Modeling spatial navigation in the presence of dynamic obstacles: a differential games approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstacle circumvention strategies can be shaped by the dynamic interaction of an individual (evader) and an obstacle (pursuer). We have developed a mathematical model with predictive and emergent components, using experimental data from seven healthy young adults walking toward a target while avoiding collision with a stationary or moving obstacle (approaching head-on, or diagonally 30° left or right) in a virtual environment. Two linear properties from the predictive component enable the evader to predict the minimum distance between itself and the obstacle at all times, including the future intersection of trajectories. The emergent component uses the classical differential games model to solve for an optimal circumvention while reaching the target, wherein the locomotor strategy is influenced by the obstacle, target, and the evader velocity. Both model components were fitted to a different set of experimental data obtained from five poststroke and healthy participants to derive the minimum predicted distance (predictive component) and obstacle influence dimensions (emergent component) during circumvention. Minimum predicted distance between evader and pursuer was kept constant when the evader was closest to the obstacle in all participants. Obstacle influence dimensions varied depending on obstacle approach condition and preferred side of circumvention, reflecting differences in locomotor strategies between poststroke and healthy individuals. Additionally, important associations between model outputs and observed experimental outcomes were found. The model, supported by experimental data, suggests that both predictive and emergent processes can shape obstacle circumvention strategies in healthy and poststroke individuals. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Obstacle circumvention during goal-directed locomotion is modeled with a new mathematical approach comprising both predictive and emergent elements. The major novelty is using differential games solutions to illustrate the dynamic interactions between the individual as an evader and the approaching obstacle as a pursuer. The model is supported by experimental evidence that explains the behavior along the continuum of locomotor adaptation displayed by healthy subjects and individuals with stroke.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".