Adjustments of Speed and Path when Avoiding Collisions with Another Pedestrian

When walking in open space, collision avoidance with other pedestrians is a process that successfully takes place many times. To pass another pedestrian (an interferer) walking direction, walking speed or both can be adjusted. Currently, the literature is not yet conclusive of how humans adjust these two parameters in the presence of an interferer. This impedes the development of models predicting general obstacle avoidance strategies in humans’ walking behavior. The aim of this study was to investigate the adjustments of path and speed when a pedestrian is crossing a non-reactive human interferer at different angles and speeds, and to compare the results to general model predictions. To do so, we designed an experiment where a pedestrian walked a 12 m distance to reach a goal position. The task was designed in such a way that collision with an interferer would always occur if the pedestrian would not apply a correction of movement path or speed. Results revealed a strong dependence of path and speed adjustments on crossing angle and walking speed, suggesting local planning of the collision avoidance strategy. Crossing at acute angles (i.e. 45° and 90°) seems to require more complex collision avoidance strategies involving both path and speed adjustments than crossing at obtuse angles, where only path adjustments were observed. Overall, the results were incompatible with predictions from existing models of locomotor collision avoidance. The observed initiations of both adjustments suggest a collision avoidance strategy that is temporally controlled. The present study provides a comprehensive picture of human collision avoidance strategies in walking, which can be used to evaluate and adjust existing pedestrian dynamics models, or serve as an empirical basis to develop new models.

[1]  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.

[2]  W. H. Warren,et al.  Behavioral dynamics of intercepting a moving target , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[4]  Mark H. Overmars,et al.  A Predictive Collision Avoidance Model for Pedestrian Simulation , 2009, MIG.

[5]  Daniel S. Marigold,et al.  Keep looking ahead? Re-direction of visual fixation does not always occur during an unpredictable obstacle avoidance task , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  J. Tresilian Visually timed action: time-out for ‘tau’? , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[8]  Alexander Toet,et al.  Human locomotion through a multiple obstacle environment: strategy changes as a result of visual field limitation , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  T. Flash,et al.  Velocity and curvature in human locomotion along complex curved paths: a comparison with hand movements , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[10]  Julien Pettré,et al.  Collision avoidance between two walkers: role-dependent strategies. , 2013, Gait & posture.

[11]  Craig W. Reynolds Steering Behaviors For Autonomous Characters , 1999 .

[12]  Alexandra Kirsch,et al.  Strategies of locomotor collision avoidance. , 2013, Gait & posture.

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

[14]  Brett R. Fajen,et al.  Guiding locomotion in complex, dynamic environments , 2013, Front. Behav. Neurosci..

[15]  W. Warren,et al.  Do walkers follow their heads? Investigating the role of head rotation in locomotor control , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[17]  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.

[18]  Sébastien Paris,et al.  Pedestrian Reactive Navigation for Crowd Simulation: a Predictive Approach , 2007, Comput. Graph. Forum.

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

[20]  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.

[21]  Helbing,et al.  Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. , 1995, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[22]  J. Pettré,et al.  Minimal predicted distance: a common metric for collision avoidance during pairwise interactions between walkers. , 2012, Gait & posture.

[23]  Aftab E Patla,et al.  Travel path conditions dictate the manner in which individuals avoid collisions. , 2007, Gait & posture.

[24]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance , 1997, IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag..

[25]  A. E. Patla,et al.  Online steering: coordination and control of body center of mass, head and body reorientation , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[26]  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.

[27]  Serge P. Hoogendoorn,et al.  Pedestrian Flow Modeling by Adaptive Control , 2004 .