework can be used to develop personalized models for users of automated vehicles and improve the design of new motion cueing algorithms for simulators. The feasibility and accuracy of this model framework are verified using two existing datasets with sickening conditions in 1) an experimental vehicle with and without outside vision (Irmak, Pool, and Happee, 2020), and 2) comparing vehicle experiments with corresponding driving simulator experiments (Talsma, et al., 2023). Both datasets involve passive motion, representative of being driven by an automated vehicle. The model is able to fit an individual’s motion sickness responses using only 2 parameters (gain K1 and time constant T1), as opposed to the 5 parameters in the original model. This ensures unique parameters for each individual. Better fits, on average by a factor of 1.7 (for Accum 2 model), of an individual’s motion sickness levels, are achieved as compared to using only the group-averaged model (Accum 0 model). Furthermore, this model framework demonstrates robustness by accurately modeling various datasets with distinct motion and vision conditions. Thus, we find that models predicting group-averaged sickness incidence cannot be used to predict sickness at an individual level. On the other hand, the proposed combined model approach predicts individual motion sickness levels and thus can be used to control sickness

Background: To counteract gravity, trunk motion, and other perturbations, the human head–neck system requires continuous muscular stabilization. In this study, we combine a musculoskeletal neck model with models of sensory integration (SI) to unravel the role of vestibular, visual, and muscle sensory cues in head–neck stabilization and relate SI conflicts and postural instability to motion sickness.

Method: A 3D multisegment neck model with 258 Hill-type muscle elements was extended with postural stabilization using SI of vestibular (semicircular and otolith) and visual (rotation rate, verticality, and yaw) cues using the multisensory observer model (MSOM) and the subjective vertical conflict model (SVC). Dynamic head–neck stabilization was studied using empirical datasets, including 6D trunk perturbations and a 4 m/s2 slalom drive inducing motion sickness.

Results: Recorded head translation and rotation are well matched when using all feedback loops with MSOM or SVC or assuming perfect perception. A basic version of the model, including muscle, but omitting vestibular and visual perception, shows that muscular feedback can stabilize the neck in all conditions. However, this model predicts excessive head rotations in conditions with trunk rotation and in the slalom. Adding feedback of head rotational velocity sensed by the semicircular canals effectively reduces head rotations at mid-frequencies. Realistic head rotations at low frequencies are obtained by adding vestibular and visual feedback of head rotation based on the MSOM or SVC model or assuming perfect perception. The MSOM with full vision well captures all conditions, whereas the MSOM excluding vision well captures all conditions without vision. The SVC provides two estimates of verticality, with a vestibular estimate SVCvest, which is highly effective in controlling head verticality, and an integrated vestibular/visual estimate SVCint which can complement SVCvest in conditions with vision. As expected, in the sickening drive, SI models imprecisely estimate verticality, resulting in sensory conflict and postural instability.

Conclusion: The results support the validity of SI models in postural stabilization, where both MSOM and SVC provide credible results. The results in the sickening drive show imprecise sensory integration to enlarge head motion. This uniquely links the sensory conflict theory and the postural instability theory in motion sickness causation.

The relationship between the amplitude of motion and the accumulation of motion sickness in time is unclear. Here, we investigated this relationship at the individual and group level. Seventeen participants were exposed to four oscillatory motion stimuli, in four separate sessions, separated by at least 1 week to prevent habituation. Motion amplitude was varied between sessions at either 1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 ms⁻². Time evolution was evaluated within sessions applying: an initial motion phase for up to 60 min, a 10-min rest, a second motion phase up to 30 min to quantify hypersensitivity and lastly, a 5-min rest. At both the individual and the group level, motion sickness severity (MISC) increased linearly with respect to acceleration amplitude. To analyze the evolution of sickness over time, we evaluated three variations of the Oman model of nausea. We found that the slow (502 s) and fast (66.2 s) time constants of motion sickness were independent of motion amplitude, but varied considerably between individuals (slow STD = 838 s; fast STD = 79.4 s). We also found that the Oman model with output scaling following a power law with an exponent of 0.4 described our data much better as compared to the exponent of 2 proposed by Oman. Lastly, we showed that the sickness forecasting accuracy of the Oman model depended significantly on whether the participants had divergent or convergent sickness dynamics. These findings have methodological implications for pre-experiment participant screening, as well as online tuning of automated vehicle algorithms based on sickness susceptibility.

High levels of vehicle automation are expected to increase the risk of motion sickness, which is a major detriment to driving comfort. The exact relation between motion sickness and discomfort is a matter of debate, with recent studies suggesting a relief of discomfort at the onset of nausea. In this study, we investigate whether discomfort increases monotonously with motion sickness and how the relation can best be characterized in a semantic experiment (Experiment 1) and a motion sickness experiment (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, 15 participants performed pairwise comparisons on the subjective discomfort associated with each item on the popular MIsery SCale (MISC) of motion sickness. In Experiment 2, 17 participants rated motion sickness using the MISC during exposures to four sustained motion stimuli, and provided (1) numerical magnitude estimates of the discomfort experienced for each level of the MISC, and (2) verbal magnitude estimates with seven qualifiers, ranging between feeling ‘excellent’ and ‘terrible’. The data of Experiment 1 show that the items of the MISC are ranked in order of appearance, with the exception of 5 (‘severe dizziness, warmth, headache, stomach awareness, and sweating’) and 6 (‘slight nausea’), which are ranked in opposite order. However, in Experiment 2, we find that discomfort associated with each level of the MISC, as it was used to express motion sickness during exposure to a sickening stimulus, increases monotonously; following a power law with an exponent of 1.206. While the results of Experiment 1 replicate the non-linearity found in recent studies, the results of Experiment 2 suggest that the non-linearity is due to the semantic nature of Experiment 1, and that there is a positive monotonous relation between MISC and discomfort in practice. These results support the suitability of MISC to assess motion sickness.