The effect of smoking nicotine tobacco versus smoking deprivation on motion sickness

BACKGROUND: The experienced smoker maintains adequate nicotine levels by 'puff-by-puff self-control' which also avoids symptomatic nauseating effects of nicotine overdose. It is postulated that there is a varying 'dynamic threshold for nausea' into which motion sickness susceptibility provides an objective toxin-free probe. Hypotheses were that: (i) nicotine promotes motion sickness whereas deprivation protects; and (ii) pleasurable effects of nicotine protect against motion sickness whereas adverse effects of withdrawal have the opposite effect. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy habitual cigarette smokers (mean±SD) 15.3±7.6cigs/day, were exposed to a provocative cross-coupled (coriolis) motion on a turntable, with sequences of 8 head movements every 30s. This continued to the point of moderate nausea. Subjects were tested after either ad-lib normal smoking (SMOKE) or after overnight deprivation (DEPRIV), according to a repeated measures design counter-balanced for order with 1-week interval between tests. RESULTS: Deprivation from recent smoking was confirmed by objective measures: exhaled carbon monoxide CO was lower (P<0.001) for DEPRIV (8.5±5.6ppm) versus SMOKE (16.0±6.3ppm); resting heart rate was lower (P<0.001) for DEPRIV (67.9±8.4bpm) versus SMOKE (74.3±9.5bpm). Mean±SD sequences of head movements tolerated to achieve moderate nausea were more (P=0.014) for DEPRIV (21.3±9.9) versus SMOKE (18.3±8.5). DISCUSSION: Tolerance to motion sickness was aided by short-term smoking deprivation, supporting Hypothesis (i) but not Hypothesis (ii). The effect was was approximately equivalent to half of the effect of an anti-motion sickness drug. Temporary nicotine withdrawal peri-operatively may explain why smokers have reduced risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Motion Sickness

Over 2000 years ago the Greek physician Hippocrates wrote, “sailing on the sea proves that motion disorders the body.” Indeed, the word “nausea” derives from the Greek root word naus, hence “nautical,” meaning a ship. The primary signs and symptoms of motion sickness are nausea and vomiting. Motion sickness can be provoked by a wide variety of transport environments, including land, sea, air, and space. The recent introduction of new visual technologies may expose more of the population to visually induced motion sickness. This chapter describes the signs and symptoms of motion sickness and different types of provocative stimuli. The “how” of motion sickness (i.e., the mechanism) is generally accepted to involve sensory conflict, for which the evidence is reviewed. New observations concern the identification of putative “sensory conflict” neurons and the underlying brain mechanisms. But what reason or purpose does motion sickness serve, if any? This is the “why” of motion sickness, which is analyzed from both evolutionary and nonfunctional maladaptive theoretic perspectives. Individual differences in susceptibility are great in the normal population and predictors are reviewed. Motion sickness susceptibility also varies dramatically between special groups of patients, including those with different types of vestibular disease and in migraineurs. Finally, the efficacy and relative advantages and disadvantages of various behavioral and pharmacologic countermeasures are evaluated.

Repeat-measures longitudinal study evaluating behavioural and gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism before, during and after visceral osteopathic technique (VOT)

Summary: This study investigated the influence of visceral osteopathic technique (VOT) on the behaviour and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms of children with autism using a validated questionnaire to measure outcome. Methods: The 49 recruited autistic children suffered GI symptoms and impaired social interaction and communication, but were otherwise healthy. Thirty minute VOT sessions were applied to the abdomens of the children over a 6 week period whilst their GI and behavioural parameters were recorded. Outcomes were measured using a modified Autism Research Institute Secretin Outcomes Survey Form, the ‘S.O.S Form’. Four questionnaires were completed by parents before treatment (control period), four completed during treatment (treatment period) and one completed six weeks after the last treatment (post treatment period). Subjects acted as their own controls. Results: Results from repeat ANOVA demonstrated a positive, overall significant, symptomatic improvement (p < 0.05) in ‘social behaviour and communication’ and ‘digestive signs’ subscales of the questionnaire comparing before and after VOT. Significant improvement in vomiting (p = 0.00029), poor appetite (p = 0.039) and eye contact (p = 0.035) was also demonstrated after VOT application. Discussion and conclusion: The experimental hypothesis has been supported indicating a positive effect of VOT on some of the measured GI symptoms and behavioural patterns in this group of children with autism. This data indicates that the application of VOT may be of benefit to children with autism and GI disturbance.