Brain Research Bulletin, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp.

537–542, 1998
Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0361-9230/99/$–see front matter

PII S0361-9230(98)00088-4

Modelling motion sickness and subjective vertical

mismatch detailed for vertical motions
J. E. Bos* and W. Bles

TNO Human Factors Research Institute, Soesterberg, The Netherlands

[Received 24 January 1998; Accepted 24 January 1998]

ABSTRACT: In an attempt to predict the amount of motion
sickness given any kind of motion stimulus, we describe a
model using explicit knowledge of the vestibular system. First,
the generally accepted conflict theory is restated in terms of a
conflict between a vertical as perceived by the sense organs
like the vestibular system and the subjective vertical as deter-
mined on the basis of previous experience. Second, this con-
cept is integrated with optimal estimation theory by the use of
an internal model. If detailed for vertical motions only, the
model does predict typical observed motion sickness charac-
teristics, irrespective the parameter setting. By adjusting the
nonvestibular parameters, the model can also quantitatively be
adapted to seasickness data from the literature. With this con-
cept, sickness severity hypothetically can also be predicted for
other motions, irrespective of their origin and complexity.
© 1999 Elsevier Science Inc.
KEY WORDS: Motion sickness, Vestibular system, Model.
INTRODUCTION
Building on the conflict theory by Reason and Brand [14], we
postulated that motion sickness correlates with a conflict between
a vertical as perceived by the sense organs and the subjective
vertical as determined on the basis of previous experience [2].
How to relate this conflict with motion sickness severity and
implement the concept as a whole in a mathematical model is the
issue of this article. To verify this model, quantitative motion
sickness data from the literature are used. From all manifestations
of motion sickness, crosscoupled Coriolis effects and seasickness
are best documented to date. From these, however, sickness num-
bers in relation to the stimulus parameters are only available for
seasickness. These data are reviewed first.
Prediction of sickness incidence is classically achieved by
mathematical fits to experimentally obtained data. O’Hanlon and
McCauley [12] and McCauley et al. [11], for example, subjected
over 500 subjects to vertical sinusoidal motions in a ship-motion
simulator. Amplitudes ranged from 0.0278 to 0.55 g (root mean
square [RMS]) and frequencies from 0.083 to 0.7 Hz. Exposure
times were limited to 2 h. In these experiments the percentage of
vomiting subjects, called the motion sickness incidence (MSI),
was rated as a function of the duration, amplitude and frequency of
the imposed motion. These experimental data were fit with a
mathematical function, which is the basis of the ISO 2631/3
standard.1 The percentage of sick people after 2 h of endured
motion at different frequencies and amplitudes is plotted in Fig. 1.
How the MSI cumulates in the preceding period is shown in Fig.
2 for three different accelerations and one fixed frequency.
Griffin describes [7] the well-being of humans under all kinds
of motion, including vertical motions in the frequency range from
0.1 to 0.5 Hz, in which range well-being is the opposite of motion
sickness.2 Although Griffin uses the term “vomiting incidence” to

* Address for correspondence: Dr. J. E. Bos, TNO Human Factors Research Institute, P.O. Box 23, 3769 ZG Soesterberg; The Netherlands. Fax: 131
346 353977; E-mail: bos@tm.tno.nl
1
The mathematical description fitted though the experimental data is given by
MSI 5 100F~ z a!F~ z t9!.
with

F~ z! 5
1
Î2 p E z

2`
e 2 ⁄2x dx
1 2

where
logt 2 1.46 zt 2 rza loga 2 m a~ f !
zt 5 , z t9 5 ,z 5
0.76 Î1 2 r 2 a 0.47 Î1 2 r 2
r 5 20.75, and m a 5 0.87 1 4.36 log f 1 2.73 log2f. McCauley uses g-units (RMS) for acceleration, minutes for time and Hz for frequency.
2
The description that fits the observed data best according to Griffin is

