REVIEW

CURRENT
OPINION Pathophysiology and treatment of motion sickness
John F. Golding a and Michael A. Gresty b

Purpose of review
Motion sickness remains bothersome in conventional transport and is an emerging hazard in visual
information technologies. Treatment remains unsatisfactory but advances in brain imaging,
neurophysiology, and neuropharmacology may provide insights into more effective drug and behavioural
management. We review these major developments.
Recent findings
Recent progress has been in identifying brain mechanisms and loci associated with motion sickness and
nausea per se. The techniques have included conventional neurophysiology, pathway mapping, and
functional MRI, implicating multiple brain regions including cortex, brainstem, and cerebellum.
Understanding of the environmental and behavioural conditions provocative of and protective against
motion sickness and how vestibular disease may sensitize to motion sickness has increased. The problem of
nauseogenic information technology has emerged as a target for research, motivated by its ubiquitous
applications. Increased understanding of the neurophysiology and brain regions associated with motion
sickness may provide for more effective medication in the future. However, the polysymptomatic nature of
motion sickness, high interindividual variability, and the extensive brain regions involved may preclude a
single, decisive treatment.
Summary
Motion sickness is an emerging hazard in information technologies. Adaptation remains the most effective
countermeasure together with established medications, notably scopolamine and antihistamines.
Neuropharmacological investigations may provide more effective medication in the foreseeable future.
Keywords
motion sickness, neurophysiology, vestibular, virtual reality

INTRODUCTION dizziness, and, unsurprisingly, loss of appetite and

&&

A resurgence of interest in motion sickness in recent increased sensitivity to odors [1 ]. The importance
years has been attributable to the use of nauseogenic and negative impact on performance of sopite is
&

visual displays and realization of the involvement of underestimated [2 ], and yawning has been shown
&

the vestibular system, the key mechanism in motion to be a behavioural marker [3 ]. The headache pro-
&&

sickness, with clinical disorders including migraine. voked can be migrainous and disabling [1 ]. Gastric
Nonetheless, characteristic of the history of motion dysrhythmias may provide a marker of nausea in
sickness studies, progress has been slow. Some of the motion sickness [4], and drop in stomach fundus
&

central neuronal pathways involved in processing of
provocative stimuli have been identified. There is
greater understanding of the environmental and
behavioural circumstances and medical conditions
that modulate motion sickness, but little advance
in treatments.
SYMPTOMATOLOGY
Motion sickness is polysymptomatic. Nausea and
vomiting may be accompanied by a host of signifi-
cant symptoms including headache, sopite (drows-
iness), sweating, facial pallor, cold sweating,
increased salivation, sensations of bodily warmth,
and sphincter pressure correlates with nausea [5 ].
PROVOCATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
In an extensive survey of a cruise ship, motion sick-
ness was the most common reason for physicians’
a
Department of Psychology, University of Westminster and bDivision of
Brain Sciences (Neuro-Otology Unit), Imperial College London, Charing
Cross Hospital, London, UK
Correspondence to Prof John F. Golding, Department of Psychology,
University of Westminster, 309 Regent Street, London W1B 2UW, UK.
Tel: +44 2079115000; e-mail: goldinj@westminster.ac.uk
Curr Opin Neurol 2015, 28:83–88
DOI:10.1097/WCO.0000000000000163

1350-7540 Copyright ß 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. www.co-neurology.com

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Neuro-ophthalmology and neuro-otology
KEY POINTS
 Habituation remains the most effective treatment for
motion sickness.
 There have been very few practical advances in
antimotion sickness medication over the standard
treatments such as scopolamine or antihistamines.
 Visually induced motion sickness through new
technologies such as 3D displays has emerged as a
significant new source of motion sickness.
 There has been significant progress in mapping
neurophysiological pathways associated with nausea
and motion sickness, which may provide a more
rational basis for future treatments.
consultations, the incidence of 4.2 per 1000 person/
&&
days being higher than for infections or injuries [6 ].
