Neuropsychobiology 2: 45 -5 1 (1976)

Susceptibility to Motion Sickness and Field Dependence-Independence as Measured with the Rod and Frame Test Charles S. Mirabile, jr., Bernard C. Glueck and Charles F. Stroebel Institute of Living, Hartford, Conn.

Key Words. Motion sickness • Field dependence-independence • Rod and frame Abstract. This paper reports an experiment investigating the relationship between field dependence-independence and susceptibility to motion sickness in a normal volunteer and in a psychiatric patient population. Both variables have previously been related to psychiatric diagnosis and possible differential interaction between the cerebral hemispheres. Anticipated differences in field dependence according to degrees o f motion sickness were not found; however, significant male-female and patient-control differences were observed and these occurred primarily in the non-motion sick and intermediate motion sick groups, suggesting that fundamental differences in field attitude do exist across an apparent spectrum of motion sickness.

Downloaded by: Univ. of California Santa Barbara 128.111.121.42 - 5/29/2018 4:38:36 PM

Recent research showing a correlation between psychiatric diagnosis and susceptibility to motion sickness, as judged by individual history (7), led to the question of how motion sickness might be related to some of the well-known measures of cognitive process and perceptual function. To date, the relationship between motion sickness and field dependence-independence (as measured by the rod and frame), autokinesis, and the Aubert effect have all been examined in our laboratories. The present paper reports only on the rod and frame studies. This investigation was designed to test the hypothesis that some effect between field dependence and motion sickness would be identifiable. This pre­ diction was based on Witkin's report of a relationship between broad patterns of psychiatric pathology and field dependence-independence ( I I ) and the correla­ tion between motion sickness and psychiatric diagnosis (7). Specifically, it was thought that greater degrees of motion sickness might be associated with more accurate rod and frame performance, since the rod and frame test appears to test an individual’s ability to separate a visual set (the titled frame) from a proprio­ ceptive-vestibular set (gravitationally vertical rod) and, since susceptibility to motion sickness might be viewed as an index of vestibular prominence, or sensi­ tivity, relative to other sensory perceptual systems. Already proven effects refer-

Mirabile/Glueck/Stroebel

46

able to field dependence, such as sex differences (12, 13), were anticipated. The study began with an examination of psychiatric inpatients and subsequently was expanded to include a group of controls. No group differences were anticipated between the control and patient groups at the outset of the study. Neurophysiologic aspects of motion sickness, as they relate to the function of the vestibular apparatus, are not discussed in this paper beyond the simple observation that motion sickness does not occur in individuals who have suffered destruction of the vestibular system, thus indicating that the vestibular system is the sole sufficient mechanism of motion sickness symptomatology. Many refer­ ences are available on this subject (4, 5, 10). Subjects The study sample was derived from two different populations. The first group tested was made up of 100 new admissions to a private psychiatric hospital. Two of these subjects were excluded because o f physical limitations which might have influenced response to testing. Results reported here are based upon the 98 remaining individuals, 40 of whom were adult men and 58 adult women. A second group of 110 normal controls was assembled from various hospital personnel, and a small group of students at a nearby college. 47 members of this group were men and 63 were women.

Method All subjects were polled individually by questionnaire to determine their susceptibility to motion sickness and were tested separately on an Oltman Rod and Frame Device (8). A motion sickness questionnaire elicited information on whether or not an individual had ever experienced nausea and vomiting in response to any kind of vehicular motion (car, bus, train, boat, plane, or amusement ride) during childhood or as an adult, and the responses were grouped into four categories: (1) never; (II) once or twice; (111) more than twice but less than ten times; and (IV) more than ten times and as both a child and adult. Three groups were established according to questionnaire response: A ‘No’ group made up of individuals in category I; an ‘Intermediate’ group made up o f individuals in category II; a ‘Yes’ group made up of individuals in categories III and IV. Testing on the rod and frame apparatus was accomplished in the manner described by Oltman (8) and will not be elaborated here, except to note that each individual was given a total of eight trials alternating left (L) and right (R) tilt of frame and rod in the following sequence: Frame LLRRLLRR, Rod LRRLLRRL. All rod and frame scores are the averaged sums of errors in degrees over eight trials.

