Cited by 480Vestibular and auditory disordersNausea and vomiting managementVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

Motion sickness: a synthesis and evaluation of the sensory conflict theory

Oman, Charles M.·1990·Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology

Abstract

"Motion sickness" is the general term describing a group of common nausea syndromes originally attributed to motion-induced cerebral ischemia, stimulation of abdominal organ afferents, or overstimulation of the vestibular organs of the inner ear. Seasickness, car sickness, and airsickness are commonly experienced examples. However, the identification of other variants such as spectacle sickness and flight simulator sickness in which the physical motion of the head and body is normal or even absent has led to a succession of "sensory conflict" theories that offer a more comprehensive etiologic perspective. Implicit in the conflict theory is the hypothesis that neural and (or) humoral signals originate in regions of the brain subserving spatial orientation, and that these signals somehow traverse to other centers mediating sickness symptoms. Unfortunately, our present understanding of the neurophysiological basis of motion sickness is incomplete. No sensory conflict neuron or process has yet been physiologically identified. This paper reviews the types of stimuli that cause sickness and synthesizes a mathematical statement of the sensory conflict hypothesis based on observer theory from control engineering. A revised mathematical model is presented that describes the dynamic coupling between the putative conflict signals and nausea magnitude estimates. Based on the model, what properties would a conflict neuron be expected to have?Key words: motion sickness, nausea, vestibular, vision, mathematical models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/y90-044

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Sensory conflict theory proposes that VIMS results from a mismatch between or within the visual, vestibular, and somatosensory senses.

    “The sensory conflict theory (Reason and Brand, 1975; Reason, 1978; Oman, 1990; Bles et al., 1998; Bos et al., 2008) is arguably the most prominent theory used to explain VIMS and proposes that VIMS results from a mismatch between (or within) the visual, vestibular, and somatosensory senses”

    From Vection and visually induced motion sickness: how are they related? (2015) · cites this paper as Oman, 1990

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oman, C. M.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Oman, Charles M.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology
Published
1990-02-01
Volume
68
Issue
2
Pages
294-303
ISSN
  • 0008-4212 (ISSN-L)
  • 1205-7541
OpenAlex
W2163825209
Cited by
480
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 11
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nausea and vomiting management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
motion sickness, sensory conflict theory, seasickness, car sickness, airsickness, nausea, observer theory, spatial orientation, vestibular system
MeSH terms
Animals, Conflict, Psychological, Humans, Motion Sickness, Neurons, Afferent

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