skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Crossing Roads with a Computer-generated Agent: Persistent Effects on Perception–Action Tuning

Authors Info & Claims
Published:31 December 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This study investigated how people coordinate their decisions and actions with a risky or safe computer-generated agent in a humanoid or non-humanoid form and how this experience influences later behavior when acting alone. In Experiment 1, participants first repeatedly crossed continuous traffic in a virtual environment with a humanoid computer-generated agent (Figure 1). Participants were specifically instructed to cross with an agent that was programmed to be either safe (taking only large gaps) or risky (also taking relatively small gaps). Participants then repeatedly crossed the same roadway alone. We found that participants’ experiences with crossing safe vs. risky gaps with an agent persisted in later trials when the participants crossed alone, such that participants accepted tighter gaps if they were previously paired with a risky than a safe agent.  In Experiment 2 (Figure 2), we tested whether experience crossing with a risky or safe non-humanoid object (a floating box) also influenced later behavior when crossing alone. We again found that participants who crossed with the risky object partner took tighter gaps when later crossing alone than those who crossed with the safe object partner. The Discussion focuses on the impact of experiences with virtual agents on perception–action tuning and the potential of using virtual agents for training safe road-crossing behavior.

References

  1. Sabarish V. Babu, Timofey Y. Grechkin, Benjamin Chihak, Christine Ziemer, Joseph K. Kearney, James F. Cremer, and Jodie M. Plumert. 2011. An immersive virtual peer for studying social influences on child cyclists’ road-crossing behavior. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph 17, 1 (2011), 14--25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2009.211Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Lauren E. Buck, John J. Rieser, Gayathri Narasimham, and Bobby Bodenheimer. 2019. Interpersonal affordances and social dynamics in collaborative immersive virtual environments: Passing together through apertures. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 25, 5 (2019), 2123--2133. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2899232Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Chih-hui Chang, Michael G. Wad, and Thomas A. Stoffregen. 2009. Perceiving affordances for aperture passage in an environment – person – person system. J. Mot. Behav. 41, 6 (2009), 495--500. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3200/35-08-095Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Carolina Cruz-Neira, Daniel J. Sandin, Thomas A. DeFanti, Robert V. Kenyon, and John C. Hart. 1992. The CAVE: audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Commun. ACM 35, 6 (1992), 64--72. https://doi.org/10.1145/129888.129892Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Tehran J. Davis, Michael A. Riley, Kevin Shockley, and Sarah Cummins-Sebree. 2010. Perceiving affordances for joint actions. Perception 39, 12 (2010), 1624--1644. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1068/p6712Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jiyang Duan, Zhizhong Li, and Gavriel Salvendy. 2012. Automatic imitation of risky behavior : A study of simulated driving in china. Traffic Inj. Prev. 13, 5 (2012), 442--449. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2012.655430Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jolyon J. Faria, Stefan Krause, and Jens Krause. 2010. Collective behavior in road crossing pedestrians: The role of social information. Behav. Ecol. 21, 6 (2010), 1236--1242. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq141Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. John M. Franchak, Emma C. Celano, and Karen E. Adolph. 2012. Perception of passage through openings depends on the size of the body in motion. Exp. Brain Res. 223, 2 (2012), 301--310. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3261-y.PerceptionGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. James J. Gibson. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, New York.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Nicolas Guéguen and Nathalie Pichot. 2001. The influence of status on pedestrians’ failure to observe a road-safety rule. J. Soc. Psychol. 141, 3 (2001), 413--415. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600562Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Yuanyuan Jiang, Elizabeth E. O'Neal, Junghum Paul Yon, Luke Franzen, Pooya Rahimian, Jodie M. Plumert, and Joseph K. Kearney. 2018. Acting together : Joint pedestrian road crossing in an immersive virtual environment. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 15, 2 (2018), Article 8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3147884Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Yuanyuan Jiang, Elizabeth E. O'Neal, Pooya Rahimian, Junghum Paul Yon, Jodie M. Plumert, and Joseph K. Kearney. 2016. Action coordination with agents : Crossing roads with a computer-generated character in a virtual environment. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Perception (2016), 57--64. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2931002.2931003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Yuanyuan Jiang, Elizabeth E. ONeal, Pooya Rahimian, Junghum Paul Yon, Jodie M. Plumert, and Joseph K. Kearney. 