A tabulation of mean errors in degrees (field attitude) by sample group, sex, and degrees of motion sickness is provided in table 1. Predicted overall differ­ ences in field attitude by degrees of motion sickness were not found. However,

Downloaded by: Univ. of California Santa Barbara 128.111.121.42 - 5/29/2018 4:38:36 PM

Results

47

Motion Sickness Table I. Means o f rod and frame error in degrees for major effects Control

Patient

Male

Female

3.77

5.99

4.10

5.66

no

intermediate

yes

4.9 3.82 5.98

4.89 3.53 6.25

4.85 4.96 4.75

Male

Female

Motion sick

2.50 5.14 1.94 5.12 4.51 5.42

4.21 "I 7.75 J 5.47 “1 7.04 J 4.02 “ I 5.49 J

Motion sick

Male Female

Control Patient Control Patient Control Patient

no intermediate yes

Source o f variation

Mean square

Degrees of freedom

F ratio

Probability

Control:patient (C:P) Sex Degree motion sick (MS) C:P X s e x C:P X MS Sex X MS C:P X sex X MS

229.244 112.788 0.030 0.29 14.388 37.615 7.219

1 1 2 1 2 2 2

10.6884 5.2587 0.0014 0.0014 0.6708 1.7538 0.3366

0.0017 0.0216 0.9985 0.9693 0.5171 0.1738 0.7197

large and significant differences (table II) were found between controls and pa­ tients as well as men and women and, as will be shown in a separate analysis, these differences were found primarily in the non-motion sick and intermediate motion sick groups. The highly motion sick group showed little male-female and patient-control difference, suggesting that genuine differences in field attitude do exist across a spectrum of motion sickness susceptibility. Because the data were positively skewed, chi square analysis was used to investigate subgroup differences in the various ranges of motion sickness. In his

Downloaded by: Univ. of California Santa Barbara 128.111.121.42 - 5/29/2018 4:38:36 PM

Table II. Summary o f analysis o f variance

48

Mirabile/Glueck/Stroebel Table HI. Comparison of group composition in various error ranges'

Non-MS HP Non-MS FC Non-MS MP Non-MS MC Intermediate-MS Intermediate-MS lntermediate-MS Intermediate-MS Yes-MS FP Yes-MS FC Yes-MS MP Yes-MS MC

Total

Error range

Subject groups

FP FC MP MC

0 - 2.49°

2.50-4.99°

5.0l°-u p

2 (14.3)2 8 (53.3) 6 (40.0) 7 (63.6) 3 (16.7) 11 (40.7) 5 (38.5) 20 (76.9) 11 (42.3) 11 (52.4) 1 (8.3) 5 (50.0)

3 (21.4) 2 (13.3) 3 (20.0) 3 (27.3) 7 (38.9) 6 (22.2) 4 (30.8) 5 (19.2) 5 (19.2) 5 (23.8) 7 (58.3) 2 (20.0)

9 (64.3) 5 (33.3) 6 (40.0) 1 (9.1) 8 (44.4) 10 (37.0) 4 (30.8) 1 (3.8) 10 (38.5) 5 (23.8) 4 (33.3) 3 (30.0)

