MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386242740 · doi:10.1167/jov.23.9.5176

Dynamic collision envelope in virtual reality walking with colliding pedestrians

2023· article· en· W4386242740 on OpenAlexaff
Jae‐Hyun Jung, Alex D. Hwang, Jonathan Doyon, Su-Jin Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollisionPedestrianVirtual realityComputer scienceEnvelope (radar)SimulationCollision avoidanceOffset (computer science)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringComputer securityTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When walking, we detect possible collisions with other pedestrians and avoid them, estimating body volumes and safety margins. This safety margin, collision envelope, has been measured in limited conditions: only parallel approaching collisions with lateral offset were tested while subjects watched a walking video. These scenarios limit generalizability for real-world walking where walkers navigate freely with various approaching directions of pedestrians. To evaluate realistic and dynamic collision envelopes in a risk-free environment, we developed a virtual reality walking scenario using the Meta Quest 2 head-mounted display (HMD). While a subject walking with gaze movement in an empty real-world corridor, a corresponding virtual shopping mall with pedestrians approached from 20°, 40°, or 60° bearing angles on a collision course face-to-face or overtaken were shown on HMD. 10 non-colliding pedestrians on various walking paths were also present. Subjects were asked to freely and naturally avoided potential collisions (walking path or speed change). Subjects with homonymous hemianopia (HH; n=6) and subjects with normal vision (NV; n=8) avoided 20 face-to-face and 20 overtaken pedestrians. As a result of the collision avoidance behavior, the trajectories of pedestrians relative to the subjects were changed, and thus the safety margins in various paths were collected. Dynamic collision envelope was calculated as the area kept as the safety margin in more than 50% of trials. HH subjects had larger envelopes (0.95m2, SD=0.60) than NV subjects (0.71m2, SD=0.42; p=0.044) and envelopes were larger when colliders were approaching (1.14m2, SD=0.53) compared to overtaken (0.49, SD=0.19; p<0.001). These results may suggest a more conservative safety margin in HH than NV when avoiding potential collisions. Since the relative walking speeds of the approaching pedestrians were faster than the overtaken pedestrians, estimated time-to-collision may also affect the size and structure of the collision envelope.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207