Lack of gender difference in motion sickness induced by vestibular Coriolis cross-coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been reported that females are more susceptible to motion sickness than males. Supporting evidence is primarily based on retrospective survey questionnaires and self-reporting. We investigated if there is a gender difference in motion sickness susceptibility using objective and subjective measurements under controlled laboratory conditions. Thirty healthy subjects (14 males and 16 females) between the ages of 18-46 years were exposed to Coriolis cross-coupling stimulation, induced by 120 degrees /s yaw rotation and a simultaneous 45 degrees pitch forward head movement in the sagittal plane every 12 seconds. Cutaneous forearm and calf blood flow, blood pressure, and heart rate were monitored. Graybiel's diagnostic criteria were used to assess sickness susceptibility before and after motion exposure. Golding and Kerguelen's scale was used to assess the severity of symptoms during motion exposure. A significant (p<0.01) increase of forearm and calf blood flow during cross-coupling stimulation was observed in both sexes. However, the subjective symptoms rating and blood flow measurements indicate that there was no significant difference between male and female subjects. Our data also suggests that females may be more inclined to admit discomfort as indicated by their responses to a survey of motion sickness history prior to the experiment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".