14 15 15 11 18 27 13 26 26 21 12 10

original report on the portable rod and frame, Oltman (8) examined the distribu­ tion of scores in various error ranges, and the applicable categories are examined here. Three error groups were formed: group I with an error range of 0°—2.49°; group II with a range of 2.50°-4.99°; and group 111 with error 5° or more. Thus, it is possible to compare subject distribution in various error categories for males, females, patients, and controls in the three categories of motion sickness using contingency chi square. Table III shows group composition in various error ranges for both sexes in patients and controls and contrasts this for the non-motion sick, intermediate, and highly motion sick groups. In the non-motion sick and intermediate motion sick groups there is a clear-cut transition in field attitude as one goes from female patients to female controls and then to male patients and male controls. A comparison of the extremes is highly significant (x2= 26.97, d.f. = 2, p > 0.0001). It should be noted that this difference is not just a sex difference as the female control group and male patient group were without significant difference front each other but, taken together, are significantly different from each ex­ treme group. Specifically, in the non-motion sick and intermediate motion sick groups, female controls combined with male patients are significantly different from female patients (x’ = 7.227, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05) and male controls (x2= 12.934, d.f. = 2, p < 0.01).

Downloaded by: Univ. of California Santa Barbara 128.111.121.42 - 5/29/2018 4:38:36 PM

1 MS = Motion sick; FP= female patient; FC' = female control; MP = male patient; MC = male control. 2 Figures in parentheses are percent values.

Motion Sickness

49

Fig. 1. Percentage o f subjects making more than 5° error. FP = Female patients; FC = female controls; MP = male patients; MC = male controls. * = Yes-motion sick; • = non­ motion sick; ■ = intermediate motion sick.

The highly motion sick group does not show a transition from female pa­ tients to male controls. A comparison of error distribution in this group shows no significant difference (x2 = 0.8861, d.f. = 2). Because it is difficult to grasp the relationships described here, figure 1 depicts, as an example, the percent of field-dependent response (> 5° error) across a hypothetical spectrum going from female patients to male controls and contrasts three groups distinguished by degrees of motion sickness.

The failure to find an overall effect between motion sickness and rod and frame performance is consistent with a second study published after our study was begun. Using the embedded figures test, Deich and Hodges (3) failed to find an association between field attitude and a history of motion sickness. Failure to relate measures of field attitude with other behavioral variables, however, is not

Downloaded by: Univ. of California Santa Barbara 128.111.121.42 - 5/29/2018 4:38:36 PM

Discussion

50

an isolated experience. Cancro and Voth (1) failed to find an association be­ tween autokinesis and field attitude. Marino et al. (6) were able to show only a relationship between latency of the autokinetic experience and the embedded figures test. No correlation was found with rod and frame performance. The failure to show a correlation between the autokinetic tendency and field attitude is particularly noteworthy in view of the apparent similarity in cognitive style felt to be distinguished by tests of field attitude and the auto­ kinetic response tendency. Possibly measures of field attitude simply distinguish some form of independent response tendency. However, it also seems possible that field independence may not be an entirely homogeneous or stable measure. Witkin (11) suggests the possibility that, within the group of individuals who are characterized as field-independent, there may be two contrasting groups. One group is thought to be fixed or rigid in their level of differentiation, the other seems more flexible. Silverman and King (9) note that there may be two dif­ ferent attitudes of attention which lead to the field-independent response. It is interesting to note that our study sample which is larger and contains more females than the group Oltman (8) used to standardize his portable rod and frame device with Witkin'% original test device, is nonetheless more field-independent when taken as a whole (x2 = 23.16, d.f. = 2, p = 0.0001). We have reviewed Oltman's procedure and are at a loss to explain this difference as one of technique. The finding that there is a wide range of variability in field attitude among non-motion sick and intermediate motion sick individuals and that this variabil­ ity does not appear to exist in highly motion sick individuals, regardless of sex or pathology, seems to us an important finding. Highly motion sick individuals clearly manifest a difference in field attitude even though this is not revealed in overall mean scores. We are tempted to conclude that field dependence may be a manifestation of an underlying vulnerability to perceptual distortion occurring primarily in non-motion sick and intermediate motion sick individuals. It is interesting to note that, after having studied the effects of right- and left-sided electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) on various depressed psychiatric pa­ tients, Cohen et al. (2) tentatively suggest that differential right and left hemi­ sphere input may lead to changes of field attitude. They found that ECT to the left cerebral hemisphere increased field dependence in their subjects while shock to the right hemisphere decreased it. According to their view, dominance of left hemisphere cognitive function would lead to a field-independent response through operation of a field articulation control thought to be in the left hemi­ sphere. Intrusion of right hemisphere cognitive function, however, might lead the same individual to manifest greater field dependence by confounding this strategy with a scanning control believed by them to exist in the right hemi­ sphere. Cohen et al. emphasize the speculative nature of their interpretation. We note their findings with interest, however, because we have already reported

