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.

This paper examines how people jointly coordinate their decisions and actions with risky vs. safe human and agent road-crossing partners (Fig. 1 ). The task for participants was to physically cross a steady stream of traffic in a large-screen virtual environment without getting hit by a car. The computer-generated (CG) agent was programmed to be either safe (taking only large gaps) or risky (also taking small gaps). The human partners were classified as safe (taking more large gaps) or risky (also taking some small gaps) based on their average gap size selection. We found that participants in all four conditions preferred to cross with their partner. As a consequence, the riskiness of the partner (both human and agent) influenced the riskiness of participants' gap choices. We also found that participants tightly synchronized their movement with both human and agent partners. The largest differences in performance between those paired with agent vs. human partners occurred on trials when participants crossed different gaps than their partners. This study demonstrates the potential for studying how people interact with CG agents when performing whole-body joint actions using large-screen immersive virtual environments.

We investigated how two people jointly coordinate their decisions and actions in a co-occupied, large-screen virtual environment. The task for participants was to physically cross a virtual road with continuous traffic without getting hit by a car. Participants performed this task either alone or with another person (see Figure 1). Two separate streams of non-stereo images were generated based on the dynamic locations of the two viewers’ eye-points. Stereo shutter glasses were programmed to display a single image stream to each viewer so that they saw perspectively correct non-stereo images for their eyepoint. We found that participant pairs often crossed the same gap together and closely synchronized their movements when crossing. Pairs also chose larger gaps than individuals, presumably to accommodate the extra time needed to cross through gaps together. These results demonstrate how two people interact and coordinate their behaviors in performing whole-body, joint motions in a co-occupied virtual environment. This study also provides a foundation for future studies examining joint actions in shared VEs where participants are represented by graphic avatars.

This paper investigates the influence of stereoscopic vs. non-stereoscopic display in large-screen virtual environments on an everyday perception-action task - crossing traffic-filled roadways as a pedestrian. The task for participants was to physically cross a virtual road with continuous traffic without getting hit by a car in a CAVE-like virtual environment. Half of the participants performed the task with stereoscopic display and half performed the task with non-stereoscopic display. We found that stereoscopic display had little impact on the size of the gaps participants crossed or the timing of their crossing motion relative to the gap with the exception of a small difference in crossing speed. The results are important for validating the use of non-stereoscopic image displays in ground vehicle simulation and supporting the use of non-stereoscopic displays for multi-viewpoint rendering in co-occupied virtual environments.

This investigation compared how people performed a complex perception-action task - crossing traffic-filled roadways - in a CAVE vs. an HMD virtual environment. Participants physically crossed a virtual roadway with continuous cross traffic in either a CAVE-like or an HTC Vive pedestrian simulator. The 3D model and traffic scenario were identical in both simulators, allowing for a direct comparison between the two display systems. We found that participants in the Vive group accepted smaller gaps for crossing than participants in the CAVE group. They also timed their entry into the gap more precisely and tended to cross somewhat more quickly. As a result, participants in the Vive group had a somewhat larger margin of safety when they exited the roadway than those in the CAVE group. The results provide a foundation for future studies of pedestrian behavior and other tasks involving full-body motion using HMD-based VR.

We investigated how people jointly coordinate their decisions and actions with a computer-generated character (agent) in a large-screen virtual environment. The task for participants was to physically cross a steady stream of traffic on a virtual road without getting hit by a car. Participants performed this task with another person or with a computer-generated character (Fig. 1). The character was programmed to be either safe (taking only large gaps) or risky (also taking relatively small gaps). We found that participants behaved in many respects similarly with real and virtual partners. They maintained similar distances between themselves and their partner, they often crossed the same gap with their partner, and they synchronized their crossing with their partner. We also found that the riskiness of the character influenced the gap choices of participants. This study demonstrates the potential for using large-screen virtual environments to study how people interact with CG characters when performing whole-body joint actions.

We investigated how two people jointly coordinate their decisions and actions in a co-occupied, large-screen virtual environment. The task for participants was to physically cross a virtual road with continuous traffic without getting hit by a car. Participants performed this task either alone or with another person (see Fig.1). We found that pairs often crossed the same gap together and closely synchronized their movements when crossing. Pairs also chose larger gaps than individuals to accommodate the extra time needed to cross through gaps together. These results reveal how two people interact and coordinate their behaviors in performing whole-body, joint motions. This study also provides a foundation for future studies examining joint actions in shared VEs where participants are represented by graphic avatars.

This paper presents an experiment conducted in a large-screen immersive virtual environment to evaluate how texting pedestrians respond to permissive traffic alerts delivered via their cell phone. We developed a cell phone app that delivered information to texting pedestrians about when traffic conditions permit safe crossing. We compared gap selection and movement timing in three groups of pedestrians: texting, texting with alerts, and no texting (control). Participants in the control and alert groups chose larger gaps and were more discriminating in their gap choices than participants in the texting group. Both the control and alert groups had more time to spare than the texting group when they exited the roadway even though the alert group timed their entry relative to the lead car less tightly than the control and texting groups. By choosing larger gaps, participants in the alert group were able to compensate for their poorer timing of entry, resulting in a margin of safety that did not differ from those who were not texting. However, they also relied heavily on the alert system and paid less attention to the roadway. The discussion focuses on the potential of assistive technologies based on Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) communications technology for mitigating pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes.