Mazloumi Gavgani Alireza, Walker Frederick R, Hodgson Deborah M, Nalivaiko Eugene
School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2018 Dec 1;125(6):1670-1680. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00338.2018. Epub 2018 Oct 4.
Existing evidence suggests that cybersickness may be clinically different from "classic," motion-induced sickness; this evidence was, however, obtained in separate studies that focused on just one of the two conditions. Our aim was to bring clarity to this issue by directly comparing subjective symptoms and physiological effects of motion sickness induced by physical motion (Coriolis cross-coupling) and by immersion in virtual reality (ride on a roller coaster) in the same subjects. A cohort of 30 young, healthy volunteers was exposed to both stimulations in a counterbalanced order on 2 separate days ≥1 wk apart. Nausea scores were recorded during the exposure, and the Motion Sickness Assessment Questionnaire (MSAQ) was used to profile subjective symptoms postexperiment. Tonic and phasic forehead skin conductance level (SCL) was measured before and during exposure in both stimulation methods. We found that the nausea onset times were significantly correlated in both tests ( = 0.40, = 0.03). Similarly, the maximum nausea ratings were significantly correlated during both provocations ( = 0.58, = 0.0012). Symptom-profiling with the MSAQ revealed substantial and significant correlations between total symptom scores ( = 0.69, < 0.0001) between each of 4 symptom clusters and between 15/18 individual symptoms assessed in both conditions. Both virtual reality and Coriolis cross-coupling provocations caused an increase in tonic SCL associated with nausea [mean difference (mean diff) = 5.1, confidence interval (CI) = (2.59, 6.97), = 0.007 and mean diff = 1.49, CI = (0.47, 7.08), = 0.0001, respectively], with a close correlation between the conditions ( = 0.48, = 0.04). This was accompanied by a significant increase in the amplitude of phasic skin conductance transients in both visual stimulation and Coriolis cross-coupling when participants reported maximum nausea compared with no nausea [mean diff = 0.27, CI = (0.091, 0.63), < 0.001 and mean diff = 0.235, CI = (0.053, 0.851), < 0.006, respectively]. We conclude that symptoms and physiological changes occurring during cybersickness and classic motion sickness are quite similar, at least during advanced stages of these malaises. Expansion of virtual reality (VR) technology has provoked an interest in cybersickness, a subtype of motion sickness induced by immersion in VR. Finding means for preventing and managing cybersickness requires good understanding of its nature, including its relationship to "classic" motion sickness. The knowledge about this relationship is controversial, partly because there were no studies where the same cohort was exposed to the two provocations. With this approach, we demonstrate that symptoms and physiological manifestations of the two conditions are identical.
现有证据表明,网络晕动病在临床上可能与“经典的”运动诱发晕动病有所不同;然而,这些证据是在分别针对这两种情况之一进行的独立研究中获得的。我们的目的是通过直接比较同一受试者在物理运动(科里奥利交叉耦合)和沉浸在虚拟现实中(乘坐过山车)诱发的晕动病的主观症状和生理效应,来澄清这个问题。30名年轻健康志愿者组成的队列在≥1周间隔的2个不同日子里,以平衡顺序接受了两种刺激。在暴露期间记录恶心评分,并使用晕动病评估问卷(MSAQ)来描述实验后主观症状。在两种刺激方法的暴露前和暴露期间测量额部皮肤电导水平(SCL)的静息值和相位值。我们发现,两种测试中的恶心发作时间显著相关(r = 0.40,P = 0.03)。同样,在两种诱发过程中,最大恶心评分也显著相关(r = 0.58,P = 0.0012)。用MSAQ进行症状分析显示,两种情况下评估的4个症状簇中的每一个之间以及15/18个个体症状之间的总症状评分显著相关(r = 0.69,P < 0.0001)。虚拟现实和科里奥利交叉耦合诱发均导致与恶心相关的静息SCL增加[平均差异(mean diff)= 5.1,置信区间(CI)=(2.59,6.97),P = 0.007;平均差异= 1.49,CI =(0.47,7.08),P = 0.0001],两种情况之间密切相关(r = 0.48,P = 0.04)。当参与者报告最大恶心时,与无恶心相比,视觉刺激和科里奥利交叉耦合中相位皮肤电导瞬变的幅度均显著增加[平均差异= 0.27,CI =(0.091,0.63),P < 0.001;平均差异= 0.235,CI =(0.053,0.851),P < 0.006]。我们得出结论,至少在这些不适的晚期阶段,网络晕动病和经典晕动病期间出现的症状和生理变化非常相似。虚拟现实(VR)技术的扩展引发了对网络晕动病的兴趣,网络晕动病是一种因沉浸在VR中诱发的晕动病亚型。寻找预防和管理网络晕动病的方法需要很好地了解其本质,包括其与“经典”晕动病的关系。关于这种关系的知识存在争议,部分原因是没有研究让同一队列接受两种诱发刺激。通过这种方法,我们证明了这两种情况的症状和生理表现是相同的。