Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2602.22671

Does the testing environment matter? Carsickness across on-road, test-track, and driving simulator conditions

Georgios Papaioannou·Barys Shyrokau
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Carsickness has gained significant attention with the rise of automated vehicles, prompting extensive research across on-road, test-track, and driving simulator environments to understand its occurrence and develop mitigation strategies. However, the lack of carsickness standardization complicates comparisons across studies and environments. Previous works demonstrate measurement validity between two setups at most (e.g., on-road vs. driving simulator), leaving gaps in multi-environment comparisons. This study investigates the recreation of an on-road motion sickness exposure - previously replicated on a test track - using a motion-based driving simulator. Twenty-eight participants performed an eyes-off-road non-driving task while reporting motion sickness using the Misery Scale during the experiment and the Motion Sickness Assessment Questionnaire afterward. Psychological factors known to influence motion sickness were also assessed. The results present subjective and objective measurements for motion sickness across the considered environments. In this paper, acceleration measurements, objective metrics and subjective motion sickness ratings across environments are compared, highlighting key differences in sickness occurrence for simulator-based research validity. Significantly lower motion sickness scores are reported in the simulator compared to on-road and test-track conditions, due to its limited working envelope to reproduce low-frequency (<0.5 Hz) motions, which are the most provocative for motion sickness.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.ET

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Georgios Papaioannou, Barys Shyrokau. 2026-02-26. Does the testing environment matter? Carsickness across on-road, test-track, and driving simulator conditions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22671

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