Efficient Motion Sickness Assessment: Recreation of On-Road Driving on a Compact Test Track

The ability to engage in other activities during the ride is considered by consumers as one of the key reasons for the adoption of automated vehicles. However, engagement in non-driving activities will provoke occupants' motion sickness, deteriorating their overall comfort and thereby risking acceptance of automated driving. Therefore, it is critical to extend our understanding of motion sickness and unravel the modulating factors that affect it through experiments with participants. Currently, most experiments are conducted on public roads (realistic but not reproducible) or test tracks (feasible with prototype automated vehicles). This research study develops a method to design an optimal path and speed reference to efficiently replicate on-road motion sickness exposure on a small test track. The method uses model predictive control to replicate the longitudinal and lateral accelerations collected from on-road drives on a test track of 70 m by 175 m. A within-subject experiment (47 participants) was conducted comparing the occupants' motion sickness occurrence in test-track and on-road conditions, with the conditions being cross-randomized. The results illustrate no difference and no effect of the condition on the occurrence of the average motion sickness across the participants. Meanwhile, there is an overall correspondence of individual sickness levels between on-road and test-track. This paves the path for the employment of our method for a simpler, safer and more replicable assessment of motion sickness.

The impact of body and head dynamics on motion comfort assessment

Head motion is a key determinant of motion comfort and differs substantially from seat motion due to seat and body compliance and dynamic postural stabilization. This paper compares different human body model fidelities to transmit seat accelerations to the head for the assessment of motion comfort through simulations. Six-degree of freedom dynamics were analyzed using frequency response functions derived from an advanced human model (AHM), a computationally efficient human model (EHM) and experimental studies. Simulations of dynamic driving show that human models strongly affected the predicted ride comfort (increased up to a factor 3). Furthermore, they modestly affected sickness using the available filters from the literature and ISO-2631 (increased up to 30%), but more strongly affected sickness predicted by the subjective vertical conflict (SVC) model (increased up to 70%).

Motion comfort and driver feel: An explorative study about their relation in remote driving

Teleoperation is considered as a viable option to control fully automated vehicles (AVs) of Level 4 and 5 in special conditions. However, by bringing the remote drivers in the loop, their driving experience should be realistic to secure safe and comfortable remote control.Therefore, the remote control tower should be designed such that remote drivers receive high quality cues regarding the vehicle state and the driving environment. In this direction, the steering feedback could be manipulated to provide feedback to the remote drivers regarding how the vehicle reacts to their commands. However, until now, it is unclear how the remote drivers' steering feel could impact occupant's motion comfort. This paper focuses on exploring how the driver feel in remote (RD) and normal driving (ND) are related with motion comfort. More specifically, different types of steering feedback controllers are applied in (a) the steering system of a Research Concept Vehicle-model E (RCV-E) and (b) the steering system of a remote control tower. An experiment was performed to assess driver feel when the RCV-E is normally and remotely driven. Subjective assessment and objective metrics are employed to assess drivers' feel and occupants' motion comfort in both remote and normal driving scenarios. The results illustrate that motion sickness and ride comfort are only affected by the steering velocity in remote driving, while throttle input variations affect them in normal driving. The results demonstrate that motion sickness and steering velocity increase both around 25$\%$ from normal to remote driving.