Predicting Individual Susceptibility to Visually Induced Motion Sickness by Questionnaire
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The introduction of new visual technologies increases the risk of visually induced motion sickness (VIMS). The aim was to evaluate the 6-item Visually Induced Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire (VIMSSQ; also known as the VIMSSQ-short) and other predictors for individual susceptibility to VIMS. Methods: Healthy participants (10M + 20F), mean age 22.9 (SD 5.0) years, viewed a 360° panoramic city scene projected in the visual equivalent to the situation of rotating about an axis tilted from the vertical. The scene rotated at 0.2 Hz (72° s −1 ), with a ‘wobble’ produced by superimposed 18° tilt on the rotational axis, with a field of view of 83.5°. Exposure was 10 min or until moderate nausea was reported. Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) was the index of VIMS. Predictors/correlates were VIMSSQ, Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire (MSSQ), migraine (scale), syncope, Social & Work Impact of Dizziness (SWID), sleep quality/disturbance, personality (“Big Five” TIPI), a prior multisensory Stepping-Vection test, and vection during exposure. Results: The VIMSSQ had good scale reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84) and correlated significantly with the SSQ ( r = 0.58). Higher MSSQ, migraine, syncope, and SWID also correlated significantly with SSQ. Other variables had no significant relationships with SSQ. Regression models showed that the VIMSSQ predicted 34% of the individual variation of VIMS, increasing to 56% as MSSQ, migraine, syncope, and SWID were incorporated as additional predictors. Conclusion: The VIMSSQ is a useful adjunct to the MSSQ in predicting VIMS. Other predictors included migraine, syncope, and SWID. No significant relationship was observed between vection and VIMS.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it