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.


Trajectory of a representative pair. The example shows a trial in which the conditions are synchronization, long distance, and different starting feet of a pair (Person 1 and 2) in (A) control and (B) experimental tasks. The movement locus was simultaneously obtained from both persons. The time axis of Person 2 was inverted, and the start position was adjusted for Person 1. Note the high rate of moving in a mistaken direction (MMD), when a participant moved to one direction initially but ultimately moved to the other direction, in the experimental task.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 2: Trajectory of a representative pair. The example shows a trial in which the conditions are synchronization, long distance, and different starting feet of a pair (Person 1 and 2) in (A) control and (B) experimental tasks. The movement locus was simultaneously obtained from both persons. The time axis of Person 2 was inverted, and the start position was adjusted for Person 1. Note the high rate of moving in a mistaken direction (MMD), when a participant moved to one direction initially but ultimately moved to the other direction, in the experimental task.

Mentions: The experimenter recorded the three-dimensional coordinate data obtained from all of the capture markers. In each trial, the staying time in the free zone was measured separately for the head markers of each participant, and these times were averaged. Using this staying time, DT was computed by subtracting the control staying time from that of the experimental task. The number of occurrences of MMD was also counted (Figure 2). A maximum horizontal oscillation during walking in the constraint zone was set as a standard in each person. The horizontal oscillations on one side with reference to the center line in constraint zone ranged from 8 to 25 mm (average: 15.1 mm, SD: 0.94) across all participants. If the horizontal oscillation from the center line in free zone exceeded the standard when a participant moved to one direction initially, but ultimately moved to the other direction to avoid a collision, we counted it as MMD. MMD counts were calculated as the sum between both participants in each trial.


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

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

Trajectory of a representative pair. The example shows a trial in which the conditions are synchronization, long distance, and different starting feet of a pair (Person 1 and 2) in (A) control and (B) experimental tasks. The movement locus was simultaneously obtained from both persons. The time axis of Person 2 was inverted, and the start position was adjusted for Person 1. Note the high rate of moving in a mistaken direction (MMD), when a participant moved to one direction initially but ultimately moved to the other direction, in the experimental task.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 2: Trajectory of a representative pair. The example shows a trial in which the conditions are synchronization, long distance, and different starting feet of a pair (Person 1 and 2) in (A) control and (B) experimental tasks. The movement locus was simultaneously obtained from both persons. The time axis of Person 2 was inverted, and the start position was adjusted for Person 1. Note the high rate of moving in a mistaken direction (MMD), when a participant moved to one direction initially but ultimately moved to the other direction, in the experimental task.
Mentions: The experimenter recorded the three-dimensional coordinate data obtained from all of the capture markers. In each trial, the staying time in the free zone was measured separately for the head markers of each participant, and these times were averaged. Using this staying time, DT was computed by subtracting the control staying time from that of the experimental task. The number of occurrences of MMD was also counted (Figure 2). A maximum horizontal oscillation during walking in the constraint zone was set as a standard in each person. The horizontal oscillations on one side with reference to the center line in constraint zone ranged from 8 to 25 mm (average: 15.1 mm, SD: 0.94) across all participants. If the horizontal oscillation from the center line in free zone exceeded the standard when a participant moved to one direction initially, but ultimately moved to the other direction to avoid a collision, we counted it as MMD. MMD counts were calculated as the sum between both participants in each trial.

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.