Up to a quarter of codrivers became motion sick in
rally cars if they were reading a book or sitting in the
back seat [7]. Although motion perception sensitivity
to off-vertical axis rotation increased immediately
after return from spaceflight compared to prespace-
flight, motion sickness susceptibility decreased [8].
Vection can be induced using auditory cues,
although weaker than visually induced vection,
and unlike visual motion, auditory cues for motion
fail to produce sickness [9]. The addition of body
loads while standing can modulate both postural
sway and motion sickness induced by visual motion
[10]. Watching 3D stereoscopic video films provokes
& &
more motion sickness than 2D videos [11 –13 ]. By
contrast, another study in both adults and children
found only low levels of sickness, with no clear
differences between 2D versus 3D, and concluded
that use of a stereoscopic 3D system for up to 2 hours
&
was acceptable for most users regardless of age [14 ].
With vehicular movement, nauseogenicity peaks
at a mechanical frequency of around 0.2 Hz, and this
has also been shown true for exposure to oscillating
&&
visual field motion [15 ]. Hypotheses for the fre-
quency dependence of nauseogenicity include a phase
error in signalling motion between canal–otolith and
somatosensory systems, or a frequency-dependent
phase error between the sensed vertical and the
subjective or expected vertical. It has also been
proposed that a zone of perceptuomotor ambiguity
around 0.2 Hz triggers sickness, because at higher
frequencies, imposed accelerations are usually
interpreted as translation of the self through space,
whereas at lower frequencies, imposed accelera-
tions are usually interpreted as a tilt in the gravi-
&&
toinertial force (GIF) vector [1 ]. The region of
0.2 Hz would be a crossover between these two
84 www.co-neurology.com
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
interpretations and, thus, a frequency region of
maximal uncertainty concerning the appropriate
frame of reference for orientation. A related ‘eco-
logical’ explanation has been proposed that this
frequency tuning is related to mechanical limita-
tions on human body motion. This proposes that a
cause of motion sickness may be the difficulty in
selecting appropriate tactics to maintain body
stability at vehicle motion circa 0.2 Hz, between
whole-body GIF alignment, seen at lower frequen-
cies, versus lateropulsion, seen at higher frequencies
&&
[1 ].
MECHANISMS AND THEORIES
The generally accepted explanation of the ‘how’ of
motion sickness is based on some form of sensory
conflict or sensory mismatch between actual versus
expected invariant patterns of vestibular, visual, and
kinaesthetic inputs as predicted by an ‘internal
&& &&
model’ [1 ]. Oman and Cullen [16 ] have identified
brainstem and cerebellar neurons whose activity cor-
responds to what might be expected of putative
‘sensory conflict’ neurons. The pathways that inte-
grate vestibular and emetic gastrointestinal signals
that produce nausea and vomiting are being eluci-
&
dated [17 ]. Galvanic vestibular stimulation in the cat
produces patterns of neural activation revealed by c-
fos labelling, some of which correlate with overt signs
of motion sickness, others of which show no such
relationship but may relate to covert affective aspects
&
such as nausea [18 ]. The onset of visually induced
nausea in humans was studied with functional
MRI. Increased activity preceding nausea was found
in the amygdala, putamen, and dorsal pons/locus
coeruleus, whereas, with onset of nausea, activity
was observed in a broader network including insular,
anterior cingulate, orbitofrontal, somatosensory,
and prefrontal cortices. Strong nausea was asso-
ciated with sustained anterior insula and mid-
cingulate activation, suggesting a close linkage
between these specific regions and nausea perception
&&
[19 ].
