Limits...
Hesitant avoidance while walking: an error of social behavior generated by mutual interaction.

Honma M, Koyama S, Kawamura M - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: This ineffectiveness, which is an error of social behavior generated by mutual interactions, is not well understood.We found that the hesitant behavior is influenced by an interpersonal relationship under enough distance to predict other movement.These results contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms of adaptive control of perception-action coupling in mutual interaction.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Rikkyo University Saitama, Japan ; Department of Neurology, Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo, Japan.

ABSTRACT
Altering physical actions when responding to changing environmental demands is important but not always effectively performed. This ineffectiveness, which is an error of social behavior generated by mutual interactions, is not well understood. This study investigated mechanisms of a hesitant behavior that occurs in people walking toward each other, causing people to move in the same direction when attempting to avoid a collision. Using a motion capture device affixed to 17 pairs, we first confirmed the hesitant behavior by a difference between the experimental task, which involved an indeterminate situation to assess the actions of another individual, and the control task, which involved a predetermined avoiding direction, in a real-time situation involving two people. We next investigated the effect of three external factors: long distance until an event, synchronized walking cycle, and different foot relations in dyads on the hesitant behavior. A dramatic increase in freezing and near-collision behavior occurred in dyads for which the avoiding direction was not predetermined. The behavior related with the combination of long distance until an event, synchronized walking cycle, and different foot relations in dyads. We found that the hesitant behavior is influenced by an interpersonal relationship under enough distance to predict other movement. The hesitant behavior has possibly emerged as an undesired by-product of joint action. These results contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms of adaptive control of perception-action coupling in mutual interaction.

No MeSH data available.


Experimental schema of the walking task. Participants wore wireless headphones, and capture markers on the tops of their heads and on their feet toes. Participants heard a timing sound that was presented at 500 ms intervals. The constraint zones were each 80 cm in length, and the free zone was 200 cm in the long condition, and 20 cm in the short condition. There were five fixed toeing points in the constraint zone on the right and left. In the synchronization condition, the timing sounds were presented at the same time to two persons, whereas in the asynchronization condition, mismatched sounds with 200 ms difference between the two participants were presented. In the starting foot side condition, the two participants began on the same or on opposite feet.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4508494&req=5

Figure 1: Experimental schema of the walking task. Participants wore wireless headphones, and capture markers on the tops of their heads and on their feet toes. Participants heard a timing sound that was presented at 500 ms intervals. The constraint zones were each 80 cm in length, and the free zone was 200 cm in the long condition, and 20 cm in the short condition. There were five fixed toeing points in the constraint zone on the right and left. In the synchronization condition, the timing sounds were presented at the same time to two persons, whereas in the asynchronization condition, mismatched sounds with 200 ms difference between the two participants were presented. In the starting foot side condition, the two participants began on the same or on opposite feet.

Mentions: Participants wore wireless headphones and capture markers on the tops of their heads and on their feet and toes (Figure 1). An optical motion capture device (ProReflex, Qualisys, Sweden) recorded the markers at 60 Hz with spatial resolution of 1 mm. The participants heard a timing sound with a frequency of 1000 Hz that was presented at 500 ms intervals. A countdown voice that said, “three, two, one, zero” was broadcast to initiate the trial. The first step on the ground occurred with the “zero” of the countdown. Individuals were allowed to practice the start-timing of walking prior to testing. The constraint zones were each 80 cm in length, and the free zone (i.e., the distance until the event) was 200 (long) or 20 (short) cm in length. In the constraint zone, five fixed toeing points were located to each of the right and left, including the starting points. In other words, the participants reached the free zone in four steps. The ground was marked with a center line and capture markers.


Hesitant avoidance while walking: an error of social behavior generated by mutual interaction.

Honma M, Koyama S, Kawamura M - Front Psychol (2015)

Experimental schema of the walking task. Participants wore wireless headphones, and capture markers on the tops of their heads and on their feet toes. Participants heard a timing sound that was presented at 500 ms intervals. The constraint zones were each 80 cm in length, and the free zone was 200 cm in the long condition, and 20 cm in the short condition. There were five fixed toeing points in the constraint zone on the right and left. In the synchronization condition, the timing sounds were presented at the same time to two persons, whereas in the asynchronization condition, mismatched sounds with 200 ms difference between the two participants were presented. In the starting foot side condition, the two participants began on the same or on opposite feet.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4508494&req=5

Figure 1: Experimental schema of the walking task. Participants wore wireless headphones, and capture markers on the tops of their heads and on their feet toes. Participants heard a timing sound that was presented at 500 ms intervals. The constraint zones were each 80 cm in length, and the free zone was 200 cm in the long condition, and 20 cm in the short condition. There were five fixed toeing points in the constraint zone on the right and left. In the synchronization condition, the timing sounds were presented at the same time to two persons, whereas in the asynchronization condition, mismatched sounds with 200 ms difference between the two participants were presented. In the starting foot side condition, the two participants began on the same or on opposite feet.
Mentions: Participants wore wireless headphones and capture markers on the tops of their heads and on their feet and toes (Figure 1). An optical motion capture device (ProReflex, Qualisys, Sweden) recorded the markers at 60 Hz with spatial resolution of 1 mm. The participants heard a timing sound with a frequency of 1000 Hz that was presented at 500 ms intervals. A countdown voice that said, “three, two, one, zero” was broadcast to initiate the trial. The first step on the ground occurred with the “zero” of the countdown. Individuals were allowed to practice the start-timing of walking prior to testing. The constraint zones were each 80 cm in length, and the free zone (i.e., the distance until the event) was 200 (long) or 20 (short) cm in length. In the constraint zone, five fixed toeing points were located to each of the right and left, including the starting points. In other words, the participants reached the free zone in four steps. The ground was marked with a center line and capture markers.

Bottom Line: This ineffectiveness, which is an error of social behavior generated by mutual interactions, is not well understood.We found that the hesitant behavior is influenced by an interpersonal relationship under enough distance to predict other movement.These results contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms of adaptive control of perception-action coupling in mutual interaction.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Rikkyo University Saitama, Japan ; Department of Neurology, Showa University School of Medicine Tokyo, Japan.

ABSTRACT
Altering physical actions when responding to changing environmental demands is important but not always effectively performed. This ineffectiveness, which is an error of social behavior generated by mutual interactions, is not well understood. This study investigated mechanisms of a hesitant behavior that occurs in people walking toward each other, causing people to move in the same direction when attempting to avoid a collision. Using a motion capture device affixed to 17 pairs, we first confirmed the hesitant behavior by a difference between the experimental task, which involved an indeterminate situation to assess the actions of another individual, and the control task, which involved a predetermined avoiding direction, in a real-time situation involving two people. We next investigated the effect of three external factors: long distance until an event, synchronized walking cycle, and different foot relations in dyads on the hesitant behavior. A dramatic increase in freezing and near-collision behavior occurred in dyads for which the avoiding direction was not predetermined. The behavior related with the combination of long distance until an event, synchronized walking cycle, and different foot relations in dyads. We found that the hesitant behavior is influenced by an interpersonal relationship under enough distance to predict other movement. The hesitant behavior has possibly emerged as an undesired by-product of joint action. These results contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms of adaptive control of perception-action coupling in mutual interaction.

No MeSH data available.