Technical factors influencing simulator sickness

Recently, simulators find application not only in the aeronautics, but also in other fields of technology, like robotics, marine etc. Computer-based trainings are offered almost with every modern technology product placed in the market. In the paper the application of simulators to train pilots of mobile platforms (like aircraft, cars, sea-vessels) is considered. The simulator sickness appears due to difficulties in simulating the motion and environment „properly” in the simulator. Similar symptoms, called a virtual reality sickness may be observed within the community of computer game players. The main reason for occurrence of the simulator sickness is that external stimuli (motion and/or vision) give misleading information to a human brain. The aim of this research was to find the relation between the architecture and the technical parameters of different types of simulators and occurrence of the simulator sickness. The focus of this study is the architecture of the simulator and its technical parameters that may influence unfavorable operator reactions during train-ing, such as moving platform, screen size, simulated models, graphics quality, etc. The paper is based on a wide literature review, and it is an introduction to the future experimental research.

Full text (pdf)

1. Rabihah I.: Simulator sickness: A threat to simulator training. MIROS, SCI-COSH 2011.
2. Kennedy R.S., Jennifer E.: Fowlkes simulator sickness is polygenic and olysympto-
   matic: Implications for research essex corporation. Int. J. Aviation Psychology, 2 (1992), 23-38.
3. Lozia Z.: Symulatory jazdy samochodem. Wydaw. Komunikacji i Łączności, Warszawa 2008.
4. Szczepański C.: Antropocentryczne systemy sterowania ruchem symulatorów. Prace Naukowe Instytutu Technicznego Wojsk Lotniczych, z. 19, Warszawa 2005.
5. Greenyer F.: A history of simulation: Part II. Early days. MS&T Magazine, 5/2008.
6. Lawrence F., Kennedy R.S., Kellogg R.S.: Simulator sickness: A reaction to a transformed perceptual world: I. Scope of the problem. Report AD – A192 438, 1983.
7. Johnson D.M.: Simulator sickness research summary. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Science, Alabama, USA 2005.
8. McCauley M.E.: Do army helicopter training simulators needs motion base? Technical Report, USA Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, February 2006.
9. Kolasinski E.M.: Simulator sickness in virtual environments. Simulator system research unit. Technical Report 1027, May 1995.
10. Young Youn Kim, Hyun Ju Kim, Eun Nam Kim, Hee Dong Ko, Hyun Taek Kim: Characteristic changes in the physiological components of cybersickness. Department of Psychology, Korea University, Imaging Media Research Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul, Korea. Psychophysiology, 42 (2005), 616-625, Blackwell Publishing Inc., USA.
11. Hulme K.F., Guzy L.T., Kennedy R.S.: Holistic design approach to analyze simulator sickness in motion-based environments. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2011.
12. Mullen N.W., Weaver B., Riendeau J.A., Morrison L.E., Be’dard M.: Driving performance and susceptibility to simulator sickness: Are they related? American J. Occupation, April 2009.
13. Renkewitz H., Alexander T.: Perceptual issues of augmented and virtual environments. Research Institute for Communication Information Processing, and Ergonomics (FKIE), Wachtberg, Germany 2007.
14. Rizzo M.: Demographic and driving performance factor in simulator adaptation syndrome. 2nd Int. Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment. Training and Vehicle Design, 2003.
15. de Wit G.: Acquired sensivity to seasickness after an inflezna infection. Pract. Oto-Rhino-Laryngologica, 19 (1957), 579-58.
16. Crowley J.S.: Simulator sickness: A problem for army aviation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 58, 1987, 355-357.
17. Wright R.: Helicopter simulator sickness: A state of the art, review of its incidence, causes, and treatment. Technical Report, USA Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, November 1993.
18. Mourtant R.R., Thattacherry T.R.: Simulator sickness in a virtual environments driving simulator. Proc. of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress.
19. Bimal L. Aponso, Beard S.D., Schroeder J.A.: The NASA ames vertical motion simulator. A facility engineered for realism. Royal Aeronautical Society Spring 2009 Flight Simulation Conference, London, UK, 3-4 June 2009.
20. Kennedy R.S., Lane N.E., Berbaum K.S., Lilienthal M.G.: Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J. Aviation Psychology, 3 (1993), 203-220.
