ArticleThe journal of international advanced otology2024
Neuro-ophthalmic and Neuro-otologic Evaluation in Individuals with Motion Sickness Susceptibility.
Article in The journal of international advanced otology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Study on Autonomous Driving Motion Sickness from the Perspective of Multimodal Human Signals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the physiological background of motion sickness is not entirely clear, it was aimed to examine the physiological differences in groups consisting of individuals susceptible and non-susceptible to motion sickness. Sixty subjects [motion sickness (MS) group: 33 female, 3 male; 28.8 ± 8.1 years; control group: 19 female, 5 male; 24.5 ± 4.3 years] were included in the study. Near visual acuity test on the treadmill in the presence of visual stimulation, pattern visual-evoked potentials, oculomotor tests, and computerized dynamic posturography were applied. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to determine the parameter that provides the excellent discrimination between the groups. The most effective parameter in differentiating the study groups was determined as dynamic visual acuity with 77.8% sensitivity and 95.8% specificity. Significant differences were found in the vestibular (mean ± standard deviation: 0.63 ± 0.17), visual (0.77 ± 0.18), and composite scores (73.11 ± 11.89) of the patients (P=.000) in posturographic evaluation. In the visual-evoked potential examination, a significant decrease was found in the amplitude values between the P100-N145 waves in the binocular (5.0 ± 2.8, P=.002), right eye (7.6 ± 3.2, P=.009) and left eye (7.9 ± 2.9, P=.016) in the symptomatic patients. In binocular oculomotor evaluation, directional asymmetric findings were obtained. It has been shown that the most effective test parameter that distinguishes the MS susceptible and non-susceptible individuals is the dynamic visual acuity value. Based on the results of neuro-physiological tests, it was suggested that a possible visual-vestibular integration disorder in individuals susceptible to motion sickness may affect visual and vestibular performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.