Effects of Simulator Motion Fidelity on Pilot Performance While Using a Mixed-Reality Headset
Phase: NA
Conditions: Healthy
Sponsor: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Cover Page for ClinicalTrials.gov 
 
 
 
 
Study Protocol 
 
 
 
Effects of Simulator Motion Fidelity on Pilot 
Performance while using a Mixed-Reality 
Headset 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NCT07129876 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
May 14, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
1 
1. Title 
Effects of simulator motion fidelity on pilot performance while using a mixed-reality headset. 
2. Organizations and Study Location(s)  
This research will be performed in the Simulation Research & Development Branch (Code AFS) 
at NASA Ames Research Center (ARC). Data collection will be conducted in the Vertical 
Motion Simulator (VMS) in building N-243 at ARC. A signed ARC476 form is attached to this 
submission. 
3. Investigators 
Principal Investigator: Peter M. T. Zaal, Ph.D. (Metis Technology Solutions, Inc.) 
Co-Investigator and Simulator Operator: Matt L. Blanken (NASA Ames Research Center) 
Co-Investigator and Simulator Operator: Sam P. Orth (Symvionics, Inc.) 
Co-Investigator and Simulator Operator: Supreethi V. Penmetcha (NASA Ames Research Center) 
4. Purpose 
The purpose of this research is to investigate how different levels of simulator motion fidelity 
affect pilot performance in two different flight tasks while using a head mounted display (or 
mixed-reality headset) for out-the-window (OTW) visuals. Three levels of motion fidelity will be 
studied: 1) no motion, 2) small hexapod motion, and 3) one-to-one vehicle motion. 
5. Background 
This is a ground-based study. 
Virtual reality (VR) technologies have been a topic of research for decades. In fact, one of the 
first VR head mounted displays (HMD) was developed at NASA Ames Research Center in 1985 
[1]. In addition, there is a rich history of training astronauts with VR at NASA Johnson Space 
Center [2]. In the last decade, virtual- and mixed-reality (MR) technologies have seen major 
advancements and are now readily available to consumers due to products from major 
technology companies. Furthermore, VR and MR are increasingly used in flight simulators and 
training devices for pilot training, and training facilities are keen on increasing the use, due to the 
lower cost and smaller footprint of HMD systems compared to conventional visual systems. 
Even though VR/MR technologies have improved significantly in recent years, and issues 
including eye fatigue have been greatly reduced by implementing technologies such as eye 
tracking and foveated rendering, limitations like reduced visual acuity remain. In addition, the 
implications of using VR/MR for pilot training are still largely unknown as research is limited. 
Specific gaps in knowledge include: 
1. The effects of VR/MR on pilot wellbeing and, in turn, the quality of training, are largely 
unknown. For example, nausea and other discomfort are experienced significantly more 
using HMDs compared to conventional visual systems. 

 
2 
2. The effects of the quality of the visual cues are still largely unknown. This includes 
characteristics such as brightness, resolution, and field of view. Research on these 
characteristics in the context of pilot performance have been investigated for 
conventional displays, but results might not directly transfer to HMDs. 
3. Guidelines for the fidelity of physical motion needed with VR/MR and the 
synchronization of HMD visuals with physical motion for effective pilot training have 
not been researched. 
The last two gaps in knowledge are specifically important in the training of skill-based tasks, like 
manually flying an aircraft, where the quality and synchronization of visual and motion cues 
affect performance [3]. Due to these gaps in knowledge, very limited regulatory standards for 
using VR/MR in training programs currently exist, which limits the use of the technology for 
training. Regulations that do exist focus on helicopter simulation and use conventional visual 
systems as the norm [4]. In addition, in cases where HMD technologies can be used for training, 
the quality of the training could potentially be reduced compared to the current standards due to 
our lack of knowledge. 
This experiment will add data to gap 3 and will provide the first insights into motion fidelity 
requirements in VR/MR simulation. 
6. Why Human Research is Required 
The goal of this study is to determine differences in pilot performance between different 
simulator motion conditions while wearing an HMD for displaying OTW visuals. Pilot 
performance effects can only be investigated using human subjects in an experimental setting, as 
no accurate computational models of human behavior and performance under these conditions 
exist. 
7. Conflict of Interest 
Do any of the participating study investigators or other research personnel (or their immediate 
family/significant other) have a financial and/or intellectual property interest in the sponsor or 
products used with this project? 
 
