Attention Military/Commercial Simulation Developers, Users, & Trainers: Visually-induced or Motion-induced Sickness is not Necessarily More Severe for Women

Lawson, Ben; Bolkhovsky, Jeffrey · 2023 · Crossref

DOI: 10.54941/ahfe1003571

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper addresses the widespread assertion that women are significantly more susceptible to motion sickness and visually-induced motion sickness (VIMS) than men, a claim that influences the design of extended reality (XR), head-mounted displays, and simulators. The authors challenge this common belief, noting that premature conclusions regarding sex-based susceptibility could negatively impact military readiness, career prospects for women, and the commercial adoption of immersive technologies. The study was motivated by the need to determine whether the existing literature genuinely supports the hypothesis of female vulnerability or if the consensus is overstated due to methodological flaws and biases. To evaluate this question, the authors conducted a comprehensive literature review, amassing the largest known sample of relevant studies to date. Searches were performed across multiple years (2003, 2014, 2021, and 2022) using approximately 20 databases and search engines. The review included 76 direct empirical or survey studies involving motion sickness or VIMS, covering a wide range of stimuli such as VR, AR, simulators, and physical motion. The inclusion criteria were liberal to minimize "file drawer" bias, ensuring that studies with negative findings were not excluded. The authors analyzed the quantitative results of these studies to determine how many consistently supported the hypothesis that women are more susceptible than men. The findings reveal that only 37 out of the 76 studies (48.7%) were consistent with the assertion that women are more susceptible to motion sickness or VIMS. This proportion falls short of a majority, contradicting the common narrative that most evidence supports a sex difference. The authors also identified a chronological trend: studies conducted between 1940 and 1979 were roughly twice as likely to conclude that women were more susceptible compared to studies from 1980 to 2001, and this disparity persisted in post-2001 research. Furthermore, the authors noted that tightly controlled empirical laboratory studies were significantly less likely to find a sex difference compared to self-report surveys, suggesting that many reported differences may stem from confounding variables rather than biological sex. The significance of this work lies in its call for researchers, developers, and trainers to reserve judgment on sex differences in motion sickness susceptibility until conclusive evidence from tightly controlled studies is available. The authors argue that current evidence is insufficient to justify labeling XR technologies as "sexist" or to assume inherent female vulnerability. They emphasize that premature conclusions could harm workforce diversity and technology dissemination. Instead, the paper suggests that training personnel should focus on individual susceptibility based on past exposure history or familial traits rather than biological sex. The authors advocate for future research to prioritize high-quality, controlled empirical studies to better understand individual differences without relying on potentially biased aggregate data.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• simulator sickness
• passenger motion sickness comfort