By contrast with the ‘how’ of motion sickness,
(i.e., the mechanisms), there is a variety of opinion
concerning the ‘why’. The most popular theory is
that motion sickness could have evolved from a
system designed to protect from potential neuro-
toxin ingestion by inducing vomiting when unex-
pected central nervous system inputs are detected
that might indicate poisoning (the ‘toxin detector’
&&
hypothesis) [1 ]. This evolutionarily ancient system
is inadvertently activated by motion that causes
mismatch. Alternative hypotheses propose that
motion sickness could be the result of aberrant
activation of vestibular–cardiovascular reflexes; it
Volume 28  Number 1  February 2015
 Pathophysiology and treatment of motion sickness Golding and Gresty
may be an unfortunate consequence of the physical
proximity of the motion detector (vestibular) and
vomiting circuitry in the brainstem or originate
from a warning system that has evolved to discour-
age self-exposure to circumstances causing disori-
&&
entation or motor instability [1 ]. Recent variants of
the last idea postulate that motion sickness evolved
to discourage risky activity in the ancestral fish that
were suffering vestibular malfunction [20] or proto-
hominids would avoid looking for food in swaying
trees that might threaten security, thus tending to
survive [21].
MARKERS FOR INDIVIDUAL
SUSCEPTIBILITY
Monozygotic and dizygotic twin studies indicate
human heritability of motion sickness having a
concordance of 70% in childhood decreasing to
55% in adulthood, probably because of habituation
&&
to differential environmental effects [1 ]. In shrews,
selective breeding for high versus low motion sick-
ness susceptibility strains has shown the importance
of genetic determinants and that this extends to
anaesthesia-induced emesis, indicating some com-
&&
mon mechanisms [22 ]. Very young children are
relatively immune to motion sickness, susceptibility
&
then increasing and peaking at around 9 years [23 ].
Susceptibility then progressively declines through
adolescence, adulthood, and old age although there
&&
are great individual differences [24 ]. Females tend
to be more susceptible than males although this has
a smaller effect size than age. At around menopause,
female susceptibility appears to show a transient
increase versus their age-equivalent male contem-
&&
poraries [24 ]. The reason for this is unknown but
there may be contribution from changes in migraine
headaches to more ‘vertigo-like’ symptoms that
peak around menopause in women, an effect that
is not seen in men over the same age period (Thomas
Lempert, Berlin, Germany, personal communi-
cation). Personality traits such as higher anxiety
only show very small relationships with motion
&& &&
sickness susceptibility [1 ,24 ].
Some special groups are at lower or higher risk
for motion sickness as revealed by studies using both
validated self-report motion sickness susceptibility
questionnaires and nauseogenic off-vertical axis
&& &&
rotation [24 ,25 ] (Fig. 1). Compared with con-
trols, patients with bilateral vestibular loss (BVL)
are either completely resistant to motion sickness
or have very low symptom scores. The observation
that some patients with BVL can still exhibit some
degree of motion sickness is reminiscent of early
reports that pseudocoriolis motion could elicit
&&
motion sickness in some patients with BVL [1 ]
1350-7540 Copyright ß 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
100 Comparison bs control
*P < 0.05 **P < 0.01
***P < 0.001 (total n = 326)
80 ***
MS susceptibility 95% CI
***
60
40
20 *
**
0
Control BVL UVL Vestib BPPV Vestib Clinical
neuritis migraine migraine
FIGURE 1. MS susceptibility scores are shown for patient
groups together with significances of comparison with age-
equivalent healthy controls. The 95% CI is smaller for
controls as a consequence of larger numbers. MS
susceptibility for Meniere’s disease is not shown because of
small numbers but is probably similar to migraine groups.
BPPV, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo; BVL, bilateral
vestibular loss; CI, confidence interval; MS, motion sickness;
UVL, unilateral vestibular loss [24 ,25 ]. && &&
perhaps indicating that other types of sensory con-
flict without vestibular input are sometimes
possible. Unilateral vestibular loss (UVL) also
decreases susceptibility but to a lesser extent than
BVL; however, it should be noted that these were
‘compensated’ patients with UVL, that is, who have
adapted to sensory conflict caused by the loss of
vestibular function on one side, since in the acute
phase, the usual observation is that patients with UVL
may be more sensitive to motion. Patients with ves-
tibular neuritis and benign paroxysmal positional
vertigo show no overall difference in susceptibility
compared with controls but within this broad picture
many individuals have up or downregulated their
sensitivity to motion in response to their disease.
