Literature DB >> 15523525

What visual information is used for navigation around obstacles in a cluttered environment?

Aftab E Patla1, Sebastian S Tomescu, Milad G A Ishac.   

Abstract

The goal of this study was to determine what visual information is used to navigate around barriers in a cluttered terrain. Twelve traffic pylons were arranged randomly in a 4.55 x 3.15 m travel area: there were 20 different arrangements. For each arrangement, individuals (N = 6) were positioned in 1 of 3 locations on the outside border with their eyes closed: on verbal command they were instructed to open their eyes and quickly go to 1 of 2 specified goals (2 vertical posts defining a door) located on one edge of the travel area. The movement of the body was tracked using the OPTOTRAK system, with the IREDS placed on a collar worn by the subjects. Experimental data of travel path chosen were compared with those predicted by models that incorporated different types of visual information to control path trajectory. The 6 models basically use 2 different strategies for route selection: reactive control based on visual input about the obstacle encountered in the line-of-sight travel path (Model # 1) and path planning based on different visual information (Model # 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). The models that involve path planning are grouped into 2 categories: models 2, 3, 4, and 5 need detailed geometrical configuration of the obstacles to plan a route while model 6 plans a route based on identifying and avoiding a cluster of obstacles in the travel path. Two measures were used to compare model performance with the actual travel path: the difference in area between predicted and actual travel path and the number of trials that accurately predicted the number of turns during travel. The results suggest that route selection is not based on reactive control, but does involve path planning. The model that best predicts the travel paths taken by the individuals uses visual information about cluster of obstacles and identification of safe corridors to plan a route.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15523525     DOI: 10.1139/y04-058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Physiol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0008-4212            Impact factor:   2.273


  5 in total

1.  Gaze behavior during navigation with reduced acuity.

Authors:  Andrew Freedman; Jacob Achtemeier; Yihwa Baek; Gordon E Legge
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 3.467

2.  Characteristics of single and double obstacle avoidance strategies: a comparison between adults and children.

Authors:  Jessica R Berard; Lori Ann Vallis
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-06-08       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Locomotor sensory organization test: a novel paradigm for the assessment of sensory contributions in gait.

Authors:  Jung Hung Chien; Diderik-Jan Anthony Eikema; Mukul Mukherjee; Nicholas Stergiou
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 3.934

4.  Glaucoma-Related Differences in Gaze Behavior When Negotiating Obstacles.

Authors:  Kim Lajoie; Andreas B Miller; Robert A Strath; David R Neima; Daniel S Marigold
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 3.283

5.  Mobility improvement of patients with peripheral visual field losses using novel see-through digital spectacles.

Authors:  Ahmed M Sayed; Mohamed Abou Shousha; M D Baharul Islam; Taher K Eleiwa; Rashed Kashem; Mostafa Abdel-Mottaleb; Eyup Ozcan; Mohamed Tolba; Jane C Cook; Richard K Parrish
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.