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.


Prolongation of freezing time and incidence of near collision. An ANOVA revealed highly significant Three-Way interaction effects in both delay time (DT) and incidents of moving in a mistaken direction (MMDs). (A) Multiple comparisons tests revealed that DTs were markedly longer in only the combination of synchronization, long distance, and different starting foot conditions (*: all p < 0.05). (B) Multiple comparisons tests revealed that the MMD count was higher only when the conditions of synchronization, long distance, and different starting feet were combined, compared to all other conditions (*: all p < 0.05). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 4: Prolongation of freezing time and incidence of near collision. An ANOVA revealed highly significant Three-Way interaction effects in both delay time (DT) and incidents of moving in a mistaken direction (MMDs). (A) Multiple comparisons tests revealed that DTs were markedly longer in only the combination of synchronization, long distance, and different starting foot conditions (*: all p < 0.05). (B) Multiple comparisons tests revealed that the MMD count was higher only when the conditions of synchronization, long distance, and different starting feet were combined, compared to all other conditions (*: all p < 0.05). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean.

Mentions: A Three-Way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of DTs revealed a significant main effect of SYNC [F(1, 16) = 12.441, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.437], and no significance in the main effects of DIST [F(1, 16) = 2.393, p = 0.141, η2 = 0.130] and FOOT [F(1, 16) = 1.898, p = 0.187, η2 = 0.106]. The interactions of SYNC × DIST [F(1, 16) = 2.051, p = 0.176, η2 = 0.111], SYNC × FOOT [F(1, 16) = 4.085, p = 0.060, η2 = 0.203], and DIST × FOOT [F(1, 16) = 1.457, p = 0.245, η2 = 0.083] were likewise not significant. However, the SYNC × DIST × FOOT interaction was significant [F(1, 16) = 8.821, p = 0.009, η2 = 0.355]. A multiple comparisons tests revealed that only the combined conditions of synchronization, long distance, and different feet produced longer DTs compared to other conditions (all p < 0.05) (Figure 4A).


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

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

Prolongation of freezing time and incidence of near collision. An ANOVA revealed highly significant Three-Way interaction effects in both delay time (DT) and incidents of moving in a mistaken direction (MMDs). (A) Multiple comparisons tests revealed that DTs were markedly longer in only the combination of synchronization, long distance, and different starting foot conditions (*: all p < 0.05). (B) Multiple comparisons tests revealed that the MMD count was higher only when the conditions of synchronization, long distance, and different starting feet were combined, compared to all other conditions (*: all p < 0.05). 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 4: Prolongation of freezing time and incidence of near collision. An ANOVA revealed highly significant Three-Way interaction effects in both delay time (DT) and incidents of moving in a mistaken direction (MMDs). (A) Multiple comparisons tests revealed that DTs were markedly longer in only the combination of synchronization, long distance, and different starting foot conditions (*: all p < 0.05). (B) Multiple comparisons tests revealed that the MMD count was higher only when the conditions of synchronization, long distance, and different starting feet were combined, compared to all other conditions (*: all p < 0.05). Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean.
Mentions: A Three-Way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of DTs revealed a significant main effect of SYNC [F(1, 16) = 12.441, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.437], and no significance in the main effects of DIST [F(1, 16) = 2.393, p = 0.141, η2 = 0.130] and FOOT [F(1, 16) = 1.898, p = 0.187, η2 = 0.106]. The interactions of SYNC × DIST [F(1, 16) = 2.051, p = 0.176, η2 = 0.111], SYNC × FOOT [F(1, 16) = 4.085, p = 0.060, η2 = 0.203], and DIST × FOOT [F(1, 16) = 1.457, p = 0.245, η2 = 0.083] were likewise not significant. However, the SYNC × DIST × FOOT interaction was significant [F(1, 16) = 8.821, p = 0.009, η2 = 0.355]. A multiple comparisons tests revealed that only the combined conditions of synchronization, long distance, and different feet produced longer DTs compared to other conditions (all p < 0.05) (Figure 4A).

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.