____Yes _X_No 
8. Plan of Study 
8.1 Protocol Overview 
The aim of this study is to determine the effects of simulator motion fidelity on pilot 
performance in two demanding piloting tasks while wearing a mixed-reality headset for OTW 
visuals. Pilots will be exposed to mixed-reality visuals (Figure 1) meaning that the virtual OTW 
visual scene will be overlayed on an image of the real simulator cockpit and head down displays 
(HDD). Figure 2 shows an example of a location in the virtual OTW scene that will be displayed 

 
3 
in the headset. Pilots will fly two tasks in this experiment: 1) a roll-lateral sidestep maneuver, 
and 2) a precision landing. 
In task 1, the roll-lateral sidestep maneuver will be from one landing pad to a second landing pad 
(gray/white areas in Figure 2) of a vertiport on the Fifth & Mission Parking Garage in San 
Francisco. The vertiport is in a San Francisco visual database surrounded by buildings with high-
resolution textures. Pilots are instructed to stay at a constant altitude. A positioning sight will be 
placed in the visual scene at each landing pad to allow pilots to determine their positioning error 
precisely. Pilots will be provided with lateral position and time criteria for desired and adequate 
performance. Pilots will be instructed to press an event marker on their control inceptor when 
they acquire the station-keeping point at the landing pad. Turbulence will be used to make the 
task more difficult. This task will be similar to the roll-lateral experiment described by Schroeder 
[5] that was also performed in the VMS. 
 
Figure 1 Example of the mixed-reality visuals showing the virtual out-the-window scene and a passthrough of the real 
environment. 
 
Figure 2 Virtual out-the-window scene showing the Fifth & Mission Parking Garage with vertiport in San Francisco. 

 
4 
In task 2, pilots will perform a landing at the same vertiport in San Francisco that is used in task 
1. The task will start from level flight from a position that allows for a standard approach and 
landing. Landing position and time criteria for desired and adequate performance will be 
communicated to the pilots. Pilots will press an event marker on the control inceptor when they 
acquire the desired reference point on the landing pad. Turbulence will be introduced to make the 
task more difficult. 
 
Pilots will receive the informed consent form and a Motion Sickness Susceptibility 
Questionnaire (MSSQ via email first. They will be asked to fill out the MSSQ at home and return 
it to the PI before being scheduled and coming to the VMS. On the day of the experiment, 
participants will first receive a briefing and walkaround of the facility before providing their 
informed consent (60 minutes). Next, they will take a seat in the simulator cab where seat and 
headset adjustments will be made first to make sure the experiment can be performed 
comfortably. This is followed by the first data-collection session in which one of the tasks is 
flown (45 minutes). Both tasks will be flown under three motion fidelity conditions described in 
Section 8.3 below. Three repetitions of each motion condition will be flown for both tasks, after 
completing three training runs, for a total of 12 runs per task. A 30-minute break is scheduled 
after the first data-collection session. The second session in which the other tasks is flown will 
commence after the break (45 minutes). Finally, pilots will be debriefed and can ask any 
remaining questions (30 minutes). 
 
Pilot performance in each task will be determined by several outcome-based variables, including 
the error between desired and actual aircraft position and attitude at specified locations, the 
intensity of control inputs, and task completion time. Pilots will also complete a motion fidelity 
rating [5] and a Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) [6] at the end of each run (see Appendix 
A). 
Hypothesis: Pilot performance and subjective motion ratings will be significantly different 
between the different simulator motion fidelity conditions. 
Before data analysis, all data will be averaged over the three repetitions of each condition. A 
one-way repeated-measures Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) will be used on the 
data from each task to determine statistically significant effects. If test assumptions are not met 
(e.g., homogeneity of covariance matrices), corrections or appropriate alternate tests will be 
used. Any reporting of the statistical results will include the F statistic (or equivalent for alternate 
tests), degrees of freedom, probability values, and effect sizes. 
Based on previous studies investigating the effects of motion fidelity on pilot performance, it is 
expected that pilot performance will be lower without simulator motion or with small-hexapod 
motion compared to one-to-one vehicle motion [3]. Control intensity will show the opposite 
trend; that is, will be higher without simulator motion and will decrease with higher motion 
fidelity. 
 
