Interaction between real and virtual humans during walking: perceptual evluation of a simple device

ABSTRACT

Validating that a real user can correctly perceive the motion of a virtual human is first required to enable realistic interactions between real and virtual humans during navigation tasks through virtual reality equipment. In this paper we focus on collision avoidance tasks. Previous works stated that real humans are able to accurately estimate others' motion and to avoid collisions with anticipation. Our main contribution is to propose a perceptual evaluation of a simple virtual reality system. The goal is to assess whether real humans are also able to accurately estimate a virtual human motion before collision avoidance. Results show that, even through a simple system, users are able to correctly evaluate the situation of an interaction on the qualitative point of view. Especially, in comparison with real interactions, users accurately decide whether they should give way to the virtual human or not. However, on the quantitative point of view, it is not easy for users to determine whether they will collide with virtual humans or not. On one hand, deciding to give way or not is a two-choice problem. On the other hand, detecting future collision requires to determine whether some visual variables belong some interval or not. We discuss this problem in terms of bearing angle.

References

1. Bastin, J., Jacobs, D., Morice, A., Craig, C., and Montagne, G. 2008. Testing the role of expansion in the prospective control of locomotion. Experimental Brain Research 191, 3, 301--312.
2. Bideau, B., Kulpa, R., Vignais, N., Brault, S., Multon, F., and Craig, C. 2010. Using virtual reality to analyze sports performance. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 2010, 64--71.
3. Cavagna, G., Willems, P., and Heglund, N. 2000. The role of gravity in human walking: pendular energy exchange, external work and optimal speed. The Journal of Physiology 528, 3, 657--668.
4. Cinelli, M., and Patla, A. 2007. Travel path conditions dictate the manner in which individuals avoid collisions. Gait & Posture 26, 2, 186--193.
5. Crétual, A., Olivier, A., Pettré, J., and Berthoz, A. 2009. Experimental study on interactions between walkers having crossing trajectories. Part II. Experimental setup, interaction starting and solving. In Proceedings of the XIX Conference of the International Society for Posture & Gait Research, Bologna, Italy, June 21--25, Poster.
6. Cutting, J., Vishton, P., and Braren, P. 1995. How we avoid collisions with stationary and moving obstacles. Psychological review 102, 4, 627--651.
7. Fink, P., Foo, P., and Warren, W. 2007. Obstacle avoidance during walking in real and virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 4, 1, 2.
8. Gérin-Lajoie, M., Richards, C., and McFadyen, B. 2005. The negociation of stationary and moving obstructions during walking: anticipatory locomotor adaptations and preservation of personal space. Motor Control 9, 242--269.
9. Gérin-Lajoie, M., Ronsky, J., Loitz-Ramage, B., Robu, I., Richards, C., and McFadyen, B. 2007. Navigational strategies during fast walking: A comparison between trained athletes and non-athletes. Gait & Posture 26, 4, 539--545.
10. Grasso, R., Glasauer, S., Takei, Y., and Berthoz, A. 1996. The predictive brain: anticipatory control of head direction for the steering of locomotion. Neuroreport 7, 6, 1170--1174.
11. Jackson, R., Warren, S., and Abernethy, B. 2006. Anticipation skill and susceptibility to deceptive movement. Acta Psychologica 123, 3, 355--371.
12. Johansson, G. 1973. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics 14, 201--211.
13. Kulpa, R., Multon, F., and Arnaldi, B. 2005. Morphology-independent representation of motions for interactive human-like animation. Computer Graphics Forum, Eurographics 2005 special issue 24, 3, 343--352.
14. Lee, D. 1982. Regulation of gait in long jumping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 8, 3, 448--59.
15. Multon, F., Kulpa, R., and Bideau, B. 2008. MKM: A global framework for animating humans in virtual reality applications. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 17, 1, 17--28.
16. Öberg, T., Karsznia, A., and Öberg, K. 1993. Basic gait parameters: reference data for normal subjects, 10--79 years of age. Journal of rehabilitation research and development 30, 210--210.
17. Pettré, J., Ondřej, J., Olivier, A., Cretual, A., and Donikian, S. 2009. Experiment-based modeling, simulation and validation of interactions between virtual walkers. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation, ACM, 189--198.
18. Prévost, P., Yuri, I., Renato, G., and Berthoz, A. 2003. Spatial invariance in anticipatory orienting behaviour during human navigation. Neuroscience Letters 339, 3, 243--247.
19. Templer, J. 1992. The staircase: studies of hazards, falls and safer design, cambridge, mass ed. MIT Press, ch. Human territoriality and space needs on stairs, 61--70.
20. Vignais, N., Bideau, B., Craig, C., Brault, S., Multon, F., Delamarche, P., and Kulpa, R. 2009. Does the level of detail of a virtual handball thrower influence a goalkeeper's motor response? Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 8, 501--508.
21. Williams, A., Davids, K., Burwitz, L., and Williams, J. 1994. Visual search strategies in experienced and inexperienced soccer players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 65, 2, 127--135.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Computer graphics