SE D
1/ 2
T
MSI 5 K a w~t! 2dt
0

537
538
FIG. 1. Motion sickness incidence (%) after 2 h of endured motion versus
frequency and acceleration. Each dot represents an observed average over
20 subjects. (Adapted from Ref. 11.)
indicate the percentage of vomiting people, we only use the term
MSI. The big difference between the latter description (model) and
that of McCauley is that complex vertical motions (multifre-
quency) are permitted, whereas McCauley only predicts the MSI
for pure sinusoidal motions. In addition, Griffin covers motion
durations up to 6 h, and he also uses data obtained on passenger
ferries. This Griffin model is the basis of the British Standard
6841. For sinusoidal motions up to 2 h, the McCauley and Griffin
descriptions agree fairly well, although in rare cases they may
differ by 25% [3]. Within the present framework it is worth
emphasizing that the MSI shows an optimum at a frequency of
about 0.16 Hz.
Both models, however, lack any vestibular basis, where the
vestibular system plays a crucial role in the incidence of motion
sickness [14]. Moreover, the seasickness predictions are restricted
to vertical motions, where vessel motions other than the heave can
also be provocative [15]. Even for vertical motions only, accurate
prediction of MSI in complex broadband motion has shown to be
difficult [9]. On the other hand, we assume that all manifestations
of motion sickness, including seasickness, and, for example, cross-
coupled Coriolis effects, have one and the same underlying mech-
anism. To give a predictor function that merely describes all such
data then, each of the three translational and three rotational
degrees of freedom of motion should be evaluated separately and
in combination with respect to their provocativeness for motion
sickness, with an abundancy of possible interactions. Moreover,
the interindividual variability is large, necessitating large numbers
of subjects for reliable statistical analysis. This approach, there-
where T is the motion duration, and a w (t) 5 w( f )a(t) is the frequency weighted acceleration in m/s2, with weighing values w:
f
w5 for
0.125
w 5 1.0 for
w5 S D
0.25
f
2
for
w50 otherwise
According to Griffin, K is 1/3 on the average for a mixed (male and female) population. Griffin uses SI-units, that is m/s2 for the acceleration, s for time
and Hz for frequency.
BOS AND BLES
FIG. 2. Motion sickness incidence versus exposure time at one frequency
of 0.25 Hz. (Adapted from Ref. 11.)
fore, creates an almost impossible task. Alternatively, motion
sickness characteristics may be uncovered by taking into account
vestibular characteristics explicitly, thus yielding a more simple
approach to the problem in effect. The basic underlying mecha-
nism can be modelled, and motion sickness severity then not only
follows for one type of motion but naturally comes out for all sorts
and combinations of motion, irrespective of their complexity.
For that purpose, Bles et al. [2] stated that all situations that
provoke motion sickness are characterised by a condition in which
the sensed vertical, as determined on the basis of integrated infor-
mation from the eyes, the vestibular system and the nonvestibular
proprioceptors, is at variance with the subjective vertical as ex-
pected on the basis of previous experience. Here motion sickness
should not be confused with vertigo and disorientation, and the
statement does not concern secondary or indirect effects. The
sensed and the subjective vertical represent vectors indicating the
magnitude and direction of our estimates of gravity. To make this
statement quantitative, we have to resolve the gravitational com-
ponent from the gravitoinertial acceleration (GIA), for which we
rely on Mayne [10]. We also need a way to model the subjective
vertical based on previous experience, for which we use a model
proposed by Oman [13]. To model the control of active body
motions, Oman proposed a concept where the difference between
end-organ afferents and afferents generated by an internal model
that predicts the body state on the basis of motor commands is
minimised. This difference, or conflict, is conceptually a multisen-
sory conflict and thus links up with Reason and Brand’s multisen-
sory conflict theory. Our approach introduces a model that mini-
mises a single vector difference between a vertical as constructed
0.1 # f , 0.125
0.125 # f , 0.25
0.25 # f # 0.5
MODELLING MOTION SICKNESS
FIG. 3. Determination of the sensed vertical.
on the basis of multisensory information and another subjective
vertical as constructed by an internal model instead of the intersen-
sory conflict itself. By adding an appropriate nonlinear conflict
transfer function followed by a cumulation function, the model is
apt to predict realistic results under a broad range of stimulus
conditions. How this works out for passively endured vertical
motion is elaborated in detail.
SUBJECTIVE VERTICAL CONFLICT AND MSI
Sensed Vertical
In stationary conditions the GIA is the gravitational accelera-
tion itself and verticality is thus determined easily by the otoliths.
In determining verticality when the head is moving, we have to
deal with the physical impossibility to distinguish between the
gravitational acceleration and accelerations due to body move-