21. Handbook of Virtual Environments. Design, Implementation, and Applications, Kay M. (ed.). Stanney University of Central Florida Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers 2002 Mahwah, New Jersey London.
22. Barret G.V., Thornton C.L.: Relationship between perceptual style and simulator sickness. Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, Acron, Ohio Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 4, 304-308.
23. New, Improved, Comprehensive, and Automated Driver’s License Test and Vision Screening System. Final Report 559(1). SRA Consulting Corporation, May 2005.
24. Draper M.H.: The adaptive effects of virtual interfaces: Vestibulo – ocular reflex and simulator sickness, PhD dissertation. University of Washington, USA 1998.
25. Johnson D.M.: Simulators sickness during emergency procedures training in a heli-
    copter simulator: Age, flight experience, and amount learned. Technical Report, USA Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, September 2007.
26. Cartmell D.H.: Evaluation of flight simulator pilot cueing system performance. AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Monterey, California 5-8 August 2002.
27. McCauley M., Kennedy L.F.R., Kellogg R.: Simulator sickness: A special case of the transformed perceptual world 1. Scope of the problem. Proc. of 2nd Symposium of Aviation Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus OH, 25-28 April 1983.
28. Johnson W.W., Kaiser M.K.: Perspective imaginary in synthetic scenes used to control and guide aircraft turing landing and taxi: Some issues and concerns. NASA/TM – 2003 – 212808, Nasa Ames Research.
29. http://www.ciop.pl/22396.html.
30. Bürki-Cohen J., Sparko A.L., Bellman M.: Flight simulator motion literature pertinent to airline-pilot recurrent training and evaluation. AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, Portland, Oregon 08-11 August 2011.
31. Bonnet C.T., Faugloire E., Riley M.A., Bardy B.G., Stoffregen T.A.: Motion sickness preceded by unstable displacements of the center of pressure. Human Movement Science, 25 (2006), 800-820.
32. Johnson D.M.: Introduction to and review of simulator sickness research. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Research Report 1832, April 2005.
33. Bailey R.E., Arthur J.J. III, Lance Prinzel III, Kramer L.J.: Evaluation of head-worn display concepts for commercial aircraft taxi operations. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 2007.
34. Zaychik K.B., Cardullo F.M.: Simulator sickness: the problem remains. AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas 2003.
35. Ruffner J.W., Piccione D., Woodward K.: Development of a night driving training aid concept. Final Report, DCS-SBIR-97-3106, 1997.
36. Gower D.W. Jr., Fowlkes J., Baltzley D.R.: Simulator sickness in the CH-47 (Chinook) flight simulator (USAARL Report No. 89-28). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, 1989.
37. Arthur K.W.: Effects of field of view on performance with head. Mounted displays, PhD dissertation. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 2000.
38. Psotka J., Lewis S.A.: Effects of field of view on judgments of self – location. USARI Technical Report, draft.
39. Psotka J.: Immersive training systems: Virtual reality and education and training. Instructional Science, 23, 1995, 405-431.
40. Toet A., van der Hoeven M., Kahrimanović M., Delleman N.J.: Effects of field of view on human locomotion. Proc. of SPIE 6955 69550H-1.
41. Thomas T.G.: From virtual to visual and back? AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference ad Exhibit, Providence, Rhode Island 16-19 August 2004.
42. Jarvis P., Spira D., Lalonde B.: Flight simulator modeling and validation approaches and pilot-in-the-loop fidelity. AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Honolulu, Hawaii 18-21 August 2008.
43. Pausch R., Crea T.: A literature survey for virtual environments: Military flight simulator visual systems and simulator sickness. Computer Science Report No. TR-92-25, August 1992.
44. Hulme K.F., Guzy L.T., Kennedy R.S.: Holistic design approach to analyze simulator sickness in motion. Environments, Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2011.
45. Virtual Environments for Intuitive Human – System Interaction. Final Report of Task Group TR-HFM-121, Human Factors Considerations in the Design, Use, and Evaluation of AMVE-Technology.
46. Kappe B.: Driving simulators for driver training: state of the art. TNO Defense, Security and Safety.