DOI

10.17077/drivingassessment.1188

Location

Rockport, Maine

Date

29-6-2005

Session

SESSION 7 - Poster Session B

Abstract

This study (N=129, including 59 males and 61 females) examined the issue of realism and motion sickness between motion-based and non-motionbased simulators. Specifically, this research address whether enhancing a driving simulator with motion capabilities increases the realism of the simulator and, if so, does this increase in subjective realism increase participants’ vulnerability to motion sickness. Approximately half of the participants drove a motion-based simulator while the other half drove a non-motion-based simulator on four independent drives within an experimental session. Results showed that the motion-based simulator was rated more realistic than the non-motion-based simulator. However, it was also found that participants in the motion-based simulator had higher negative physical health ratings than participants in the nonmotion-based simulator. Our results suggest that training programs need to consider the trade-off between realism and motion sickness.

Rights

Copyright © 2005 the author(s)

DC Citation

Proceedings of the Third International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, June 27-30, 2005, Rockport, Maine. Iowa City, IA: Public Policy Center, University of Iowa, 2005: 383-387.

Share

COinS
 
Jun 29th, 12:00 AM

Adaptation to a Motion-Based and Non-Motion-Based Simulator

Rockport, Maine

This study (N=129, including 59 males and 61 females) examined the issue of realism and motion sickness between motion-based and non-motionbased simulators. Specifically, this research address whether enhancing a driving simulator with motion capabilities increases the realism of the simulator and, if so, does this increase in subjective realism increase participants’ vulnerability to motion sickness. Approximately half of the participants drove a motion-based simulator while the other half drove a non-motion-based simulator on four independent drives within an experimental session. Results showed that the motion-based simulator was rated more realistic than the non-motion-based simulator. However, it was also found that participants in the motion-based simulator had higher negative physical health ratings than participants in the nonmotion-based simulator. Our results suggest that training programs need to consider the trade-off between realism and motion sickness.