比较不同的晕动病个体易感性分类方法--晕车研究

IF 3.1 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Applied Ergonomics Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104389
Andreas Hartmann , Steffen Müller , Christiane Cyberski , Uwe Schönfeld
{"title":"比较不同的晕动病个体易感性分类方法--晕车研究","authors":"Andreas Hartmann ,&nbsp;Steffen Müller ,&nbsp;Christiane Cyberski ,&nbsp;Uwe Schönfeld","doi":"10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In studies aimed at developing avoidance strategies to reduce motion sickness (kinetosis) in autonomous vehicles, failing to account for the wide variability in individual kinetosis susceptibility can lead to inaccuracies and disregard effective countermeasures. Three methods for assessing individual susceptibility to carsickness – two questionnaires focusing on kinetosis experiences and a kinetosis-provoking lab test – were compared with the development of kinetosis during real car driving tests. Questions about car-specific kinetosis-provoking situations (MS-C) exhibit stronger correlations with kinetosis in car experiments compared to the commonly used questions about kinetosis experiences across different types of transportation (MS-VD). While lab-based testing remains highly reliable, especially considering men's tendency to underestimate their carsickness susceptibility in questionnaires, MS-C provides a valuable compromise in terms of technical and time expenses. These findings can also be used to assist passengers of autonomous driving cars in accurately assessing their sensitivity and activating customized countermeasure functions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55502,"journal":{"name":"Applied Ergonomics","volume":"122 ","pages":"Article 104389"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001662/pdfft?md5=7a9fcd9dabe30bf0efad3dffc445af5d&pid=1-s2.0-S0003687024001662-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of different methods for categorizing the individual susceptibility to motion sickness – A carsickness study\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Hartmann ,&nbsp;Steffen Müller ,&nbsp;Christiane Cyberski ,&nbsp;Uwe Schönfeld\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104389\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In studies aimed at developing avoidance strategies to reduce motion sickness (kinetosis) in autonomous vehicles, failing to account for the wide variability in individual kinetosis susceptibility can lead to inaccuracies and disregard effective countermeasures. Three methods for assessing individual susceptibility to carsickness – two questionnaires focusing on kinetosis experiences and a kinetosis-provoking lab test – were compared with the development of kinetosis during real car driving tests. Questions about car-specific kinetosis-provoking situations (MS-C) exhibit stronger correlations with kinetosis in car experiments compared to the commonly used questions about kinetosis experiences across different types of transportation (MS-VD). While lab-based testing remains highly reliable, especially considering men's tendency to underestimate their carsickness susceptibility in questionnaires, MS-C provides a valuable compromise in terms of technical and time expenses. These findings can also be used to assist passengers of autonomous driving cars in accurately assessing their sensitivity and activating customized countermeasure functions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Ergonomics\",\"volume\":\"122 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104389\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001662/pdfft?md5=7a9fcd9dabe30bf0efad3dffc445af5d&pid=1-s2.0-S0003687024001662-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Ergonomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001662\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001662","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在旨在制定避免策略以减少自动驾驶汽车晕车(动晕)的研究中,如果没有考虑到个人对动晕的敏感性存在很大差异,就会导致研究不准确,并忽视有效的应对措施。我们将评估个人晕车敏感性的三种方法--两份侧重于晕车体验的调查问卷和一项诱发晕车的实验室测试--与实际汽车驾驶测试中的晕车发展情况进行了比较。与常用的关于不同类型交通工具的晕车经历的问题(MS-VD)相比,关于特定汽车的晕车诱发情况的问题(MS-C)与晕车实验中的晕车表现出更强的相关性。虽然基于实验室的测试仍然非常可靠,特别是考虑到男性在问卷调查中容易低估自己的晕车敏感性,但 MS-C 在技术和时间成本方面提供了一种有价值的折衷方法。这些发现还可用于帮助自动驾驶汽车的乘客准确评估其敏感性,并激活定制的应对功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of different methods for categorizing the individual susceptibility to motion sickness – A carsickness study

In studies aimed at developing avoidance strategies to reduce motion sickness (kinetosis) in autonomous vehicles, failing to account for the wide variability in individual kinetosis susceptibility can lead to inaccuracies and disregard effective countermeasures. Three methods for assessing individual susceptibility to carsickness – two questionnaires focusing on kinetosis experiences and a kinetosis-provoking lab test – were compared with the development of kinetosis during real car driving tests. Questions about car-specific kinetosis-provoking situations (MS-C) exhibit stronger correlations with kinetosis in car experiments compared to the commonly used questions about kinetosis experiences across different types of transportation (MS-VD). While lab-based testing remains highly reliable, especially considering men's tendency to underestimate their carsickness susceptibility in questionnaires, MS-C provides a valuable compromise in terms of technical and time expenses. These findings can also be used to assist passengers of autonomous driving cars in accurately assessing their sensitivity and activating customized countermeasure functions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Ergonomics
Applied Ergonomics 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
9.40%
发文量
248
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Applied Ergonomics is aimed at ergonomists and all those interested in applying ergonomics/human factors in the design, planning and management of technical and social systems at work or leisure. Readership is truly international with subscribers in over 50 countries. Professionals for whom Applied Ergonomics is of interest include: ergonomists, designers, industrial engineers, health and safety specialists, systems engineers, design engineers, organizational psychologists, occupational health specialists and human-computer interaction specialists.
期刊最新文献
Effects of different block designs on low back and shoulders biomechanical loads and postural stability during crab pot handling. Digital technologies and resilient performance in socio-technical systems: A human factors and ergonomics perspective. Understanding older adults' needs for and perceptions of shared autonomous vehicle interior features: A focus group and user enactment study. Assessing operator stress in collaborative robotics: A multimodal approach Corrigendum to "Gender, sex and desk-based postural behaviour: A systematic review re-interpreting biomechanical evidence from a social perspective" [Appl. Ergon. 114 (2023) 104073].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1