2019. Joint action in a virtual environment: crossing roads with risky vs. safe human and agent partners. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. (2019), 1--10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865945Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. James Morvan Kilner, Yves Paulingnan, and Sarah-Jayne Blakemore. 2003. An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Curr. Biol. 13, 6 (2003), 522--525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(03)00165-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Monroe Lefkowitz, Robert R. Blake, and Jane Srygley Mouton. 1955. Status factors in pedestrain violation of traffic signals. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 51, 3 (1955), 704--706. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042000Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jeehan Malik, Morgan Di Napoli Parr, Jessica Flathau, Hanxi Tang, Joseph K. Kearney, Jodie M. Plumert, and Kyle K. Rector. 2021. Determining the effect of smartphone alerts and warnings on street-crossing behavior in non-mobility-impaired older and younger adults. In Conditionally accepted to the ACM 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Elizabeth E. O'Neal, Yuanyuan Jiang, Kathryne Brown, Joseph K. Kearney, and Jodie M. Plumert. 2019. How Does crossing roads with friends impact risk taking in young adolescents and adults ? J. Pediatr. Psychol. 44, 6 (2019), 726--735. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsz020Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Elizabeth E. O'Neal, Yuanyuan Jiang, Lucas J. Franzen, Pooya Rahimian, Junghum Paul Yon, Joseph K. Kearney, and Jodie M. Plumert. 2018. Changes in perception--action tuning over long time scales: How children and adults perceive and act on dynamic affordances when crossing roads. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 44,1 (2018), 18--26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000378Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jodie M. Plumert, Joseph K. Kearney, James F. Cremer, Kara M. Recker, and Jonathan Strutt. 2011. Changes in children's perception-action tuning over short time scales: Bicycling across traffic-filled intersections in a virtual environment. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 108, 2 (2011), 322--337. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.07.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Pooya Rahimian, Yuanyuan Jiang, Junghum Paul Yong, Luke Franzen, Jodie M. Plumert, and Joseph K. Kearney. 2015. Designing an immersive pedestrian simulator to study the influence of texting and cellphone allerts on road crossing. In Road Safety and Simulation International Conference (2015), 828--837.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Pooya Rahimian, Elizabeth E. O'Neal, Junhum Paul Yon, Luke Franzen, Yuanyuan Jiang, Jodie M. Plumert, and Joseph K. Kearney. 2016. Using a virtual environment to study the impact of sending traffic alerts to texting pedestrians. In IEEE Virtual Reality, 141--149. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2016.7504697Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. John J. Rieser, Herbert L. Jr. Pick, Daniel H. Ashmead, and Anne E. Garing. 1995. Calibration of human locomotion and models of perceptual-motor organization. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 3 (1995), 480--497. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.3.480Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Brian J. Scholl and Patrice D. Tremoulet. 2000. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 8 (2000), 299--309. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01506-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. David C. Schwebel, Leslie A. McClure, and Joan Severson. 2014. Teaching children to cross streets safely: A randomized, controlled trial. Heal. Psychol. 33, 7 (2014), 628. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000032Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. David C. Schwebel and Leslie A. Mcclure. 2011. Using virtual reality to train children safe street-crossing skills. Inj. Prev. 16, 1 (2011), 1--10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2009.025288Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. James A. Thomson, Andrew K. Tolmie, Hugh C. Foot, Kirstie M. Whelan, Penelope Sarvary, and Sheila Morrison. 2005. Influence of virtual reality training on the roadside crossing judgments of child pedestrians. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 11, 3 (2005), 175--186. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.11.3.175Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Crossing Roads with a Computer-generated Agent: Persistent Effects on Perception–Action Tuning

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
          ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 18, Issue 1
          January 2021
          67 pages
          ISSN:1544-3558
          EISSN:1544-3965
          DOI:10.1145/3446623
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 31 December 2020
          • Accepted: 1 October 2020
          • Revised: 1 August 2020
          • Received: 1 January 2020
          Published in tap Volume 18, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)83
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)16

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format