 

 
5 
8.2 Equipment  
Data collection will take place in the VMS (https://www.nasa.gov/simlabs/vms), the largest vertical 
motion simulator in the world. The VMS provides motion in all three rotational and all three 
translational degrees-of-freedom. Its vertical and lateral motion range are 60 ft and 40 ft, 
respectively. This study will use the Rotorcraft Cab (R-Cab) with a single seat. Two sidesticks, 
positioned on the left and right sides of the seat, will be used for controlling a lift-plus-cruise 
electrical vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) vehicle (Figure 3). The vehicle accelerations will 
drive the motion system of the simulator. HDDs will be positioned in front of the pilot providing 
primary flight and navigation information. 
 
Figure 3 Visual presentation of the simulated lift-plus-cruise electrical vertical takeoff and landing vehicle. 
OTW visuals will be provided by a Varjo XR-4 mixed-reality headset worn on the pilot’s head 
(Figure 4). The Varjo XR-4 (https://varjo.com/products/xr-4-secure-edition/) has a 4K mini-LED 
display per eye. The headset has a 120° x 105° field of view delivering full binocular range 
vision, and 200 nits of brightness and 1:10000 contrast ratio. 20-megapixel cameras on the 
outside of the headset facilitate mixed-reality simulation setups where real-world elements such 
as cockpits and HDDs can be merged with virtual content. The headset also features a built-in 
eye tracker with 200 Hz eye tracking to allow for foveated rendering; that is, the scene will be 
rendered at a higher resolution around where a user is looking. The weight of the headset is 1021 
grams. 

 
6 
 
Figure 4 Varjo XR-4 mixed-reality headset.  
 
An ART SMARTTRACK Dual-Camera Tracking Solution will be installed in the simulator cab 
for determining the location of the mixed-reality headset in the 3D environment. Pilots will not 
have to interact with the tracking system. 
Pilots will wear David Clark noise-canceling headsets at all times allowing for direct 
communication with simulator operators. 
8.3 Stimuli 
The principal stimulus and independent variable in this experiment is the motion of the VMS 
cabin with three levels: 1) no motion, 2) small-hexapod motion, and 3) one-to-one vehicle 
motion. Pilots will not be told which motion condition will be present during any of the 
simulation runs to make sure pilots are not preconditioned. A visual presentation of the type of 
motion system the three levels of motion fidelity represent is provided in Figure 5. Note that all 
motion conditions will be flown in the VMS with its large motion system as depicted in Figure 
5(c), but the motion settings will be different for each motion fidelity level. For the no-motion 
condition, the simulator motion system is turned on, and pilots and simulation operators will 
follow the same procedures as during a run with motion; however, the simulator will not move 
during the task. 
Mixed-reality visuals will be provided by the Varjo XR-4 mixed-reality headset as described 
above. Background sound in the form of powertrain noise will be provided by speakers in the 
simulator cab but no other specific aural stimuli will be used. 

 
7 
 
 
     
 
(a) No motion. 
 
 
 
(b)  Small hexapod motion. 
 
      (c) One-to-one vehicle motion. 
 
Figure 5 Visual presentation of the three motion fidelity conditions in the experiment. 
8.4 Prior to Runs 
Pilots local to NASA Ames will be recruited for the experiment with an email announcement 
sent by the PI. The email announcement will include a recruitment flyer with the following 
requirements for participation: 
1. Be 18 years or older. 
2. Be in general good health. 
3. Have normal or corrected to normal vision. 
4. Not have claustrophobia. 
5. Not be susceptible to motion sickness. 
Individuals who confirm by email that they would like to participate and meet the study 
inclusion/exclusion criteria posted in the recruitment flyer will be contacted by the PI and will be 
offered to discuss the study protocol in more detail via telephone or Teams. If they remain 
interested in participating in the study, the pilots will be emailed an electronic copy of the 
consent form and a short form Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire (MSSQ) [7]. Pilots 
are asked to return the completed MSSQ to the PI via email. The pilot’s MSSQ score will serve 
as confirmation of their self-identified susceptibility to motion sickness as confirmed in their 
response to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. At this time, pilots will also be given a schedule with 
open time slots to schedule their participation. 
On the day of the experiment, pilots will receive an experiment briefing in the pilot ready room 
adjacent to the VMS. The briefing will include an explanation of the post-run questionnaires. 
Pilots will be encouraged to discuss the protocol and details of the study with the investigators. 
They will also be provided the opportunity to view the VMS facility and the R-Cab prior to 
reconfirming their informed consent by physically signing their informed consent form. Pilots 
will also be asked to complete a short demographics questionnaire. Before data collection starts, 
pilots will receive a safety walkaround by the simulator motion operator. 
 

