Demonstrating the Need for Application-Level Design Guidelines in In-Vehicle Augmented Reality to Alleviate Motion Sickness: A Field Study

Walker, Zack; Gerlicher, Ansgar · 2025 · Crossref

DOI: 10.54941/ahfe1006906

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 investigates whether video-passthrough (VPT) augmented reality (AR) head-mounted displays (HMDs) can mitigate motion sickness for passengers working in moving vehicles, a critical barrier to productivity in future autonomous vehicles. Motivated by the shift toward passenger-centric vehicle interiors and the sensory mismatch theory of motion sickness, the research compares the Apple Vision Pro (AVP) against a traditional tablet device. The authors hypothesized that positioning virtual displays at head height via AR would reduce symptoms compared to lap-held tablets and that the AVP’s technical specifications would not induce severe motion sickness. The methodology comprised two parts: a main field study with 40 participants and a technical control study with 10 participants. In the field study, participants performed reading, video, and writing tasks while traveling in a compact car under two counterbalanced conditions: using the AVP with a virtual display at head height or using a Samsung tablet on their lap. Motion sickness was assessed using the Motion Sickness Severity Scale (MSSS) after a 15-minute drive involving highway and urban segments. The control study evaluated the AVP’s camera feed without virtual displays to isolate the impact of hardware factors like latency and resolution. Participants were selected for their above-average susceptibility to motion sickness. Results indicated no statistically significant difference in overall motion sickness severity between the AVP and the tablet conditions. However, severe nausea occurred exclusively in the AVP condition, affecting 12.5% of participants. Crucially, these cases were limited to highly susceptible individuals who had already experienced symptoms during the preceding tablet ride. When analyzing rides with no prior symptoms, no severe nausea occurred with the AVP. The control study confirmed that technical factors such as display resolution and photon-to-photon latency caused at most mild nausea, supporting the hypothesis that hardware limitations are not the primary trigger for severe symptoms. A moderate positive correlation was found between individual susceptibility and symptom severity for both devices. The study concludes that while current VPT AR technology is technically sufficient to compete with traditional devices regarding motion sickness, it does not inherently alleviate symptoms. The authors argue that presenting content at head height alone is insufficient if the virtual interface blocks peripheral vision, preventing users from anticipating vehicle motion. The findings emphasize the urgent need for application-level design guidelines, such as translucent or smaller windows, to ensure AR applications are accessible and comfortable in in-vehicle contexts. Without such adaptations, AR devices may exacerbate symptoms in susceptible users, hindering their adoption in autonomous mobility scenarios.

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 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

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

• passenger motion sickness comfort
• simulator sickness
• hud ar windshield