Effects of gender of subjects and experimenter on susceptibility to motion sickness

Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine

Volumn 70, Issue 10, 1999, Pages 962-965

  Jokerst, Michael D ^a   Gatto, Melinda ^a   Fazio, Robert ^a   Gianaros, Peter J ^a   Stern, Robert M ^a   Koch, Kenneth L ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Electrogastrogram (EGG); Experimenter effects; Gender differences; Motion sickness

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DISEASE PREDISPOSITION; ELECTROGASTROGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MOTION SICKNESS; NORMAL HUMAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; SEX DIFFERENCE; SYMPTOMATOLOGY;

NON-PROGRAMMATIC;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY; EFFECT MODIFIERS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL MOTILITY; HUMANS; MALE; MOTION SICKNESS; RESEARCH DESIGN; ROTATION; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 0033373606     PISSN: 00956562     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Biocca F. Will simulation sickness slow down the diffusion of virtual reality technology? Presence 1992; 1: 334-43.
2. Birren JE. Psychophysiological studies of motion sickness. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University; 1947. Dissertation.
3. Cieutat VJ. Examiner differences with the Stanford-Binet I.Q. Percept Mot Skills 1965; 20: 317-8.
4. Cowings PS, Toscano WB. A comparison of men and women in susceptibility, adaptability, and propensity for learning self-control of motion sickness symptoms. In: Crampton GH, ed. Motion and space sickness. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1990.
5. Fisher LE, Kotses H. Experimenter and subject sex effects in the skin conductance response. Psychophysiology 1974; 11: 191-6.
6. Graybiel A, Wood CD, Miller EF II, Cramer DB. Diagnostic criteria for grading the severity of acute motion sickness. Aerosp Med 1968; 39: 453-5.
7. Harris S, Masling J. Examiner sex, subject sex, and Rorschach Productivity. J Consult Clin Psychol 1970; 34: 60-3.
8. Hu S, Stern RM, Koch KL. Effects of pre-exposures to a rotating optokinetic drum on adaptation to motion sickness. Aviat Space Environ Med 1991; 62: 53-6.
9. Kennedy RS, Lanham DS, Massey CJ, et al. Gender differences in simulator sickness incidence: implications for military virtual reality systems. SAFE J 1995; 25: 69-76.
10. Lentz JM, Collins WE. Motion sickness susceptibility and related behavioral characteristics in men and women. Aviat Space Environ Med 1977; 48: 316-22.
11. Littig LW, Waddell CM. Sex and experimenter interaction in serial learning. J Verb Learn Verb Beh 1967; 6: 676-8.
12. McFarland RA. Human factors in air transportation: occupational health and safety. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1953.
13. Mirabile CS Jr, Ford MR. A clinically useful polling technique for assessing susceptibility to motion sickness. Percep Mot Skills 1982; 54: 987-91.
14. Muth ER, Stern RM, Thayer JF, Koch KL. Assessment of the multiple dimensions of nausea: the nausea profile (NP). J Psychosom Res 1996; 40: 511-20.
15. Pennebaker JW. The psychology of physical symptoms. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1982.
16. Pennebaker JW, Skelton JA. Selective monitoring of bodily sensations. J Person Soc Psychol 1981; 41: 213-23.
17. Reason JT, Brand JJ. Motion sickness. London: Academic Press; 1975.
18. Rosenthal R. Experimental effects in behavioral research. New York: Irvington Publishers; 1967.
19. Silverman I. The experimenter: a (still) neglected stimulus object. Can Psychol 1974; 15:258-70.
20. Stern RM, Koch KL. Motion sickness. Motility 1991; 12: 11-4.
21. Stern RM, Koch KL, Stewart WR, Lindblad IM. Spectral analysis of tachygastria recorded during motion sickness. Gastroenterology 1987; 92: 92-7.