Aviation, space, and environmental medicine · 2011
Off vertical axis rotation motion sickness and field dependence.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cian Corinne, Ohlmann Théophile, Ceyte Hadrien, Gresty Michael A, Golding John F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Our study probed the relationship between field dependence and the development of nausea in light and dark during whole-body, off vertical axis rotation (OVAR).
METHODS: There were 24 subjects who underwent OVAR at 0.2 Hz, 18 degree tilt. Exposures were undertaken in both light and darkness in sessions spaced 5 d apart in balanced order design. During rotation, nausea was rated at 1-min intervals to a cut off at 20 min or a level of 'moderate nausea' was attained, at which point motion stopped. Before and after OVAR sessions field dependence was rated with the rod and frame test (RFT) with head upright or tilted 28 degree to induce a head-centric bias.
RESULTS: Subjects tolerated OVAR longer in the light (mean 13.3 min +/- 6.8 SD) than in darkness (11.1 min +/- 7.2). Motion sickness susceptibility evaluated by questionnaire was inversely correlated with tolerance of OVAR in the light. There was a tendency for subjects who were visual field dependent to fare better with OVAR in the light than in darkness. Subjects whose RFT estimates with head tilted tended to incline the visual vertical to the direction of head tilt better tolerated OVAR in darkness.
DISCUSSION: The results suggest that susceptibility, as evaluated by questionnaires probing motion sickness experiences in daily life, is influenced by visual factors. Assessments of sensitivity to reference frames for orientation, either visual or ego-centered, show promise for markers of motion sickness susceptibility according to the visual surround rather than to absolute levels of susceptibility to motion sickness.
METHODS: There were 24 subjects who underwent OVAR at 0.2 Hz, 18 degree tilt. Exposures were undertaken in both light and darkness in sessions spaced 5 d apart in balanced order design. During rotation, nausea was rated at 1-min intervals to a cut off at 20 min or a level of 'moderate nausea' was attained, at which point motion stopped. Before and after OVAR sessions field dependence was rated with the rod and frame test (RFT) with head upright or tilted 28 degree to induce a head-centric bias.
RESULTS: Subjects tolerated OVAR longer in the light (mean 13.3 min +/- 6.8 SD) than in darkness (11.1 min +/- 7.2). Motion sickness susceptibility evaluated by questionnaire was inversely correlated with tolerance of OVAR in the light. There was a tendency for subjects who were visual field dependent to fare better with OVAR in the light than in darkness. Subjects whose RFT estimates with head tilted tended to incline the visual vertical to the direction of head tilt better tolerated OVAR in darkness.
DISCUSSION: The results suggest that susceptibility, as evaluated by questionnaires probing motion sickness experiences in daily life, is influenced by visual factors. Assessments of sensitivity to reference frames for orientation, either visual or ego-centered, show promise for markers of motion sickness susceptibility according to the visual surround rather than to absolute levels of susceptibility to motion sickness.