Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Figure 1.

Experiment 1: Mean stance width (the distance between the midline of the heels) as a function of days.

The figure illustrates the statistically significant effect of days. The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Setting and conditions for body sway testing.

A. Viewing of the nearby target and the horizon at the dock. B. Viewing of the nearby target and the horizon at sea.

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Figure 3.

Experiment 2: Mean positional variability of the COP as a function of days.

The figure illustrates the statistically significant effect of days. The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Figure 4.

Experiment 2: Mean positional variability of the COP during viewing of the nearby target and the horizon, as a function of days.

The figure illustrates the statistically significant interaction between target distance (nearby target vs. horizon) and days. The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 4 Expand

Figure 5.

Experiment 2: Mean positional variability of the COP for the AP and ML axes, as a function of days.

The figure illustrates the statistically significant interaction between axes and days. The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 5 Expand

Figure 6.

Experiment 2: Meanα of DFA as a function of days.

The figure illustrates the statistically significant effect of days. The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 6 Expand

Figure 7.

Experiment 2: Meanα of DFA for the AP and ML axes as a function of days.

The figure illustrates the statistically significant interaction between axes and days. The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 7 Expand

Table 1.

Motion sickness history.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Figure 8.

Experiment 3: Mean symptom ratings for the three seasickness severity groups as a function of days.

The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 8 Expand

Figure 9.

Experiment 3: Mean stance width (distance between the midlines of the heels) on Day 1 at sea, as a function of seasickness severity groups.

The figure illustrates the statistically significant effect of seasickness severity groups. The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 9 Expand

Figure 10.

Experiment 3: Meanα of DFA on Day 0 (before the voyage began) for the three seasickness severity groups.

The figure illustrates the statistically significant effect of seasickness severity groups. The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 10 Expand

Figure 11.

Experiment 3: Meanα of DFA on Day 0 (before the voyage began) during viewing of the nearby target and the horizon, for the three seasickness severity groups.

The figure illustrates the statistically significant interaction between seasickness severity groups and visual targets (near target vs. horizon). The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 11 Expand

Figure 12.

Experiment 4: Mean positional variability in the AP and ML axes for participants who experienced mal de debarquement for less than 30 minutes (the Low-MD group) or more than 120 minutes (the High-MD group).

The figure illustrates the statistically significant main effect of groups (<30 minutes vs. >120 minutes), and the statistically significant interaction between groups and body axes (AP vs. ML). The error bars represent standard error of the mean.

More »

Figure 12 Expand