ments. Because gravity is constant and body accelerations are
normally of short duration, Mayne [10] suggested that the constant
gravitational acceleration can after all be estimated by low-pass
filtering of the GIA, that is, for all three orthogonal components
(i 5 x, y or z) of this vertical (v) we can write in Laplace form
1
ni 5 a [1]
ts 1 1 i
where a represents the vertical acceleration as sensed by the
otoliths. To get a proper three-dimensional result, these compo-
nents should be earth fixed. If then, in addition, the head is tilted
(a rotation), a transformation U and its inverse U21 can take care
of the corresponding adjustment of the coordinate system in which
the low-pass filtering is executed. This principle is shown in Fig.
3 and is described more extensively by Bles and Bos [1] and Bos
and Bles [4].3 The result of this processing is called the “sensed
vertical.”
Subjective Vertical
Analogous to Oman’s model for controlling body posture [13],
a better estimate of the true vertical can be obtained by applying
optimal estimation theory. It is quite conceivable that the brain
uses a similar strategy. Then an internal model based on previous
experience makes a prediction or estimation of the vertical using
the sensed vertical, visual information, motor commands, nonves-
tibular proprioceptive information and eventually cognitive inputs.
If a weighted amount of the discrepancy between this and the
sensed vertical is fed back to the input of the internal model, the
3
Model results calculated so far appeared to be equal to those calculated by the three-dimensional equivalence of Mayne’s principle [see also 5], which
is given in vector notation:
dv a 2 v
5 2v3v
dt
4
In general, the input to the vestibular system equals that to many nonvestibular proprio- or graviceptors, and the contributions to the subjective vertical
by these subsystems are therefore indistinguishable.
539
output can be optimized, such that it agrees best with all informa-
tion manifest to the system. Depending on the amount of noise,
this weight factor is low (much noise, low accuracy, slow tracking)
or high (little noise, high accuracy, fast tracking). There are several
possibilities for a mathematical representation of the internal
model. One possibility would be the use of some sort of look-up
table, or “neural store” [13]. Filling in this table, however, is a
tedious task, because different kinds of motion should be included.
Probably the most simple way is just to copy the transfer func-
tion(s) of the mechanisms of which the internal model has to
predict the output. That is, the part of the internal model that
generates the subjective vertical can be represented by the transfer
function of the vestibular system, plus eventually some central
nervous system processing, like the low-pass filtering to obtain the
vertical.
Because it is this subjective vertical that we are actually aware
of, we can make an estimation of the low-pass time constant
responsible for its behaviour. If all but the vestibular inputs are
excluded,4 this behaviour can be measured by recording verbal
responses, joy-stick manipulations or adjustments of a visual ver-
tical during accelerations due to linear motion or centrifugation. If
we suppose a large weight value in this case, therefore providing
a fast tracking of the sensed vertical, the behaviour of the subjec-
tive vertical is mainly determined by the low-pass filter of the
sensed vertical, thus allowing determination of the time constant t.
Guedry [8] summarises some of the experiments where t appears
to be typically larger than 10 s. Mayne [10] even takes this
constant to be 20 s. However, in experiments performed by de
Graaf et al. [6] where they used moderate accelerations of less than
1 g added to the gravitational component on a sled and in a
centrifuge, time constants typically less than 10 s were found,
sometimes even as small as 2 s. Taking an average of about 5 s for
the time constant of the low-pass filter under normal conditions
seems therefore reasonable.
Conflict
We have so far postulated a model that uses motion as input
and that yields, as its output, a discrepancy, or conflict, between
the sensed and the subjective vertical. To mathematically model
this additional processing, the conflict should be quantified. Be-
cause both verticals can be represented as vectors with a magni-
tude and a direction, the magnitude of their vector difference (c) is
a scalar and suits the purpose well. Then, conditions where both
verticals remain parallel but differ in magnitude, like on large
vessels at sea, will result in a conflict. Large conflicts can also
result in conditions where both verticals are of about the same
magnitude but differ in direction, like in crosscoupled Coriolis
effects with ultimately oppositely directed verticals.
On the one hand, this conflict helps the system to generate a
better prediction of the gravitational component of the GIA, but on
the other hand the existence of a conflict itself is an unwanted
condition that should be eliminated. With respect to this side
effect, we furthermore assume a quantitative relationship between
the conflict (c) and the severity of motion sickness without spec-
ulating on the nature of its underlying mechanism. Given this