 
8 
8.5 Experiment Design 
This experiment will collect prospective data from participants (outcome-based performance 
metrics and questionnaire responses) obtained consequent to experimental manipulation in the 
form of different simulator motion fidelity conditions. 
The study has a within-subjects repeated-measures design, with each participant performing two 
tasks under three levels of the independent variable: motion fidelity. Tasks will be completed 
consecutively. The order of the tasks will be randomized for each pilot. The order of the 
simulator motion fidelity conditions for each task will be randomized using a Latin square design 
(independent variable level vs repetition). 
Every task will start with a training session consisting of three training runs to make pilots 
familiar with the task criteria and procedures. The training runs will all be flown with one-to-one 
motion (Figure 5(c)). After training, each motion condition will be repeated three times for a total 
of nine measurement runs. 
8.6 Data Protection 
All participant data will be coded using a code assigned to each participant prior to data 
collection. Therefore, no stored test data will contain identifiable information. A datasheet 
linking participant names with their codes will be stored on the Principal Investigator’s 
password-protected NASA computer. All test data will be collected, stored, and analyzed on 
password-protected NASA computers protected per NASA data security procedures. If a 
participant withdraws from the experiment or is not able to complete the experiment, their non-
identifiable run data will be preserved but will not be used in the data analysis. 
Only aggregate summary data or coded raw data will ever be shared or made public for any 
subsequent analyses or for publication. The results of the research or any resulting statistics will 
not be made available in a form that could indirectly identify individuals (e.g., age will be used, 
not birth dates).  
All stated precautions will be taken to protect confidentiality, but there remains a small risk that 
confidentiality could be breached. 
9. Proposed Test Schedule  
The study is currently planned to run from May 19 to June 2, 2025. Participants will complete 
the experiment in no more than 3.5 hours, including the briefing and breaks between sessions. 
This means two participants can participate on one day, the first in the morning, and the second 
in the afternoon. The cadence of participant testing will depend on pilot availability which means 
no pilot or only one pilot will be tested on some days. Pilots’ sessions will be scheduled so that 
only one test participant will be present at a time. 
10. Practical Aspects of Safety and Ethical Conduct 
This study is minimal risk.  

 
9 
The VMS has been used in many piloted simulation experiments and training. The simulator is 
rated for human occupancy and contains many levels of safety. For every simulation, standard 
operating procedures, including all safety procedures, are always followed. In case of motion 
sickness or any other discomfort, the participant can stop the simulation at any time either by 
requesting so verbally or by the push of a button in the simulator cab. Note that pilots still have 
visibility in the cab and can see the control inceptors and their hands since the HMD is used in a 
mixed-reality mode, allowing them to easily locate any buttons. In addition, the PI, simulator 
engineer, and motion operator can stop the simulation if necessary. Because on-site medical 
monitoring has not been required for prior VMS studies, the Medical Monitor will instead be 
available on call during testing days. 
The range of motion conditions in this experiment has been used in previous VMS studies with 
standard OTW visuals without participants experiencing any significant motion sickness. 
However, since VR visuals are known to have an increased chance of inducing motion sickness, 
pilots will fill out the SSQ at the end of each run to determine their level of motion sickness. In 
addition, pilots will be instructed to terminate the session if they feel overly uncomfortable due 
to motion sickness or any other reason. Sickness bags are available in the simulator cab. 
If participants experience motion sickness during the experiment, they will be instructed to 
remain at the facility for no less than 30 minutes following the last simulation run to ensure that 
there are no significant post-exposure symptoms. 
11. Number, Source, and Pertinent Characteristics of Participants 
The study population will consist of helicopter pilots and does not include astronauts. Data will 
be required from up to 10 participants to complete the full protocol. Up to 15 participants may be 
recruited to allow for any dropouts. 
G*Power version 3.1 was used to calculate the sample size for the proposed study. Effect sizes 
(determined by the partial eta squared, 𝜂𝑝2) in previous work [8, 9] were often well above 0.14 
which is a benchmark for a large effect size [10, 11]. To be conservative, an effect size of 𝜂𝑝2 =
0.14 (which corresponds to an effect size f = √η𝑝2/(1 −η𝑝2) = 0.4 as used by G*Power) was 
chosen to calculate the required sample size [11]. The correlation amongst dependent measures 
in previous similar research was not reported; however, it is known that the different 
performance metrics used in this study are highly correlated. For example, if overall 
performance, as indicated by several performance metrics, increases with higher fidelity motion, 
control intensity decreases [3]. For this reason, the correlation between measures was assumed to 
be 0.7 in the power analysis. Using a probability of making a Type I error 𝛼= 0.05, and a 
probability of making a Type II error 𝛽= 0.2 (that is, a power of 0.8), the required total sample 
size is calculated to be 10 (Figure 6). 
Participants should be in general good health and have normal or corrected to normal vision. 
There are no restrictions for age (other than being 18 years or older) and sex. The MSSQ will be 
used to evaluate susceptibility to motion sickness. Pilots that have a higher susceptibility to 
motion sickness will be discouraged from participating. Because each pilot will be seated alone 

