Measuring driving simulator adaptation using EDA

Pungu Mwange, Marie-Anne; Rogister, Fabien; Rukonic, Luka · 2022 · Crossref

DOI: 10.54941/ahfe1001489

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

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

Summary

This study addresses the challenge of determining when drivers have physiologically adapted to a driving simulator, a critical factor for ensuring valid data in human factors research. Previous methods for assessing adaptation, such as fixed practice times or self-reported comfort, often neglect individual differences and fail to account for persistent physiological tension that can obscure reactions to specific experimental stimuli. The authors aimed to establish an objective method for measuring adaptation using electrodermal activity (EDA) and to investigate whether the Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire (MSSQ) could predict Simulator Adaptation Syndrome (SAS) to aid in participant recruitment. The experiment utilized a custom-made fixed driving simulator based on the CARLA environment, featuring three curved screens and realistic controls. Twenty-two licensed drivers were divided into two groups: Group A underwent a 5-minute familiarization drive, while Group B underwent a 30-minute session. Participants wore EDA electrodes on their left foot and ECG electrodes on their chest. The protocol included a simple highway drive, a complex city-and-highway drive, and a final session involving secondary cognitive tasks (auditory Stroop, counting, and spelling) designed to induce stress. Simulator sickness was monitored using the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) at multiple intervals, and motion sickness susceptibility was assessed via the MSSQ prior to testing. A subgroup of six participants from Group A repeated the experiment to assess the effects of repeated exposure. Results indicated that a total driving duration of approximately 35 minutes allowed most participants to reach a stable physiological state where EDA signals clearly distinguished between baseline arousal and task-induced stress. In Group A, 5 out of 10 participants showed good adaptation, whereas in Group B, 9 out of 12 adapted well. However, longer exposure in Group B led to significantly higher SSQ scores, indicating increased discomfort and simulator sickness compared to Group A. Repeated exposure did not significantly improve physiological adaptation metrics for those who initially failed to adapt, though participants reported feeling subjectively better on the second day. The study found a moderate correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.51) between MSSQ scores and initial SSQ scores, suggesting some predictive value for motion sickness susceptibility, although individual responses varied significantly. The findings suggest that while longer familiarization periods facilitate physiological adaptation measurable by EDA, they also increase the risk of simulator sickness. The authors conclude that a 35-minute total drive is sufficient for adaptation but recommend optimizing scenarios to reduce monotony and discomfort. Furthermore, while MSSQ shows promise as a screening tool for SAS-prone participants, further research with larger sample sizes is needed to validate its utility in recruitment processes. This work provides a methodological framework for using physiological data to objectively determine simulator readiness, enhancing the reliability of subsequent cognitive load and stress assessments.

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-nvidia on 2026-08-10; verification: verified.

Topics

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

• simulator sickness
• simulator validity fidelity
• workload measurement
• passenger motion sickness comfort
• stress driving
• simulator training transfer

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: physiological data
• Methodological Resource: validation psychometrics, tool software