assumption we can then test the model by predicting motion
t
540
FIG. 4. Hill function with b 5 0.3 (chosen so only for demonstration
purpose). The parameter n is varied from n 5 1 (. . .), n 5 2 (——), n 5
5 (– – –) to n 5 20 (–z–z–).
sickness severity (e.g., in terms of the MSI, from the model’s
motion input parameters, and see if they (dis)agree with observed
data).
Nonlinear Transfer Function
There is no linear relationship between the MSI and the mag-
nitude of the vector difference c. People cannot get sicker than
sick, a maximum that is reached asymptotically. For this reason,
the McCauley data (Fig. 1) suggest that larger conflicts are trans-
formed by some logarithmic function. Small conflicts at the other
end can eventually be transformed exponentially. A function that
satisfies both needs is the Hill function:
~c/b! n
h5 [2]
1 1 ~c/b! n
For c $ 0 and some values of n, this function is shown in Fig. 4.
The benefits of this function are fourfold: it allows for a normal-
ization (0 # h # 1); the steepness of the function can be chosen
with the parameter n, varying from logarithmic-like (n 5 1) to a
step or threshold function (n 5 `); there is an indifferent point b:
h(b) 5 0.5; and for even n the function is nonnegative. For the
present study n 5 2 (solid line) serves the purpose that for small
conflicts h is increasing exponentially, whereas for larger conflicts
the function is logarithmic. The value of b can be chosen such that
the model fits the experimental data best in a quantitative sense.
Cumulation
The last step in the model is a cumulation of the quantity h over
time to get the motion sickness severity. However, it does not
cumulate ad infinitum for the same reason as above: Vomiting is
considered to be the ultimate manifestation of sickness and the
MSI can therefore not exceed 100%. The sickness severity reaches
a maximum asymptotically, and it returns to zero again after
cessation of the conflict. Both facts can be taken into account by a
leaking integrator. As is evident from Figure 2, at least a second-
order filter should be chosen, where we ignore the slightly different
cumulations at different acceleration levels. So, when using the
MSI as the sickness index, at first approximation we take
P 1
MSI 5 h [3]
~ m s 1 1! 2
where P explicitly takes into account the maximum percentage of
motion sick people under the given circumstances.
BOS AND BLES
FIG. 5. Subjective vertical conflict model for passive vertical motion.
PREDICTIONS FOR PASSIVE VERTICAL MOTION
Simplified Model
If for reasons of simplicity we ignore all sources of information
generating the subjective vertical but the vestibular part, the model
reduces to well-quantifiable quantities. This simplification implies
that motor commands do not result in a change in body posture and
the only way the body can move is then by external enforcement.
Within such passive subjects, or passengers, both the sensed and
the subjective verticals are still determined, despite the lack of
self-control of body motion. If we further restrict to vertical
motions, the sensed and subjective verticals only vary in their
magnitude and can simply be resolved by a one-dimensional
low-pass filter according to Eq. 1. Because the canals are inactive
and the coordinate system remains stationary, U and U21 from Fig.
3 may be taken equal to the identity matrix. Under these conditions
the model looks as shown in Fig. 5, and, if it is right, it will predict
seasickness for passengers.
In this simplified model we take the transfer function of the
otoliths (OTO in Fig. 5) to be a unity gain. Then it is not essential
whether a represents the imposed vertical acceleration (in m/s2) or
the otolith organ afferent response (in spikes/s). Both the sensed
vertical (v) and the subjective vertical (v̂) as resolved by an
internal model (dotted box) are determined by low-pass filters that,
if someone is fully adapted to a certain situation, apply the same
time constant t. Because the verticals are now represented by
scalars, the conflict itself is quantified by the difference of these
scalars. Within the internal model, the integrator takes into account
the fact that if the conflict is zero, the subjective vertical should
remain unaltered instead of becoming zero too. For this reason, the
feedback weight K has the dimension s21. Depending on the
amount of inevitable noise added to the different components of
the model, there is an optimum value for this weight for each noise
condition. The nonlinear conflict transfer function and the second-
order cumulation function are included as described above.
Output
To compute time responses for any input function, the model
was implemented in a computer simulation tool. For sinusoidal
motions only, that is when a is replaced by a sinv t, the transfer
function offers a simple analyzing tool, and model predictions can
then be compared more easily with the McCauley and Griffin
results described in the introduction. This output function can be
determined based on
1 1
c 5 v 2 v̂, with v̂ 5 a and v̂ 5 Kc [4]
ts 1 1 ts 1 1 s
If it is furthermore assumed that for t , 0, the subject is motion-
less, and if onset effects are ignored and if we take the average of
MODELLING MOTION SICKNESS 541