 
10
in the closed VMS cabin, with an internal volume comparable to a small aircraft cockpit, we will 
exclude pilots who self-identify as having claustrophobia from the study. 
 
Figure 6 Relationship between sample size and statistical power. 
12. Benefits of Participation 
No benefits will accrue to the individual participant. Participants’ data will help inform the use of 
simulator motion in future simulation studies and training with mixed-reality headsets. 
13. Possible Inconveniences, Discomfort, Pain, and Risks to the Participants 
There is a small risk of some degree of motion sickness, including a risk of vomiting, in this 
study due to the use of VR visuals with simulator motion. Otherwise, the experimental 
procedures are non-invasive, and should not cause pain or other discomfort, or risk to 
participants. 
There is a risk that terminating a study run due to motion sickness may cause some 
embarrassment or emotional discomfort.  
There is a small risk of claustrophobia. 
There is very small risk of VMS malfunction.  
Although all stated precautions will be taken to protect confidentiality, there remains a small risk 
that confidentiality could be breached. A breach of confidentiality may cause some 
embarrassment or emotional discomfort depending on achieved task performance and 
experienced motion sickness during the experiment. 
Currently there are no known risks to a pregnant female and a fetus for this protocol. However, 
unknown adverse fetal events may occur, even in the absence of maternal symptoms. 

 
11
14. Measures Taken to Minimize Discomfort and Risks 
In case of motion sickness or any other discomfort (including claustrophobia), the participant can 
stop the simulation at any time either by requesting so verbally or by the push of a button on the 
inceptor. In addition, the investigators, simulator engineer, and motion operator can stop the 
simulation when necessary.  
To reduce the risk and severity of motion sickness the following measures are taken to limit the 
duration and magnitude of nauseogenic stimuli: 1) being susceptible to motion sickness is an 
exclusion criterion in the recruitment flyer (pilots must self-identify as not being susceptible and 
confirm with the PI), 2) participants will be instructed to request that the simulated flight session 
be terminated when they start to feel nauseous, and 3) the SSQ responses will be monitored by 
the investigators and the study will be terminated if there is an indication of increasing motion 
sickness.  
The risk of claustrophobia is mitigated by using being claustrophobic as an exclusion criterion in 
the recruitment flyer. Pilots must self-identify as not being claustrophobic and confirm with the 
PI. Further, should unanticipated claustrophobia be discovered once onboard the VMS, 
participants are instructed to ask immediately to be released from the cabin and stop participation 
in the study. 
During the informed consent process, participants will be briefed by the investigator on all 
anticipated risks and discomforts that may occur during the study. Participants will be informed 
that they may talk with the PI or Medical Monitor at any time during the study. The participant 
will be informed that they can discontinue any activity including responding to questionnaires if 
it causes any discomfort. Participants will also be informed that they are free to withdraw from 
the experiment at any time for any reason, regardless of whether they choose to reveal the 
reason.  
The investigators have completed ethics training and is aware of the need to make individuals 
feel comfortable and of the importance of maintaining discretion when discussing potentially 
embarrassing information. If participants experience any emotional discomfort or 
embarrassment, they will be encouraged to inform the investigators. 
The VMS has been used in many pilot evaluation studies in the past. The VMS’s standard 
operating procedures (SOP), including all safety procedures, are always followed for all motion 
simulations. Further, the simulator engineer and motion operator can stop the simulation 
whenever necessary. 
15. Conditions of Withdrawal from the Experiment 
Participation is voluntary. Participants will be informed in the study description provided for 
informed consent that they are free to withdraw from the experiment at any time for any reason, 
whether or not they choose to reveal the reason. Participants will not be penalized or 
disadvantaged in any way for such a withdrawal. 

