What is Simulator Sickness? The report of illness or associated with - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

what is simulator sickness
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

What is Simulator Sickness? The report of illness or associated with - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

What is Simulator Sickness? The report of illness or associated with the use of simulation devices Similar to, but NOT motion sickness Symptoms include Eye strain Vertigo Headache Sweating Postural Instability


slide-1
SLIDE 1
slide-2
SLIDE 2

What is Simulator Sickness?

  • The report of illness or associated with the

use of simulation devices

  • Similar to, but NOT motion sickness
  • Symptoms include

– Eye strain – Headache – Postural Instability – Sweating – Disorientation – Vertigo – Sweating – Nausea – Vomiting

slide-3
SLIDE 3

What is Simulator Sickness?

  • Is it…

– a mismatch between a visual illusion and equilibrioception lack of illusion of movement? – a false positive poison response?

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Why Do We Care?

  • It’s common:
  • Half of Pilots in Flight

Sims (Kolasinski,1995)

BUT Cybersickness != Sim Sickness (Stanney et al, 1997)

  • Half of Undergrads

playing Halo (Merhi, 2007)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Why Do We Care?

  • Training

The revelation has been put forward in Germany as a reason for the 42 year-old’s disappointing performances on his return to the sport in 2010 after a three-year hiatus. The theory is that Schumacher’s team mate Nico Rosberg, a young buck at 25 and one of the so-called ‘Playstation Generation’, can spend hours on Mercedes’ simulator with no ill-effects while Schumacher arrives at races ill-prepared and has to begin with a basic set-up. A team statement read “Throughout his career, Michael from time to time has been susceptible to simulator sickness which has affected the length of time that he can spend on a simulator,” read a team statement. “This is a relatively common occurrence for many people in all fields of simulator activity including military, aircraft and racing cars.” (Telegraph.co.uk, 2011)

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Why Do We Care?

  • A Future Full of Simulation & Teleoperation
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Why Do We Care?

  • Confounds for Researchers?
  • Yes (Bittner, Gore & Hooey, 1997, Casali, 1986)
  • No (Rizzo et al, 2003)
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Why Do We Care?

  • Lost Participants:

– Current UCF Poll: 15-25 %

  • Cleaning the simulator:

– Enough said

  • Systematic trends of loss:

– More discomfort in women (Mourant & Thattacherry, 2000) – More discomfort in novice drivers (Bedard et al, 2010)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

How Do We Detect Simulator Sickness?

  • Simulator Sickness

Questionnaire (SSQ; Kennedy et al., 1993)

– A Laundry List of Symptoms

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Wait… What About Priming?

  • Priming

– exposure to a stimulus influences a response to a later stimulus

(Neely, 2003)

  • Words associated with an

elderly stereotype slow down the rate at which participants walk to an elevator upon leaving the laboratory

(Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Totally Irrelevant

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Wait… What About Priming?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Wait… What About Priming? Is the SSQ priming the symptoms it tests?

slide-14
SLIDE 14

The Setup

  • Method

– Built on top of existing research – 2 Conditions between Ss – Manipulated presence

  • f pre-SSQ, Detail of

Warning & Check-up

Max Sim Sick Min Sim Sick Pre SSQ

  • Detailed Warning

Minimal Warning Between Trial Check

  • Post SSQ

Post SSQ

  • Hypothesis

– Ss in the Max condition will have higher rates of Simulation Sickness symptomology, as measured by the post SSQ, than Min.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

The Setup

  • Participants
  • Undergraduate students at a large southeastern university
  • N=33 (Max= 17, Min= 16)
  • Apparatus
  • Five driving tasks in a GE iSim PatrolSim fixed platform driving simulator
slide-16
SLIDE 16

The Setup

  • Procedure
  • Informed consent and brief overview of the study
  • Forewarned
  • Description of simulator sickness
  • Pre-SSQ
  • 5 driving tasks

» In between each drive, they were asked how they were feeling

  • Post-SSQ
  • Not forewarned
  • Told that simulator sickness is possible
  • 5 driving tasks
  • Post-SSQ
slide-17
SLIDE 17

The Payoff

  • Results

SSQ Composite Score

  • Participants in the forewarned condition (M=11.22, SD= 21.89) reported

lower levels of sickness and fewer symptoms than participants who were not forewarned (M= 27.58, SD= 21.45), t(33)= 2.23, p=0.03.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

The Payoff

  • Hypothesis was not supported
  • BUT Participants who were not

forewarned actually reported higher levels

  • f sickness than those who were

forewarned

slide-19
SLIDE 19

But Why!

slide-20
SLIDE 20

But Why!

  • Participants
  • Undergraduate students at a large southeastern university
  • N=33 (Max= 17, Min= 16)
  • Apparatus
  • Five driving tasks in a GE iSim PatrolSim fixed platform driving simulator
  • Procedure
  • Informed consent and brief overview of the study
  • Forewarned
  • Description of simulator sickness
  • Pre-SSQ
  • 5 driving tasks

» In between each drive, they were asked how they were feeling

  • Post-SSQ
  • Not forewarned
  • Told that simulator sickness is possible
  • 5 driving tasks
  • Post-SSQ
slide-21
SLIDE 21

But Why!

  • Why did this occur?

» In between each drive, they were asked how they were feeling

  • By reassuring the researcher (and thus,

themselves) they were fine, they were priming themselves

  • Demand characteristics?
  • Cognitive dissonance?
  • Rehearsal?
  • This may yet be priming…
slide-22
SLIDE 22

The Future (is now)

Max Sim Sick 2SSQ Min Sim Sick Pre SSQ Pre SSQ

  • Detailed Warning

Minimal Warning Minimal Warning Between Trial Check

  • Post SSQ

Post SSQ Post SSQ

slide-23
SLIDE 23