Downloaded by: Univ. of California Santa Barbara 128.111.121.42 - 5/29/2018 4:38:36 PM

Mirabile/Glueck /Stroebel

Motion Sickness

51

evidence suggesting greater inter-hemispheric access associated with increasing degrees of motion sickness and have postulated a potential integrative defect in the transition from one extreme of motion sickness to the other. Possibly, non-motion sick and intermediate motion sick individuals have a tendency to solve the rod and frame problem in a left hemispheric context but in certain circumstances are vulnerable to confounding right hemisphere influence. Highly motion sick individuals, according to this view, might represent a group existing beyond this transition, thus enjoying invulnerability to potential right-left con­ flict. Currently we are attempting to explore further the possibility that lability of field attitude, what might be termed pseudo-perceptual differentiation, is a function of a specific pattern of hemispheric integration found at the non­ motion sick end of the population spectrum.

References

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Cancro, R. and Voth, H.M.: Autokinesis and psychological differentiation. Percept. Mot. Skills28: 9 9 -1 0 3 (1969). Cohen, B.D.; Berent, S., and Solverman, A.J.: Field-dependence and lateralization of function in the human brain. Archsgen. Psychiat. 28: 165-167 (1973). Deicli, R.F. and Hodges. P.M.: Motion sickness, field dependence and levels o f develop­ ment. Percept. Mot. Skills id : 115-120 (1973). Johnson, W.H.; Stubbs, R.A.; Kelk, G.F., and Franks, W.R.: Stimulus required to produce motion sickness. J. Aviat. Med. 22: 365 (1951). Kornhuber, H.H. (ed.): Textbook o f sensory physiology, vestibular system, vol. 6, parts 1, 2 (Springer, New York 1974). Marino, D.R.; Fitzgibbons, D.J., and Mirabile, C.S.: Attention deployment in field dependence and autokinetic movement. Percept. Mot. Skills 31: 1 5 5 -158(1970). Mirabile, C.S.: Mental illness and susceptibility to motion sickness. Am. J. Psychiat. 128: 1550-1552(1972). Oilman, P.K.: A portable rod and frame apparatus. Percept. Mot. Skills 26: 5 0 3 -5 0 6 (1968). Silverman, J. and King. C.: Pseudo perceptual differentiation. J. consult, clin. psythol. 34: 119-1 2 3 (1 9 7 0 ). Tyler, B.D. and Bard, P.: Motion sickness. Physiol. Rev. 29: 311 (1949). Wilkin, H.A.: Psychological differentiation and forms of pathology. J. abnorm. Psychol. 70: 3 1 7 -3 3 6 (1 9 6 5 ). Wilkin, H.A.; Dyk, R.B.; Faterson, H.F.: Goodenough, D.R., and Karp, S.A.. Psycho­ logical differentiation (Wiley, New York 1974). Witkin, H.A.: Lewis, H.B., Herrzman, M.; MacGovern, K.; Meisner, P.B., and Wapner, S.: Personality through perception (Harper, New York 1954).

Charles S. Mirabile, jr., MD, Research Department, Institute o f Living, 400 Washington Street, Hartford, C T 06106 (USA)

Downloaded by: Univ. of California Santa Barbara 128.111.121.42 - 5/29/2018 4:38:36 PM

1

Susceptibility to motion sickness and field dependence-independence as measured with the rod and frame test.

This paper reports an experiment investigating the relationship between field dependence-independence and susceptibility to motion sickness in a norma...
812KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views