TABLE 1
MODEL PARAMETERS

21
t 5 5 s, K55s , b 5 0.7 m/s2, m 5 12 min, P 5 85%

the sinusoidally modulated MSI only, a partial fraction expansion

leads to

MSI 5
2 SD
b S S D D
P
2
11
12
t
m
t
1 1 e 2m [5]
E
with

S
E 2 5 a 2 t 2v 2 2 2K t 1
K2
v2
11 D 21
[6]

Table 1 summarizes the parameter choice that gives quantitative FIG. 7. Predicted MSI (%) after 2 h of vertical sinusoidal motion versus
results adequate for the present purpose. frequency and acceleration.

Results
It was verified that MSIs given by expressions 5 and 6 agreed
with results obtained from the simulation program when a simple
sinusoidal input was used. To get some insight in how the model
works, Fig. 6 shows intermediate results where only the frequency
of a sinusoidal input increases from 0.1 to 0.5 Hz. Here it can be
seen that with increasing frequency the sensed vertical decreases in
amplitude while the amplitude of the subjective vertical shows an
optimum somewhere about 0.2 Hz. Note also that the phase
difference between the sensed and subjective vertical shows an
optimum, a lag of 180°, in the neighbourhood of this frequency.
Because of these two factors, the conflict and its Hill transform
show an optimum about 0.16 Hz.
For pure sinusoidal motion with the frequency and amplitude
within the ranges as described by McCauley et al. [11] and a fixed
duration of 2 h, MSIs were calculated by Eqs. 5 and 6 and plotted
in Fig. 7. Here the optimum in the MSI about 0.16 Hz is even more
obvious than it was in Fig. 6. Also the asymptotical MSI increase
versus stimulus amplitude is clear. At frequencies off-optimum,
the exponential increase in MSI versus stimulus amplitude is also
discernible. All these characteristics show a striking resemblance
with those of the McCauley data in Fig. 1.
FIG. 6. Intermediate model results. Top: input acceleration (. . .), sensed
(– – –) and subjective vertical (——). Bottom: conflict (——) and Hill-
transformed conflict (. . .).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
A sense of “one g,” both in direction and amplitude, is essential
for spatial orientation and control purposes. A major contribution
to the determination of the vertical is given by the vestibular
system. Because the otoliths are only capable of sensing the
resultant of all accelerations exerted on them, the gravitational
component can only be inferred from the resultant. Experience can
help to improve the accuracy of the estimated vertical. For mod-
elling purposes, two verticals are postulated, one as perceived by
the senses and one as predicted by an internal model. Both verti-
cals are thus generated using multisensory information. We fur-
thermore assume a nonlinear relationship between a single dis-
crepancy between these two verticals and the severity of motion
sickness. As opposed to the multisensory conflict theory [14], we
therefore assume that intersensory conflicts and motion sickness
severity do not correlate. Although detailed for vestibular inputs
only, our model is applicable also when visual and other proprio-
ceptive inputs are added. If so, all inputs determine one single
sensed vertical, and the internal model does so for the subjective
vertical. Also under these conditions, motion sickness is related to
the magnitude of the vector difference as postulated. If, for in-
stance, visual input is added, both verticals can be determined far
more accurate in normal conditions with concordant information
and Coriolis effects are much less provocative, which indeed is an
actual fact.
For vertical passive motions only, the model slims down into
one dimension. This one-dimensional model is described explic-
itly, and it predicts seasickness as one of the manifestations of
motion sickness. We restricted to relatively short exposure times,
avoiding adaptation, habituation or plasticity of the system. There
are only a few well-interpretable parameters within the model, of
which some are fixed because they control the functioning of the