Vestibular migraine leads to greatly elevated
susceptibility and patients attending migraine clin-
ics, but without vestibular migraine, have equival-
ent elevations of susceptibility. Other recent studies
have shown that vestibular symptoms including
motion sickness are greater in patients diagnosed
with migraine as opposed to tension-type headache
[26]. Some patients with vestibular disease may
show higher motion sickness susceptibility to optic
flow [27]. A telephone survey suggested that
patients with Meniere’s disease had elevated
motion sickness susceptibility compared with con-
trols but not as elevated as patients with vestibular
migraine [28].
www.co-neurology.com 85
Neuro-ophthalmology and neuro-otology
Physiological markers for predicting motion
sickness susceptibility have proved elusive.
Although motion sickness produces profound auto-
nomic changes, baseline autonomic characteristics
are unlikely to provide useful predictors [29]. The
evidence that individual differences in postural
stability or perceptual style are good predictors of
motion sickness susceptibility seems limited and
&& && &
contradictory [1 ,15 ,30 ]. Shorter time constants
of the central vestibular velocity store have been
suggested to correlate with reduced motion sickness
& &&
susceptibility [30 ], but there is sufficient contrary
evidence to question if this is a reliable predictor; it
has been suggested that it is not the duration of the
time constant per se, but the ability to modify readily
the time constant that may be a candidate marker
&&
for success in motion sickness habituation [1 ]. In a
similar vein, reduced thresholds for cervical vestib-
ular-evoked myogenic potentials predict future
habituation to seasickness, the suggestion being
that cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials
at lower thresholds indicates that the individual has
broader dynamic range in which the reflex can
respond and adapt to a wider array of stimulus ampli-
tudes [31]. Individual differences in brain white mat-
ter structure revealed by functional MRI may relate to
nausea susceptibility [32]. Patients with persistent
Mal de debarquement syndrome exhibit impaired
postural stability but do not exhibit differences
in intracortical excitability compared with con-
trols [33].
BEHAVIOURAL TREATMENTS AND OTHER
COUNTERMEASURES
Habituation offers the surest counter measure to
motion sickness being free of side-effects and
superior to drug treatments but, by definition, is a
long-term approach [34]. Optokinetic training gave
improvements in reducing seasickness in 71% of
&
those treated versus 12% of controls [35 ]. Motion
sickness decreases with repeated exposures to a
high-G flight simulator [36]. More comprehensive
motion sickness desensitization programmes are
highly effective and long-term success rates of
&&
85% have been achieved [37 ]. Visual-vestibuloso-
matosensory conflict induced by virtual reality
increases postural instability and motion sickness-
like symptoms. Subsequently, the contribution of
visual inputs is reduced and such sensory reweight-
ing may reflect adaptation to reduce the impact of
such visually provocative environments [38].
Being in control, as driver or pilot rather than
being the passenger, affords some protection against
&&
motion sickness [1 ]. Similarly, enhanced percep-
tions of control and predictability appear to reduce
86 www.co-neurology.com
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
motion-induced nausea [39]. Exertion of control
reduced motion sickness induced by playing video
games on a tablet computer [40]. Lying supine, or
aligning the body with changes in the GIF environ-
ment, or avoiding head movements can reduce
&&
motion sickness [1 ]. Consistent with the latter
observation, passive restraint of head, shoulders,
hips, and knees reduced motion sickness induced
by playing a video game while standing [41].
It has long been known that view of a stable
horizon reference can increase resistance to motion
sickness [1 ] but provision of an artificial horizon
failed to have any effect on Mal de debarquement
[42]. Standing with a wider stance width and view of
the horizon may reduce postural instability and
&&
motion sickness at sea [43 ]. Stroboscopic illumi-
nation protected against motion sickness for back
seat military helicopter personnel, perhaps by
&&
reducing retinal slip [44 ].
Controlled regular breathing has been shown to
provide increased motion tolerance, and may
involve activation of the known inhibitory reflex
between respiration and vomiting [34]. Acupressure
bands or electroacupuncture have produced con-
flicting findings as to their effectiveness against
motion sickness [34]. Although galvanic vestibular
stimulation (GVS) can cause vertigo and nausea, the
opposite effect has been proposed that it may pro-
vide a novel, modulatory countermeasure for
motion sickness [45]. GVS synchronous with the
visual field may normalize electrogastrographic
and autonomic responses and reduce motion sick-
&&
ness during flight simulation [46 ]. Repetitive trans-
cranial magnetic stimulation can reduce symptoms
for Mal de debarquement syndrome [47].
