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.


Extension of staying time in an indeterminate situation for another's action. A t-test showed that mean staying time in the experimental task (EXP) was significantly longer than that in the control task (CON) under (A) Short (20 cm in length) and (B) Long (200 cm in length) distance conditions (*p < 0.0001, respectively). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 3: Extension of staying time in an indeterminate situation for another's action. A t-test showed that mean staying time in the experimental task (EXP) was significantly longer than that in the control task (CON) under (A) Short (20 cm in length) and (B) Long (200 cm in length) distance conditions (*p < 0.0001, respectively). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean.

Mentions: The mean staying time, or the time spent in the free zone, in the 20-cm in length (short DIST) condition in the experimental task was significantly longer than that in the control task [t(16) = 4.895, p < 0.0001, Figure 3A], and similar results were obtained for the experimental task with the 200-cm in length (long DIST) free zone [t(16) = 4.454, p < 0.0001, Figure 3B]. Prior to analysis of external effects, we analyzed the difference between experimental and control tasks as DT. The DTs showed no significant sex difference in the long DIST [t(15) = 1.488, p = 0.157] and the short DIST [t(15) = 1.786, p = 0.094]. Furthermore, there were 57 MMDs in the experimental task out of 272 potentials (for 34 persons), whereas there were none in the control task out of a potential 272. No physical contacts between the participants occurred in any trial. Again, the MMDs showed no significant sex difference in the long DIST [t(15) = 1.265, p = 0.225] and the short DIST [t(15) = 1.213, p = 0.244].


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

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

Extension of staying time in an indeterminate situation for another's action. A t-test showed that mean staying time in the experimental task (EXP) was significantly longer than that in the control task (CON) under (A) Short (20 cm in length) and (B) Long (200 cm in length) distance conditions (*p < 0.0001, respectively). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 3: Extension of staying time in an indeterminate situation for another's action. A t-test showed that mean staying time in the experimental task (EXP) was significantly longer than that in the control task (CON) under (A) Short (20 cm in length) and (B) Long (200 cm in length) distance conditions (*p < 0.0001, respectively). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean.
Mentions: The mean staying time, or the time spent in the free zone, in the 20-cm in length (short DIST) condition in the experimental task was significantly longer than that in the control task [t(16) = 4.895, p < 0.0001, Figure 3A], and similar results were obtained for the experimental task with the 200-cm in length (long DIST) free zone [t(16) = 4.454, p < 0.0001, Figure 3B]. Prior to analysis of external effects, we analyzed the difference between experimental and control tasks as DT. The DTs showed no significant sex difference in the long DIST [t(15) = 1.488, p = 0.157] and the short DIST [t(15) = 1.786, p = 0.094]. Furthermore, there were 57 MMDs in the experimental task out of 272 potentials (for 34 persons), whereas there were none in the control task out of a potential 272. No physical contacts between the participants occurred in any trial. Again, the MMDs showed no significant sex difference in the long DIST [t(15) = 1.265, p = 0.225] and the short DIST [t(15) = 1.213, p = 0.244].

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.