vestibular system itself, whereas others are fit to adapt the model
quantitatively to the observed MSI data. When we deprived the
system from all but vestibular information, the internal model, in
fact, can only rely on the sensed vertical. From Fig. 5 it can be
inferred that the sensed vertical then lags the GIA, and the sub-
jective vertical in turn lags the sensed vertical. How this works out
can be seen in Fig. 6. At low frequencies the amplitudes of both
verticals are about equal, and their phase difference is small,
resulting in a small conflict. At intermediate frequencies (about 0.2
542
Hz in the middle of the graph), the amplitude of the sensed vertical
has decreased due to the low-pass filter, whereas the amplitude of
the subjective vertical shows an increase. More important in this
frequency range is that the subjective vertical lags the sensed
vertical up to 180°, resulting in a maximum amount of conflict. At
higher frequencies, the amplitudes of both verticals have become
insignificant, resulting in small conflicts again. We thus did not
implement a band-pass filter, but mainly due to a lag between the
sensed and the subjective verticals caused by a simple low-pass
filter in the model, the MSI finally shows an optimum in the
frequency range. The location of this optimum is determined by
the low pass time constant t and by the weight K. Here we took t
fixed (known from subjective vertical measurements on a sled and
in a centrifuge) and varied K such that the optimum was equal to
that of the McCauley and Griffin data. The MSI itself at these
optima, however, does not vary.5 It is worth emphasizing that the
value of t did not have to be violated to accomplish this. The role
of the nonlinear Hill transfer function on the conflict c is also
evident (see bottom of Fig. 6): boosting small conflicts and limit-
ing large ones. The need of an exponential increase was indicated
already by Oman [13], and for that purpose he suggested the
square of the amount of conflict. Then, however, the apex of the
MSI versus frequency curve peaks sharply like a tractrix. More-
over, by only taking the inner product (squaring) of the conflict,
MSIs will far be overestimated at large conflicts, where it should
reach a maximum asymptotically. The Hill transfer function caters
for both shortcomings.
When using the parameters of Table 1, MSIs of Figures 1 and
7 are alike. But because Fig. 1 refers to a group average and Fig.
7 refers to the sensitivity of an individual, we have to be careful
with a direct comparison. It may even be doubted whether the
vomiting of an individual is a sensitive measure of his or her
individual sickness severity. Obviously it is not, and in this case
the MSI should be redefined in terms of a likelihood for emesis.
The parameter P then represents the maximum likelihood of the
individual under consideration to vomit under any condition. If
group averages are concerned, these will in general show a wider
curve, mainly due to a spread in frequencies of the individual
optima. Because we do not have any statistics on these interindi-
vidual differences, further optimization of the model at this stage
is pointless.
The present modelling of motion sickness greatly relies on the
data of O’Hanlon and McCauley [11,12]. Because most of these
data pertain to frequencies above 0.16 Hz, the symmetric depen-
dency of the MSI envelope on frequency is questionable. It is
reasonable in sofar that at zero frequency there is no motion and
people (by definition) then do not get motion sick. Nevertheless,
the very low frequency range of MSI should be explored more in
the experimentation.
It is a challenge to expand the model to allow all possible
three-dimensional movements. Then not only the magnitude of the
verticals will be involved but also their direction, and it may follow
that seasickness not only originates from vertical (heave) motions
but also from (in itself subthreshold) cumulated crosscoupled