Providing pleasant (or unpleasant) scents had
no effect on motion sickness sensitivity, although
motion sickness does enhance sensitivity to odors
[48]. Listening to pleasant music can reduce visually
induced motion sickness [49]. Positive verbal
instructions and placebo can promote reductions
in motion sickness [50].
PHARMACOLOGICAL
COUNTERMEASURES
Drugs currently used against motion sickness were
&&
identified over 40 years ago [1 ]. They may be divided
into the following categories: antimuscarinics (e.g.,
scopolamine), H1 antihistamines (e.g., dimenhydri-
nate), and sympathomimetics (e.g., amphetamine).
Combinations for example scopolamine and dex-
amphetamine are highly effective since both drugs
combine their different antimotion sickness prop-
erties and their respective side-effects of sedation
and stimulation cancel each other out. However,
Volume 28  Number 1  February 2015
 Pathophysiology and treatment of motion sickness Golding and Gresty
such combinations are less used because of the
abuse potential of amphetamine. The main practi-
cal advances have been in drug delivery, such as
the transdermal scopolamine patch to provide
extended protection but with slow onset, and the
ongoing development of rapid acting intranasal
scopolamine. Other classes of potent antiemetics
are not effective against motion sickness, including
D2 dopamine receptor antagonists and 5HT3
antagonists used for side-effects of chemotherapy.
This is probably because their sites of action may be
at vagal afferent receptors or the brainstem chemo-
receptor trigger zone, whereas antimotion sickness
&&
drugs act elsewhere [1 ].
Approaches to developing new antimotion sick-
ness drugs include re-examination of ‘old’ drugs such
as phenytoin, as well as the development of newer
agents such as neurokinin1 antagonists. Such drugs
include phenytoin, betahistine, chlorpheniramine,
cetirizine, fexofenadine, benzodiazepines and bar-
biturates, the antipsychotic droperidol, corticoste-
roids such as dexamethasone, tamoxifen, opioids
such as the m-opiate receptor agonist loperamide,
neurokinin NK1 receptor antagonists, vasopressin
V1a receptor antagonists, N-methyl-D-aspartate
antagonists, 3-hydroxypyridine derivatives, 5HT1a
receptor agonists such as the antimigraine triptan
rizatriptan, and selective muscarinic M3/M5 receptor
antagonists such as zamifenacin and darifenacin
&&
[1 ]. So far, none of these drugs have any advantage
over those currently available for motion sickness.
The reasons vary and include lack of efficacy and
complex pharmacokinetics or, in those that are effec-
tive, unacceptable side-effects.
Research, however, continues on drug treat-
ment. Dexamethasone alleviates motion sickness
in rats in part by enhancing the endocannabinoid
system [51]. Cannabidiolic acid prevents both
motion or toxin-induced vomiting in shrews and
nausea-induced behaviour in rats [52]. The relative
effects on semicircular canal and otolith functions
by various antimotion sickness drugs including
meclizine, dimenhydrinate combined with cinnar-
izine, and promethazine combined with D-amphet-
amine may provide insights into their mechanism
of action [53]. Ginger (active ingredient gingerol)
may have antiemetic effects for motion sickness but
conflicting reports indicate that such effects are
weak [54].
CONCLUSION
Main advances in recent years have been in identify-
ing brain mechanisms and loci that are associated
with motion sickness and/or nausea. Similarly,
although motion sickness is polysymptomatic,
1350-7540 Copyright ß 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
pharmacotherapeutic research has mainly targeted
nausea and vomiting, so far, with little advantage
over established antimotion sickness drugs. Future
development of drugs with highly selective affinities
to receptor subtypes relevant to motion sickness may
produce an antimotion sickness drug of high efficacy
with few side-effects. However, the polysymptomatic
nature of motion sickness with its high interindivid-
ual variability may preclude a single decisive treat-
ment. In this respect motion sickness is similar to
migraine, with which motion sickness is frequently
compounded.
