Individual differences in susceptibility to motion sickness among six Skylab astronauts

Abstract

One of the Skylab experiments dealt with motion sickness, comparing susceptibility in the workshop aloft with susceptibility preflight and postflight. Tests were conducted on and after mission-day 8 (MD 8) by which time the astronauts were adapted to working conditions. Stressful accelerations were generated by requiring the astronauts, with eyes covered, to execute standardized head movements (front, back, left, and right) while in a chair that could be rotated at angular velocities up to 30 rpm. The selected endpoint was either 150 discrete head movements or a very mild level of motion sickness. In all rotation experiments aloft, the five astronauts tested (astronaut 1 did not participate) were virtually symptom free, thus demonstrating lower susceptibility aloft than in preflight and postflight tests on the ground when symptoms were always elicited. Inasmuch as the eyes were covered and the canalicular stimuli were the same aloft as on the ground, it would appear that lifting the stimulus to the otolith organs due to gravity was an important factor in reducing susceptibility to motion sickness even though the transient stimuli generated under the test conditions were substantial and abnormal in pattern. Some of the astronauts experienced motion sickness under operational conditions aloft or after splashdown, but attention is centered chiefly on symptoms manifested in zero gravity. None of the Skylab-II crew (astronauts 1 to 3) was motion sick aloft. Astronaut 6 of the Skylab-III crew (astronauts 4 to 6) experienced motion sickness within an hour after transition into orbit; this constitutes the earliest such diagnosis on record under orbital flight conditions. The eliciting stimuli were associated with head and body movements, and astronaut 6 obtained relief by avoiding such movements and by one dose of the drug combination 1-scopolamine 0.35 mg + d-amphetamine 5.0 mg. All three astronauts of Skylab-III experienced motion sickness in the workshop where astronaut 6 was most susceptible and astronaut 4, least susceptible. The higher susceptibility of SL-III crewmen in the workshop, as compared with SL-II crewmen, may be attributable to the fact that they were based in the command module less than one-third as long as SL-II crewmen. The unnatural movements, often resembling acrobatics, permitted in the open spaces of the workshop revealed the great potentialities in weightlessness for generating complex interactions of abnormal or unusual vestibular and visual stimuli. Symptoms were controlled by body restraint and by drugs, but high susceptibility to motion sickness persisted for 3 days and probably much longer; restoration was complete on MD 7. From the foregoing statements it is clear that on and after MD 8 the susceptibility of SL-II and SL-III crewmen to motion sickness under experimental conditions was indistinguishable. The role played by the acquisition of adaptation effects prior to MD 8 is less clear and is a subject to be discussed.