A prime concern for automated vehicles is motion comfort, as an uncomfortable ride may reduce acceptance of the technology amongst the general population. However, it is not clear how transient motions typical for travelling by car affect the experience of comfort. Here, we determine the relation between properties of vehicle motions (i.e., acceleration and jerk) and discomfort empirically, and we evaluate the ability of normative models to account for the data. 23 participants were placed in a moving-base driving simulator and presented sinusoidial and triangular motion pulses with various peak accelerations (A_max0.4 - 2 ms^-2) and jerks (J_max0.5 - 15 ms^-3), designed to recreate typical vehicle accelerations. Participants provided discomfort judgments on absolute 'Verbal Qualifiers' and relative 'Magnitude Estimates' associated with these motions. The data show that discomfort increases with acceleration amplitude, and that the strength of this effect depends on the direction of motion. We furthermore find that higher jerks (shorter duration pulses) are considered more comfortable, and that triangular pulses are more comfortable than sinusoidal pulses. ME responses decrease (i.e., reduced discomfort) with increasing pulse duration. Evaluations of normative models of vibration and shock (ISO 2631), and perceived motion intensity provide mixed results. The vibration model could not account for the data well. Reasonable agreement between predictions and observations were found for the shock model and perceived intensity model, which emphasize the role of acceleration. We present novel statistical models that describe motion comfort as a function of acceleration, jerk, and direction. The present findings are essential to develop motion planning algorithms aimed at maximizing comfort.

A large body of research shows that the Central Nervous System (CNS) integrates multisensory information. However, this strategy should only apply to multisensory signals that have a common cause; independent signals should be segregated. Causal Inference (CI) models account for this notion. Surprisingly, previous findings suggested that visual and inertial cues on heading of self-motion are integrated regardless of discrepancy. We hypothesized that CI does occur, but that characteristics of the motion profiles affect multisensory processing. Participants estimated heading of visual-inertial motion stimuli with several different motion profiles and a range of intersensory discrepancies. The results support the hypothesis that judgments of signal causality are included in the heading estimation process. Moreover, the data suggest a decreasing tolerance for discrepancies and an increasing reliance on visual cues for longer duration motions.

The perceptual upright is thought to be constructed by the central nervous system (CNS) as a vector sum; by combining estimates on the upright provided by the visual system and the body’s inertial sensors with prior knowledge that upright is usually above the head. Recent findings furthermore show that the weighting of the respective sensory signals is proportional to their reliability, consistent with a Bayesian interpretation of a vector sum (Forced Fusion, FF). However, violations of FF have also been reported, suggesting that the CNS may rely on a single sensory system (Cue Capture, CC), or choose to process sensory signals based on inferred signal causality (Causal Inference, CI). We developed a novel alternative-reality system to manipulate visual and physical tilt independently. We tasked participants (n = 36) to indicate the perceived upright for various (in-)congruent combinations of visual-inertial stimuli, and compared models based on their agreement with the data. The results favor the CI model over FF, although this effect became unambiguous only for large discrepancies (±60°). We conclude that the notion of a vector sum does not provide a comprehensive explanation of the perception of the upright, and that CI offers a better alternative.

The risk of motion sickness is considerably higher in autonomous vehicles than it is in human-operated vehicles. Their introduction will therefore require systems that mitigate motion sickness. We investigated whether this can be achieved by augmenting the vehicle interior with additional visualizations. Participants were immersed in motion simulations on a moving-base driving simulator, where they were backward-facing passengers of an autonomous vehicle. Using a Head-Mounted Display, they were presented either with a regular view from inside the vehicle, or with augmented views that offered additional cues on the vehicle's present motion or motion 500ms into the future, displayed on the vehicle's interior panels. In contrast to the hypotheses and other recent studies, no difference was found between conditions. The absence of differences between conditions suggests a ceiling effect: providing a regular view may limit motion sickness, but presentation of additional visual information beyond this does not further reduce sickness.

High levels of vehicle automation are expected to increase the risk of motion sickness, which is a major detriment to driving comfort. The exact relation between motion sickness and discomfort is a matter of debate, with recent studies suggesting a relief of discomfort at the onset of nausea. In this study, we investigate whether discomfort increases monotonously with motion sickness and how the relation can best be characterized in a semantic experiment (Experiment 1) and a motion sickness experiment (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, 15 participants performed pairwise comparisons on the subjective discomfort associated with each item on the popular MIsery SCale (MISC) of motion sickness. In Experiment 2, 17 participants rated motion sickness using the MISC during exposures to four sustained motion stimuli, and provided (1) numerical magnitude estimates of the discomfort experienced for each level of the MISC, and (2) verbal magnitude estimates with seven qualifiers, ranging between feeling ‘excellent’ and ‘terrible’. The data of Experiment 1 show that the items of the MISC are ranked in order of appearance, with the exception of 5 (‘severe dizziness, warmth, headache, stomach awareness, and sweating’) and 6 (‘slight nausea’), which are ranked in opposite order. However, in Experiment 2, we find that discomfort associated with each level of the MISC, as it was used to express motion sickness during exposure to a sickening stimulus, increases monotonously; following a power law with an exponent of 1.206. While the results of Experiment 1 replicate the non-linearity found in recent studies, the results of Experiment 2 suggest that the non-linearity is due to the semantic nature of Experiment 1, and that there is a positive monotonous relation between MISC and discomfort in practice. These results support the suitability of MISC to assess motion sickness.

Increasing levels of vehicle automation are envisioned to allow drivers to engage in other activities but are also likely to increase the incidence of Carsickness or Motion Sickness (MS). Ideally, MS is studied in a safe and controlled environment, such as a driving simulator. However, only few studies address the suitability of driving simulators to assess MS. In this study, we validate a moving base driving simulator for MS research by comparing the symptoms and time course of MS between a real-road driving scenario and a rendition of this scenario in a driving simulator, using a within-subjects design. 25 participants took part as passengers in an experiment with alternating sections (slaloming, stop-and-go) with normal and provocative driving styles. Participants performed Sudoku puzzles (eyes-off-road) during both scenarios and reported MIsery SCale (MISC) scores at 30 s intervals. Motion Sickness Assessment Questionnaire (MSAQ) scores were collected upon completion of either scenario. Overall, the results indicate that MS was more severe in the car than in the simulator. Nevertheless, significant correlations were found between individual MS in the car and simulator for 3 out of 4 MSAQ symptom categories (0.48 < r < 0.73, p < 0.02), with a strong overall correlation (r = 0.57, p = 0.004). MS onset times were similar between the car and the simulator, and sickness fluctuations as a result of driving style showed a similar pattern between scenarios, albeit more pronounced in the car. Based on observed similarities in MS, we conclude these simulator results to have relative validity. We attribute the observed reduction of MS severity in the simulator to the downscaling of the motion by the Motion Cueing Algorithm (MCA). These results suggest that, at least in eyes-off-road conditions, findings on MS from simulator studies may generalize to real vehicles after application of a conversion factor. This conversion factor is likely to depend on simulator and MCA characteristics.