Acknowledgements
None.
Financial support and sponsorship
None.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED
READING
Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have
been highlighted as:
& of special interest
&& of outstanding interest
1. Golding JF, Gresty MA. Motion sickness and disorientation in vehicles. In:
&& Adolfo M, editor. Bronstein Oxford textbook of vertigo and imbalance. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press; 2013. pp. 293–305.
A comprehensive and partially historical review extending to more general dis-
orientation.
2. Lawson BD. MS symptomatology and origins. In: Handbook of virtual en-
& vironments: design, implementation, and applications. 2nd ed. New York, NY:
CRC Press; 2014; pp. 531–599.
Highlights significant soporific effect of motion sickness.
3. Matsangas P, McCauley ME. Yawning as a behavioral marker of mild MS and
& sopite syndrome. Aviat Space Environ Med 2014; 85:658–661.
Highlights significant soporific effect of motion sickness and possible objective
markers.
4. Koch KL. Gastric dysrhythmias: a potential objective measure of nausea. Exp
Brain Res 2014; 232:2553–2561.
5. Schaub N, Ng K, Kuo P, et al. Gastric and lower esophageal sphincter
& pressures during nausea: a study using visual motion-induced nausea and
high-resolution manometry. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2014;
306:G741–G747.
Demonstrates the value of modern internal monitoring technique.
6. Schutz L, Zak D, Holmes JF. Pattern of passenger injury and illness
&& on expedition cruise ships to Antarctica. J Travel Med 2014; 21:228–
234.
A large study that also quantified the relative importance of motion sickness
compared to other common disorders.
7. Perrin P, Lion A, Bosser G, et al. MS in rally car co-drivers. Aviat Space Environ
Med 2013; 84:473–477.
8. Clément G, Wood SJ. Eye movements and motion perception during off-
vertical axis rotation after spaceflight. J Vestib Res 2013; 23:13–22.
9. Keshavarz B, Hettinger LJ, Vena D, Campos JL. Combined effects of auditory
and visual cues on the perception of vection. Exp Brain Res 2014;
232:827–836.
10. Koslucher FC, Haaland EJ, Stoffregen TA. Body load and the postural
precursors of MS. Gait Posture 2014; 39:606–610.
11. Naqvi SA, Badruddin N, Malik AS, et al. Does 3D produce more symptoms
& of visually induced MS? Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2013;
2013:6405–6408.
Highlights the implication of new visual technologies for motion sickness.
www.co-neurology.com 87
Neuro-ophthalmology and neuro-otology
12. Solimini AG. Are there side effects to watching 3D movies? A prospective
& crossover observational study on visually induced MS. PLoS One 2013; 8:e56160.
Highlights the implication of new visual technologies for motion sickness.
13. Bos JE, Ledegang WD, Lubeck AJ, Stins JF. Cinerama sickness and postural
& instability. Ergonomics 2013; 56:1430–1436.
Highlights the implication of new visual technologies for motion sickness.
14. Pölönen M, Järvenpää T, Bilcu B. Stereoscopic 3D entertainment and its
& effect on viewing comfort: comparison of children and adults. Appl Ergon
2013; 44:151–160.
Gives a different appraisal of the impact new visual technologies for motion
sickness.
15. Diels C, Howarth PA. Frequency characteristics of visually induced MS. Hum
&& Factors 2013; 55:595–604.
Builds on previous work showing the frequency tuning of motion sickness.
16. Oman CM, Cullen KE. Brainstem processing of vestibular sensory exaffer-
&& ence: implications for MS etiology. Exp Brain Res 2014; 232:2483–2492.
Synthesis of theory, neurophysiology, and possible identification of the existence of
the long predicted ‘sensory conflict’ neuron, the ‘Higgs Boson’ of motion sickness
research.
17. Yates BJ, Catanzaro MF, Miller DJ, McCall AA. Integration of vestibular and
& emetic gastrointestinal signals that produce nausea and vomiting: potential
contributions to motion sickness. Exp Brain Res 2014; 232:2455–2469.
