Desensitization to strong vestibular stimuli improves tolerance to simulated aircraft motion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The extent to which tolerance acquired in one motion environment can be transferred to another has not been fully elucidated. This study compares three provocative motion stimuli and whether tolerance acquired from cross-coupled motion and torso rotation can be transferred to simulated aircraft motion. METHOD: There were 18 healthy subjects (9 men and 9 women), 18-44 yr of age, who were divided into 3 groups. Each group was exposed to the following desensitization procedure in a pseudo-random repeated measures design. In condition D1, subjects were exposed to 4 consecutive days of cross-coupling and on the 5th d they were exposed to simulated aircraft motion. In D2, subjects were exposed to 4 consecutive days of torso rotation and on the 5th day they were exposed to the simulated aircraft motion as in D1. In D3, subjects were exposed to 5 consecutive days of simulated aircraft motion. Based on Graybiel's diagnostic criteria, severity of motion sickness on the 1st and 5th day in D1, D2, and D3 were compared. RESULTS: Cross-coupled motion was the most provocative stimulus followed by torso rotation and simulated aircraft motion. Within each motion stimulus, there was evidence of desensitization (p < 0.001) within 4 d. There were no significant differences in the severity of motion sickness observed on the 5th day regardless of the desensitization stimuli. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that desensitization to one provocative motion could be transferred to a less severe motion stimulus. This result could be used in the refinement of desensitization programs for aircrew.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".