Strategies of locomotor collision avoidance.

Collision avoidance during locomotion can be achieved by a variety of strategies. While in some situations only a single trajectory will successfully avoid impact, in many cases several different strategies are possible. Locomotor experiments in the presence of static boundary conditions have suggested that the choice of an appropriate trajectory is based on a maximum-smoothness strategy. Here we analyzed locomotor trajectories of subjects avoiding collision with another human crossing their path orthogonally. In such a case, changing walking direction while keeping speed or keeping walking direction while changing speed would be two extremes of solving the problem. Our participants clearly favored changing their walking speed while keeping the path on a straight line between start and goal. To interpret this result, we calculated the costs of the chosen trajectories in terms of a smoothness-maximization criterion and simulated the trajectories with a computational model. Data analysis together with model simulation showed that the experimentally chosen trajectory to avoid collision with a moving human is not the optimally smooth solution. However, even though the trajectory is not globally smooth, it was still locally smooth. Modeling further confirmed that, in presence of the moving human, there is always a trajectory that would be smoother but would deviate from the straight line. We therefore conclude that the maximum smoothness strategy previously suggested for static environments no longer holds for locomotor path planning and execution in dynamically changing environments such as the one tested here.

[1]  Brett R Fajen,et al.  Behavioral dynamics of steering, obstacle avoidance, and route selection. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Halim Hicheur,et al.  On the open-loop and feedback processes that underlie the formation of trajectories during visual and nonvisual locomotion in humans. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  Maggie Shiffrar,et al.  Walking perception by walking observers. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Michael Batty,et al.  Predicting where we walk , 1997, Nature.

[5]  Emrah Akin Sisbot Towards human-aware robot motions , 2008 .

[6]  T. Flash,et al.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[7]  A Pottier,et al.  Is visual anticipation of collision during self-motion related to perceptual style? , 1998, Acta psychologica.

[8]  A. Berthoz,et al.  Differential effects of labyrinthine dysfunction on distance and direction during blindfolded walking of a triangular path , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Smoothness maximization along a predefined path accurately predicts the speed profiles of complex arm movements. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  Aftab E. Patla,et al.  Review article Understanding the roles of vision in the control of human locomotion , 1997 .

[11]  Jean-Paul Laumond,et al.  The formation of trajectories during goal‐oriented locomotion in humans. II. A maximum smoothness model , 2007, The European journal of neuroscience.

[12]  Alain Berthoz,et al.  Invariance of locomotor trajectories across visual and gait direction conditions , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[13]  Aftab E Patla,et al.  Locomotor avoidance behaviours during a visually guided task involving an approaching object. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[14]  N. Stanietsky,et al.  The interaction of TIGIT with PVR and PVRL2 inhibits human NK cell cytotoxicity , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  J. Laumond,et al.  The formation of trajectories during goal‐oriented locomotion in humans. I. A stereotyped behaviour , 2007, The European journal of neuroscience.

[16]  R. Blake,et al.  Perception of human motion. , 2007, Annual review of psychology.

[17]  Rachid Alami,et al.  Exploiting human cooperation in human-centered robot navigation , 2010, 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[18]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  T. Flash,et al.  Comparing Smooth Arm Movements with the Two-Thirds Power Law and the Related Segmented-Control Hypothesis , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[20]  Paul A. Braren,et al.  How We Avoid Collisions With Stationary and Moving Obstacles , 2004 .

[21]  E. Hall,et al.  The Hidden Dimension , 1970 .

[22]  William H. Warren,et al.  Optic flow is used to control human walking , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[23]  C. Richards,et al.  The negotiation of stationary and moving obstructions during walking: anticipatory locomotor adaptations and preservation of personal space. , 2005, Motor control.

[24]  Stéphane Donikian,et al.  Experiment-based modeling, simulation and validation of interactions between virtual walkers , 2009, SCA '09.

[25]  E. Todorov Optimality principles in sensorimotor control , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[26]  Richard M Wilkie,et al.  Judgments of path, not heading, guide locomotion. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Aftab E Patla,et al.  Task-specific modulations of locomotor action parameters based on on-line visual information during collision avoidance with moving objects. , 2008, Human movement science.

[28]  Bradford J McFadyen,et al.  Characteristics of personal space during obstacle circumvention in physical and virtual environments. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[29]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Experimental study of the behavioural mechanisms underlying self-organization in human crowds , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.