CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Spaceflight effects on biologyVestibular and auditory disordersNausea and vomiting management

Individual differences in susceptibility to motion sickness among six Skylab astronauts

Graybiel, A., Miller, E.F., Homick, J.L.·1975·Acta Astronautica
DOI 10.1016/0094-5765(75)90051-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

One of the Skylab experiments dealt with motion sickness, comparing susceptibility in the workshop aloft with susceptibility preflight and postflight. Tests were conducted on and after mission-day 8 (MD 8) by which time the astronauts were adapted to working conditions. Stressful accelerations were generated by requiring the astronauts, with eyes covered, to execute standardized head movements (front, back, left, and right) while in a chair that could be rotated at angular velocities up to 30 rpm. The selected endpoint was either 150 discrete head movements or a very mild level of motion sickness. In all rotation experiments aloft, the five astronauts tested (astronaut 1 did not participate) were virtually symptom free, thus demonstrating lower susceptibility aloft than in preflight and postflight tests on the ground when symptoms were always elicited. Inasmuch as the eyes were covered and the canalicular stimuli were the same aloft as on the ground, it would appear that lifting the stimulus to the otolith organs due to gravity was an important factor in reducing susceptibility to motion sickness even though the transient stimuli generated under the test conditions were substantial and abnormal in pattern. Some of the astronauts experienced motion sickness under operational conditions aloft or after splashdown, but attention is centered chiefly on symptoms manifested in zero gravity. None of the Skylab-II crew (astronauts 1 to 3) was motion sick aloft. Astronaut 6 of the Skylab-III crew (astronauts 4 to 6) experienced motion sickness within an hour after transition into orbit; this constitutes the earliest such diagnosis on record under orbital flight conditions. The eliciting stimuli were associated with head and body movements, and astronaut 6 obtained relief by avoiding such movements and by one dose of the drug combination 1-scopolamine 0.35 mg + d-amphetamine 5.0 mg. All three astronauts of Skylab-III experienced motion sickness in the workshop where astronaut 6 was most susceptible and astronaut 4, least susceptible. The higher susceptibility of SL-III crewmen in the workshop, as compared with SL-II crewmen, may be attributable to the fact that they were based in the command module less than one-third as long as SL-II crewmen. The unnatural movements, often resembling acrobatics, permitted in the open spaces of the workshop revealed the great potentialities in weightlessness for generating complex interactions of abnormal or unusual vestibular and visual stimuli. Symptoms were controlled by body restraint and by drugs, but high susceptibility to motion sickness persisted for 3 days and probably much longer; restoration was complete on MD 7. From the foregoing statements it is clear that on and after MD 8 the susceptibility of SL-II and SL-III crewmen to motion sickness under experimental conditions was indistinguishable. The role played by the acquisition of adaptation effects prior to MD 8 is less clear and is a subject to be discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0094-5765(75)90051-x

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Skylab M131, astronauts highly susceptible preflight to Coriolis cross-coupling were totally insusceptible in-flight.

    “The participating astronauts had been tested preflight for their sensitivity to Coriolis cross-coupling stimulation and had been highly susceptible. Nine astronauts were tested over the course of the three manned Skylab missions. When tested in-flight each was totally insusceptible.”

    From Motion sickness: more than nausea and vomiting (2014) · cites this paper as Graybiel et al. 1975

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Graybiel, A., Miller, E. F., & Homick, J. L.
Affiliations
Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory (US)
Venue
Acta Astronautica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1975-01
Volume
2
Issue
1-2
Pages
155-174
ISSN
0094-5765 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0094-5765(75)90051-x
OpenAlex
W2035282756
Cited by
42
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Acta Astronautica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Spaceflight effects on biology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nausea and vomiting management
Keywords
motion sickness, individual susceptibility, microgravity, vestibular adaptation, otolith stimulation, head rotation, scopolamine, d-amphetamine, spaceflight adaptation, zero gravity, visual-vestibular interaction, post-flight recovery, physical restraint, anti-motion sickness drugs, astronaut health monitoring
MeSH terms
Acceleration, Aerospace Medicine, Coriolis Force, Dextroamphetamine, Disease Susceptibility, Humans, Male, Rotation, Scopolamine, Space Flight, Time Factors, Weightlessness, Space Motion Sickness, Adrenergic Agents, Muscarinic Antagonists, Head Movements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review