ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Quantifying the Relative Contributions of Exposure Time, ECG, GSR, and Vibration-Derived Features for Motion Sickness Prediction.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Motion sickness is expected to become more prevalent in road transportation as passengers increasingly engage in non-driving-related activities under automated driving. This study quantified the relative contributions of exposure time (discrete trial index), physiological signals, and vibration-derived features to motion sickness prediction under controlled road vibration. Thirty-nine participants were exposed to four road profiles reproduced on a motion simulator while electrocardiography (ECG), galvanic skin response (GSR), triaxial head acceleration, and motion sickness ratings were recorded across ten 2 min trials per session during a reading task. Three dataset configurations were compared: exposure time only (type 1), physiological and vibration-derived features only (type 2), and the combined (type 3) dataset. Motion sickness prediction was evaluated using support vector classification, random forest, and XGBoost, and permutation importance was used to assess feature contribution. Across all classifiers, exposure time was ranked as the most important feature, followed by overall root-mean-square, while ECG and GSR contributed at lower levels. The combined dataset achieved the best performance, reaching 77% classification accuracy and R
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.