Chapter 04
From Vision to Research Program
The question had outgrown the original plan. If motion was worth investigating, it needed to become something researchers could measure, challenge, and test.
2024–Present
After the setback
The boat was gone. The question was not.
Losing the Moody forced us to reconsider the first version of the mission.
If the phenomenon we wanted to investigate was really related to motion, then owning another boat could not be the ultimate objective.
The more important task was to understand the exposure itself.
- 01
What motion was occurring?
- 02
How did it vary over time?
- 03
How did the human body respond while experiencing it?
- 04
And could those relationships be measured objectively?
A more precise question
Motion could not remain a description. It had to become data.
The next version of the idea began with measurement.
Instead of treating "being on a boat" as the exposure, we needed to characterize the movement occurring beneath the participant and measure physiological response alongside it.
That meant thinking in terms of synchronized data:
- 01Vessel motion
- 02Physiological response
- 03Time
- 04Individual tolerance
The objective was no longer to ask whether people simply appeared calmer on the water.
The objective was to begin determining whether measurable patterns in externally applied motion corresponded with measurable physiological responses.
The measurement problem
Two streams of data. One timeline.
Motion
Six degrees of freedom
- Surge
- Sway
- Heave
- Roll
- Pitch
- Yaw
Physiology
Planned Phase 1 measures
- Heart rate
- Heart rate variability
- Pupillary response
- Tolerance
Synchronize the exposure with the response.
The research problem required motion and physiological data to share a common timeline, allowing investigators to examine what was happening to the vessel and the participant at the same moment.
The next limit
This was no longer a question I could answer on my own.
By this point, the idea had moved beyond something that could responsibly be explored through family observation.
Answering the question required research design, clinical oversight, data governance, participant protections, statistical planning, and investigators willing to challenge the hypothesis rather than simply accept it.
That meant finding the right research partner.
The research partnership
The question reached Thomas Jefferson University.
SeaKing Solace began working with Thomas Jefferson University to translate the hypothesis into a formal research program.
The collaboration resulted in a signed Statement of Work defining the planned Phase 1 research scope and institutional responsibilities.
Principal Investigator
David J. Whellan, MD, MHS
Director, Jefferson Clinical Research Institute
Thomas Jefferson University
Dr. Whellan signed the Phase 1 Statement of Work and is identified as Principal Investigator for the planned research program.
The transition
The hypothesis was no longer just ours to believe in.
It was becoming a question designed to be tested.
The purpose of the research program is not to confirm our original observation.
It is to determine what the data support.
The hypothesis has to survive the evidence.
The first formal study
Begin with the motion itself.
The planned Phase 1 program begins with healthy adult participants and synchronized measurement of natural vessel motion, physiological response, and tolerance.
120
Healthy adult participants
2
Research sites
Annapolis + Tampa
Planned study locations
8
Sessions per participant
6-DoF
Motion measurement
Heart rate + HRV
Physiological monitoring
Pupillometry
Pupillary response
Tolerance
Participant tolerance
The first phase is intentionally designed to begin before testing efficacy in a clinical population.
The healthy-adult design is intended to characterize natural vessel motion, examine physiological response, assess tolerance, and begin identifying motion profiles that may warrant further investigation.
Why this sequence matters
Characterize the exposure before asking whether it is therapeutic.
The original observations involved autism.
But moving directly from those observations into an efficacy study would skip a fundamental question:
What exactly is the exposure?
Before asking whether externally applied rhythmic motion might have clinical value, the research program first needs to characterize the motion, measure physiological response, understand tolerability, and determine which patterns justify further study.
This staged approach separates an interesting observation from a responsible research pathway.
The path forward
First measure the water. Then ask whether it can be reproduced.
Natural water provides complex, continuously varying multi-axis motion.
Phase 1 is designed to characterize that environment and its relationship to physiological response.
If the data justify continued investigation, subsequent work can ask whether selected motion profiles can be reproduced under controlled conditions on land.
Only then can the broader clinical questions be approached systematically.
- 01Natural motion
- 02Measure
- 03Characterize
- 04Reproduce
- 05Test
The four-phase pathway
Each phase asks a different question.
Phase 1
On-Water Characterization
Characterize vessel motion and synchronized physiological responses in healthy adult participants.
Phase 2
Simulator Validation
Reproduce selected motion profiles in a controlled laboratory environment and evaluate whether comparable responses can be measured.
Phase 3
ASD and POTS Clinical Investigation
If supported by earlier findings, evaluate safety, tolerability, feasibility, and clinical response in selected ASD and POTS populations.
Phase 4
Real-Time Protocol Development
Develop and evaluate real-time motion protocols, therapist workflows, tolerability parameters, and the data framework needed to inform future platform development.
Progression beyond each phase depends on the evidence generated before it.
From observation to investigation
The question that began on the water had become measurable.
We began with an observation involving one child.
We did not know why it happened.
We did not know whether it would happen again.
We did not know whether motion had anything to do with it.
Over time, the question became narrower.
The variables became measurable.
The uncertainties became explicit.
And the next step became clear:
Test the hypothesis.
Where the story meets the present
Now the work is to find out.
SeaKing Solace is now working toward the first phase of this research program with Thomas Jefferson University and Principal Investigator Dr. David Whellan.
The objective remains the same one that emerged from the earliest observations:
Understand what is happening.
Measure it.
Test it.
And let the evidence determine what comes next.
The story so far
An observation became a question.
The question became a hypothesis.
The hypothesis became a research program.
Now it has to be tested.