Inducers of motion sickness in vehicles: A systematic review of experimental evidence and meta-analysis
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2023.10.013
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the lack of quantified evidence regarding the factors that induce motion sickness in vehicles, a growing concern driven by the proliferation of intelligent cabins and in-vehicle infotainment systems. While motion sickness impairs user experience and acceptance of smart vehicle technologies, previous research has failed to consistently compare the influence of various inducers or reconcile conflicting findings across different theories, such as sensory conflict and postural instability. The study aims to synthesize experimental evidence to identify and quantify these influential factors, thereby guiding the optimization of vehicle design and human-machine interfaces to mitigate sickness among occupants. The authors conducted a systematic literature search across four databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore) using keywords related to motion sickness and vehicles. Following PRISMA guidelines, they screened 626 studies identified between 1959 and 2023. Inclusion criteria required studies to involve experiments in real vehicles or simulators with vehicular dynamics, investigate specific influential factors, and use subjective ratings (e.g., MSAQ, SSQ) rather than physiological signals or mathematical models as the primary measure of motion sickness severity. Ultimately, 57 studies were included for qualitative analysis, and 27 were selected for meta-analysis. The researchers categorized inducers into eight groups: eye view, non-driving-related task availability, artificial motion cues, head dynamic movement, vehicle dynamics, internal layout, individual differences, and others. For the meta-analysis, standardized mean differences were calculated to quantify the effect sizes of these inducers. The review identified eight distinct categories of motion sickness inducers. Qualitative analysis revealed that while most inducers had consistent effects, significant inconsistencies existed regarding vehicle dynamics, head movement, eye view, individual differences, and artificial motion cues. Specifically, an internal view consistently caused more severe sickness than an external view, but comparisons involving blindfolded views yielded contradictory results depending on the experimental context. The meta-analysis focused heavily on motion cues, finding that only natural present motion cues (visual cues of relative movement through windows) and non-visual artificial anticipatory motion cues (auditory or tactile cues predicting future vehicle motion) were effective in alleviating motion sickness. Other forms of artificial cues, such as visual present cues, did not show consistent efficacy. The significance of this study lies in its comprehensive quantification of motion sickness inducers, providing actionable insights for vehicle designers and engineers. By identifying which specific cues and environmental factors reliably reduce motion sickness, the findings support the development of intelligent cabin features that enhance passenger comfort. The study highlights the limitations of relying solely on mathematical models or physiological measures, advocating for subjective ratings as more reliable metrics. Furthermore, it outlines research gaps and future directions, emphasizing the need for further investigation into inconsistent findings, particularly regarding the interplay between visual views and vehicle dynamics, to fully optimize the user experience in both human-driven and automated vehicles.
Key finding
Only natural present motion cues and non-visual artificial anticipatory motion cues were effective in alleviating motion sickness, while other inducers generally increased it.
Methodology
meta_analysis
Sample size: 27
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.
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-28 |
| archive | success | canonical_url | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-06 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | clean | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-07 |
| chunk | success | chunk | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-07 |
| embed | success | embed | Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B | — | 1 | 2026-06-07 |
| enrich | success | openalex | — | — | 5 | 2026-07-02 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 15 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.