 
12
16. Remuneration for Participants  
Helicopter pilots local to NASA Ames will be recruited for the experiment. If pilots participate 
during normal work hours, they must ask for permission from their supervisor. Pilots will not 
receive any remuneration for their participation in the experiment. 
17. Compensation in the Event of Injury  
In the event of injury or illness resulting from this study and calling for immediate action  or 
attention, NASA will provide, or cause to be provided, the necessary treatment. If eligible for 
Workers’ Compensation benefits while participating in this study, participants cannot sue their 
employer because the law makes Workers’ Compensation their only remedy against their 
employer. Participants may have other remedies against other persons or organizations, 
depending on the circumstances of the injury. NASA will pay for any claims of injury, loss of 
life or property damage to the extent required by Federal Employees Compensation Act or the 
Federal Tort Claims Act. 
18. Consent Process 
Pilots who confirm by email that they meet the screening criteria in the recruitment flyer will be 
provided a copy of the informed consent form and the MSSQ. After sending back their filled out 
MSSQ, the MSSQ score will allow for an extra confirmation of their motion sickness 
susceptibility. Next, if pilots still meet all the screening criteria, they will be invited to the VMS 
building to participate in the experiment.  
The experiment session will start in the pilot-ready room adjacent to the VMS, where, after a 
briefing, pilots will be encouraged to discuss the protocol and details of the study with the 
investigator. They will also be provided the opportunity to view the VMS facility and the 
simulator cab prior to providing their informed consent. 
As a final step before starting data collection, pilots provide their informed consent. Informed 
consent will be obtained in person by the PI. 
Participants are free to withdraw their consent at any stage of the study, whether they are on 
board the VMS or in between study sessions. In withdrawing their consent, participants will stop 
any involvement in the study and their data will not be used in any analyses. 
19. References 
[1]  "A New Continent of Ideas," Spinoff 1990, pp. 88-91, 1 January 1990.  
[2]  A. D. Garcia, J. Schlueter and E. Paddock, "Training Astronauts using Hardware-in-the-Loop 
Simulations and Virtual Reality," in Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, Orlando, 2020.  
[3]  J. A. Schroeder and P. R. Grant, "Pilot Behavioral Observations in Motion Flight Simulation," in 
AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit (August 2-5, 2010), 2010.  

 
13
[4]  EASA, "FSTD Special Conditions for the use of Head Mounted Displays (HMD) combined with a 
motion platform with reduced envelope," European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), 2023. 
[5]  J. A. Schroeder, "Helicopter Flight Simulation Motion Platform Requirements," National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA/TP-1999-208766, Moffett Field, 1999. 
[6]  R. S. Kennedy, N. E. Lane, K. S. Berbaum and M. G. Lilienthal, "Simulator Sickness Questionnaire:An 
Enhanced Method for QuantifyingSimulator Sickness," The International Journal of Aviation 
Psychology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 203-220, 1993.  
[7]  J. F. Golding, "Predicting Individual Differences in Motion Sickness Susceptibility by Questionnaire," 
Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 237-248, 2006.  
[8]  F. M. Nieuwenhuizen, K. A. Beykirch, M. Mulder and H. H. Bulthoﬀ, "Identiﬁcation of Pilot Control 
Behavior in aRoll-Lateral Helicopter Hover Task," in AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies 
Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, 2007.  
[9]  P. M. T. Zaal, J. A. Schroeder and W. W. Chung, "Objective Motion Cueing Criteria for Commercial 
Transport Simulators," in AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference (June, 2018), 
2018.  
[10] D. Lakens, "Calculating and Reporting Effect Sizes to Facilitate Cumulative Science: A Practical 
Primer for t-tests and ANOVAs," Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 4, pp. 1-12, 2013.  
[11] J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates, Inc., 1988.  
 
 
 
 

 
14
Appendix A: Post-Run Questionnaires 
Pilots will fill out the motion fidelity ratings scale and Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) provided 
below at the end of each run. 
 
 
Figure 7 Motion fidelity rating scale. 
 
(circle severity of each symptom below) 
1. General discomfort  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
2. Fatigue  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
3. Headache  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
4. Eye strain  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
5. Difficulty focusing  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
6. Salivation increasing  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
7. Sweating  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
8. Nausea  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
9. Difficulty concentrating  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
10. Fullness of the Head 
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
11. Blurred vision  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
12. Dizziness with eyes open  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
13. Dizziness with eyes closed  None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
14. Vertigo  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
15. Stomach awareness  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
16. Burping  
None  
Slight  
Moderate  
Severe  
 
Figure 8 Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. 
 
 

 
15
Appendix B: Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire 
Pilots will fill out the Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire below before the start of the 
experiment. 
 
 
Figure 9 Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire.