Shipboard Evaluation of Motion Sickness Incidence and Human Engineering Problems

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Seakeeping trials of a United States Coast Guard (USCG) cutter in March 1984 included a human factors engineering (HFE) evaluation having particular regard to problems of seasickness in certain work stations. Some motion sickness incidence and related data, and the derivation of human factors engineering principles from such data were reported by Bittner & Guignard in 1985: and some findings supporting the general utility of using magnitude estimation of motion sickness for operational comparisons were presented later (Bittner & Guignard, 1986). The present communication documents the previously unreported seasickness and related data from those trials; and the implications of the data for the planning of future seakeeping trials. It also reviews the general conclusions of the shipboard HFE evaluations. The subjects were 16 male USCG officers and enlisted personnel assigned to duties in mission-critical workspaces, to whom two questionnaires were administered systematically: namely, Motion Sickness Symptoms and Prewatch Status. The latter instrument evaluated intervening variables including sleep and use of medication. Analyses including correlation of questionnaire and ship motion data led to the following conclusions: (1) Contrary to traditional assumptions, seasickness is characterized by at least two functionally independent factors, identified as F1 (symptomatic General Motion Illness) and F2 (Retching-Vomiting). (2) Both factors showed declines across days as well as similar carry-over and location effects within days. However, F1 reflected persistent individual differences and was strongly associated with the vertical component of the ship's motion; while F2 was transitory and associated with large transverse relative to vertical components of motion. (3) The results support previously published human factors engineering principles for minimizing seasickness incidence (Bittner & Guignard, 1985) (4) Validity of future sea trials requires (a) multiple-score scaling of motion sickness (eg, using F1 and F2); (b) control of subject crew movements about the ship during periods of observation; and (c) avoidance of steaming patterns that induce extraneous carry-over effects.