Further elucidation of neurophysiological pathways subserving motion sickness in
an animal model.
18. Balaban CD, Ogburn SW, Warshafsky SG, et al. Identification of neural networks
& that contribute to MS through principal components analysis of fos labelling
induced by galvanic vestibular stimulation. PLoS One 2014; 9:e86730.
Further elucidation of neurophysiological pathways subserving motion sickness in
an animal model.
19. Napadow V, Sheehan JD, Kim J, et al. The brain circuitry underlying the
&& temporal evolution of nausea in humans. Cereb Cortex 2013; 23:806–813.
Elucidation of brain loci associated with nausea in humans.
20. Thornton WE, Bonato F. Space MS and MS: symptoms and etiology. Aviat
Space Environ Med 2013; 84:716–721.
21. Knox GW. MS: an evolutionary and genetic basis for the negative reinforce-
ment model. Aviat Space Environ Med 2014; 85:46–49.
22. Horn CC, Meyers K, Oberlies N. Musk shrews selectively bred for MS display
&& increased anesthesia-induced vomiting. Physiol Behav 2014; 124:129–137.
Animal model showing common genetic underpinning of motion sickness and
other types of sicknesses.
23. Henriques IF, Douglas de Oliveira DW, Oliveira-Ferreira F, Andrade PM. MS
& prevalence in school children. Eur J Pediatr 2014; 173:1473–1482.
Pinpoints the age of peak MS susceptibility.
24. Paillard AC, Quarck G, Paolino F, et al. MS susceptibility in healthy subjects
&& and vestibular patients: effects of gender, age and trait-anxiety. J Vest Res
2013; 23:203–210.
Comprehensive survey of motion sickness susceptibility and its modulation by
factors including demographic, personality, and vestibular disease.
25. Murdin L, Chamberlain F, Cheema S, et al. Motion sickness in migraine and
&& vestibular disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014; doi: 10.1136/jnnp-
2014-308331. [Epub ahead of print]
Comprehensive study of motion sickness and its modulation by vestibular disease
and migraine using both self-report and response to provocative laboratory stimuli.
26. Akdal G, Ozge A, Ergör G. The prevalence of vestibular symptoms in migraine
or tension-type headache. J Vestib Res 2013; 23:101–106.
27. Whitney SL, Sparto PJ, Cook JR, et al. Symptoms elicited in persons with
vestibular dysfunction while performing gaze movements in optic flow en-
vironments. J Vestib Res 2013; 23:51–60.
28. Sharon JD, Hullar TE. Motion sensitivity and caloric responsiveness in
vestibular migraine and Meniere’s disease. Laryngoscope 2014;
124:969–973.
29. Farmer AD, Al Omran Y, Aziz Q, Andrews PL. The role of the parasympathetic
nervous system in visually induced MS: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Exp Brain Res 2014; 232:2665–2673.
30. Lackner JR. MS: more than nausea and vomiting. Exp Brain Res 2014;
& 232:2493–2510.
Useful review and highlights the importance of velocity store in motion sickness.
31. Tal D, Hershkovitz D, Kaminski-Graif G, et al. Vestibular evoked myogenic
potentials and habituation to seasickness. Clin Neurophysiol 2013;
124:2445–2449.
88 www.co-neurology.com
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
32. Napadow V, Sheehan J, Kim J, et al. Brain white matter microstructure is
associated with susceptibility to motion-induced nausea. Neurogastroenterol
Motil 2013; 25:448–450.
33. Clark BC, LePorte A, Clark S, et al. Effects of persistent Mal de debarquement
syndrome on balance, psychological traits, and motor cortex excitability. J Clin
Neurosci 2013; 20:446–450.
34. Bronstein AM, Golding JF, Gresty MA. Vertigo and dizziness from environ-
mental motion: MS and Drivers’ disorientation. Semin Neurol 2013;
33:219–230.