Coriolis stimulation due to pitch and roll. It is the power of the
present model that it predicts motion sickness based on vestibular
characteristics and therefore gives the MSI as a function of what-
5
Numerical analysis reveals an MSI optimum versus K. At this optimum dMSI/dK 5 (. . .)dE/dK 5 0. With E given by Eq. 6 it then follows that
dE
dK
52
a
2 S t 2v 2 2 sK t 1
K2
v2
and thus v 2 5 K/ t at the optimum. Substituting this result in E it follows that E 5 a. Because now E is independent of K, also the MSI according to
Eq. 5 at the optimum is independent of K itself.
BOS AND BLES
ever motion, irrespective its complexity or origin. If visual func-
tion and eventually active body motion would explicitly be in-
cluded, the predictive power of the model would even be further
enhanced. With vision included, for example, the model could
predict simulator sickness as well and predict the possible sickness
attenuating effect of an artificial horizon. Here we worked out this
blueprint for seasickness specifically. But any type of motion-
induced sickness is in our opinion just motion sickness predictable
by one and the same model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Supported by the Royal Netherlands Navy. We express our gratitude to
Dr. Gresty and the referee for their comments on the original manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Bles, W.; Bos, J. E. Een ruimtelijk orientatiemodel. TNO Human
Factors Research Institute, Soesterberg, the Netherlands, Report A-58;
1994.
2. Bles, W. Coriolis effects and motion sickness modelling. Brain Res.
Bull. 47:543–549; 1999.
3. Bos, J. E. Scheepsbewegingen en “motion sickness incidence” (MSI):
Voorspelling van het percentage bewegingszieken op basis van verti-
cale bewegingen. TNO Human Factors Research Institute, Soester-
berg, the Netherlands, Report A-71; 1995.
4. Bos, J. E.; Bles, W. Simulaties met het ruimtelijk orientatiemodel:
mathematische invulling en numerieke evaluatie. TNO Human Factors
Research Institute, Soesterberg, the Netherlands, Report A-30; 1995.
5. Glasauer, S. Das Zusammenspiel von Otolithen und Bogengangen im
Wirkungsgefuge der subjektiven Vertikale. Thesis Technical Univer-
sity Munchen, Germany; 1992.
6. de Graaf, B.; Bos, J. E.; Tielemans, W.; Rameckers, F.; Rupert, A. H.;
Guedry, F. E. Otolith contribution to ocular torsion and spatial orien-
tation during acceleration. Naval Aerospace Medical Research Labo-
ratory, Pensacola Fl. Technical Memorandum 96-3; 1996.
7. Griffin, M. J. Handbook of human vibration. London: Academic Press;
1990.
8. Guedry, F. E. Psychophysics of vestibular sensation. In: Kornhuber,
H. H., ed. Handbook of sensory physiology. Vol VI/2. Vestibular
system. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1974:3–154.
9. Guignard, J. C.; McCauley, M. E. Motion sickness incidence induced
by complex periodic waveforms. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 53:554 –
563; 1982.
10. Mayne, R. A systems concept of the vestibular organs. In: Kornhuber,
H. H., ed. Handbook of sensory physiology IV/2: vestibular system.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1974:493–580.
11. McCauley, M. E.; Royal, J. W.; Wylie, C. D.; O’Hanlon, J. F.; Mackie,
R. R. Motion sickness incidence: exploratory studies of habituation,
pitch and roll, and the refinement of a mathematical model. Human
Factors Research Inc. Technical Report 1733-2; 1976.
12. O’Hanlon, J. F.; McCauley, M. E. Motion sickness incidence as a
function of the frequency and acceleration of vertical sinusoidal mo-
tion. Aerospace Med. 45:366 –369; 1974.
13. Oman, C. M. A heuristic mathematical model for the dynamics of
sensory conflict and motion sickness. Acta Otolaryngol. Suppl. 392;
1982.
14. Reason, J. T.; Brand, J. J. Motion sickness. London: Academic Press;
1975.
15. Wertheim, A. H.; Bos, J. E.; Bles, W. Contributions of roll and pitch
to sea sickness. Brain Res. Bull. 47:517–524; 1999.
11 D S
23/ 2
22 t 1 2
K
D
v2
50