35. Ressiot E, Dolz M, Bonne L, Marianowski R. Prospective study on the efficacy
& of optokinetic training in the treatment of seasickness. Eur Ann Otorhinolar-
yngol Head Neck Dis 2013; 130:263–268.
Details an effective behavioural therapy with a controlled trial.
36. Newman MC, McCarthy GW, Glaser ST, et al. MS adaptation to Coriolis-
inducing head movements in a sustained G flight simulator. Aviat Space
Environ Med 2013; 84:104–109.
37. Lucertini M, Verde P, Trivelloni P. Rehabilitation from airsickness in military
&& pilots: long-term treatment effectiveness. Aviat Space Environ Med 2013;
84:1196–1200.
Shows effectiveness of motion sickness desensitization with a long-term follow-up
of success rates.
38. Nishiike S, Okazaki S, Watanabe H, et al. The effect of visual-vestibuloso-
matosensory conflict induced by virtual reality on postural stability in humans. J
Med Invest 2013; 60:236–239.
39. Levine ME, Stern RM, Koch KL. Enhanced perceptions of control and
predictability reduce motion-induced nausea and gastric dysrhythmia. Exp
Brain Res 2014; 232:2675–2684.
40. Stoffregen TA, Chen YC, Koslucher FC. Motion control, MS, and the postural
dynamics of mobile devices. Exp Brain Res 2014; 232:1389–1397.
41. Chang CH, Pan WW, Chen FC, Stoffregen TA. Console video games,
postural activity, and MS during passive restraint. Exp Brain Res 2013;
229:235–242.
42. Tal D, Wiener G, Shupak A. Mal de debarquement, motion sickness and the
effect of an artificial horizon. J Vestib Res 2014; 24:17–23.
43. Stoffregen TA, Chen FC, Varlet M, et al. Getting your sea legs. PLoS One
&& 2013; 8:e66949.
An extensive set of experiments in the real-world environment at sea.
44. Webb CM, Estrada A, Athy JR. MS prevention by an 8-Hz stroboscopic
&& environment during air transport. Aviat Space Environ Med 2013;
84:177 – 183.
Shows how strobe can reduce motion sickness in the real-world environment of
passengers in military helicopters.
45. Rizzo-Sierra CV, Gonzalez-Castaño A, Leon-Sarmiento FE. Galvanic vestib-
ular stimulation: a novel modulatory countermeasure for vestibular-associated
movement disorders. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2014; 72:72–77.
46. Cevette MJ, Pradhan GN, Cocco D, et al. Electrogastrographic and auto-
&& nomic responses during oculovestibular recoupling in flight simulation. Aviat
Space Environ Med 2014; 85:15–24.
The latest of two papers showing GVS as a novel motion sickness counter-
measure.
47. Cha YH, Cui Y, Baloh RW. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for
Mal de debarquement syndrome. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34:175–179.
48. Paillard AC, Lamôré M, Etard O, et al. Is there a relationship between odours
and MS? Neurosci Lett 2014; 566:326–330.
49. Keshavarz B, Hecht H. Pleasant music as a countermeasure against visually
induced MS. Appl Ergon 2014; 45:521–527.
50. Horing B, Weimer K, Schrade D, et al. Reduction of MS with an enhanced
placebo instruction: an experimental study with healthy participants. Psycho-
som Med 2013; 75:497–504.
51. Zheng Y, Wang XL, Mo FF, Li M. Dexamethasone alleviates MS in rats in part
by enhancing the endocannabinoid system. Eur J Pharmacol 2014;
727:99–105.
52. Bolognini D, Rock EM, Cluny NL, et al. Cannabidiolic acid prevents vomiting in
Suncus murinus and nausea-induced behaviour in rats by enhancing 5-HT1A
receptor activation. Br J Pharmacol 2013; 168:1456–1470.
53. Weerts AP, Vanspauwen R, Fransen E, et al. Space MS countermeasures: a
pharmacological double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Aviat Space Environ
Med 2014; 85:638–644.
54. Palatty PL, Haniadka R, Valder B, et al. Ginger in the prevention of nausea and
vomiting: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2013; 53:659–669.
Volume 28  Number 1  February 2015