Advertisement

Crowd Dynamics in Virtual Reality

  • Max KinatederEmail author
  • Trenton D. Wirth
  • William H. Warren
Chapter
Part of the Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology book series (MSSET)

Abstract

Collecting empirical data on crowd dynamics is challenging. The methods available to researchers typically need to compromise between ecological validity and experimental control. The goal of this chapter is to demonstrate that virtual reality (VR) offers a promising solution to the dilemma. The first section of this chapter introduces VR as a research tool and touches on its strengths and weaknesses. The second section covers a range of studies in which VR was used to study crowds, beginning with a discussion of differences between human behavior in real and virtual settings (e.g., walking and social interactions). Using the behavioral dynamics framework as a theoretical foundation, several studies demonstrating that people coordinate dynamically with their neighbors in a crowd are presented, contributing toward a data-driven approach to modeling human crowds. Then, a series of VR studies that cover various aspects of crowd behavior in emergency evacuation scenarios are introduced, covering topics such as evacuation decision-making, way-finding, and exit choice when people evacuate in a crowd. Finally, the third section of this chapter offers an outlook on the road ahead, discussing some of the technical and methodological challenges for VR as a research tool.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Templeton, J. Drury, and A. Philippides, “From Mindless Masses to Small Groups: Conceptualizing Collective Behavior in Crowd Modeling,” Rev Gen Psychol, vol. 19, pp. 215–229, Sep 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Steuer, “Defining Virtual Reality - Dimensions Determining Telepresence,” Journal of Communication, vol. 42, pp. 73–93, Fal 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Slater, B. Spanlang, and D. Corominas, “Simulating Virtual Environments within Virtual Environments as the Basis for a Psychophysics of Presence,” Acm Transactions on Graphics, vol. 29, p. 92, Jul 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Bazazi, J. Buhl, J. J. Hale, M. L. Anstey, G. A. Sword, S. J. Simpson, et al., “Collective motion and cannibalism in locust migratory bands,” Curr Biol, vol. 18, pp. 735–739, May 20 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Ronchi, A. Corbetta, E. Galea, M. Kinateder, E. D. Kuligowski, D. McGrath, et al., “New approaches to evacuation modelling,” in Symposium of the International Association for Fire Safety Science, Lund, Sweden, 2017, pp. 1–78.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Barfield and E. Danas, “Comments on the use of olfactory displays for virtual environments,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 5, pp. 109–121, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Richard, A. Tijou, P. Richard, and J.-L. Ferrier, “Multi-modal virtual environments for education with haptic and olfactory feedback,” Virtual Reality, vol. 10, pp. 207–225, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Hülsmann, N. Mattar, J. Fröhlich, and I. Wachsmuth, “Wind and Warmth in Virtual Reality–Requirements and Chances,” in Proceedings of the Workshop Virtuelle & Erweiterte Realität 2013, 2013.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. W. Bode, A. U. Kemloh Wagoum, and E. A. Codling, “Human responses to multiple sources of directional information in virtual crowd evacuations,” J R Soc Interface, vol. 11, p. 20130904, Feb 6 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Czirok and T. Vicsek, “Collective behavior of interacting self-propelled particles,” Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, vol. 281, pp. 17–29, Jun 15 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Q. Song, J. H. Gong, Y. Li, T. J. Cui, L. Q. Fang, and W. C. Cao, “Crowd evacuation simulation for bioterrorism in micro-spatial environments based on virtual geographic environments,” Safety Science, vol. 53, pp. 105–113, Mar 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. B. Hsu, Y. Li, J. D. Bayram, D. Levinson, S. Yang, and C. Monahan, “State of virtual reality based disaster preparedness and response training,” PLoS Curr, vol. 5, Apr 24 2013.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Lovreglio, “A Review of Augmented Reality Applications for Building Evacuation,” presented at the 17th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Tampere, Finland, 2018.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Lovreglio, V. Gonzalez, Z. Feng, R. Amor, M. Spearpoint, J. Thomas, et al., “Prototyping Virtual Reality Serious Games for Building Earthquake Preparedness: The Auckland City Hospital Case Study,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09119, 2018.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Vicsek, A. Czirok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, “Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles,” Phys Rev Lett, vol. 75, pp. 1226–1229, Aug 7 1995.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Kinateder, E. Ronchi, D. Nilsson, M. Kobes, M. Muller, P. Pauli, et al., “Virtual Reality for Fire Evacuation Research,” Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, 2014, vol. 2, pp. 313–321, 2014.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Haghani and M. Sarvi, “Crowd behaviour and motion: Empirical methods,” Transportation Research Part B-Methodological, vol. 107, pp. 253–293, Jan 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. M. Loomis, J. J. Blascovich, and A. C. Beall, “Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology,” Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, vol. 31, pp. 557–564, Nov 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell, “Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference,” 2002.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. A. Anderson and B. J. Bushman, “External validity of “trivial” experiments: The case of laboratory aggression,” Review of General Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 19–41, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. H. Warren, “Collective motion in human crowds,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2018.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. K. Stefanucci, S. H. Creem-Regehr, W. B. Thompson, D. A. Lessard, and M. N. Geuss, “Evaluating the Accuracy of Size Perception on Screen-Based Displays: Displayed Objects Appear Smaller Than Real Objects,” Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, vol. 21, pp. 215–223, Sep 2015.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    C. J. Lin and B. H. Woldegiorgis, “Egocentric distance perception and performance of direct pointing in stereoscopic displays,” Appl Ergon, vol. 64, pp. 66–74, Oct 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    B. J. Mohler, S. H. Creem-Regehr, and W. B. Thompson, “The influence of feedback on egocentric distance judgments in real and virtual environments,” in Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on Applied perception in graphics and visualization, 2006, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. R. Richardson and D. Waller, “Interaction with an immersive virtual environment corrects users' distance estimates,” Hum Factors, vol. 49, pp. 507–17, Jun 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    B. J. Mohler, J. L. Campos, M. Weyel, and H. H. Bülthoff, “Gait parameters while walking in a head-mounted display virtual environment and the real world,” in Proceedings of Eurographics, 2007, pp. 85–88.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. H. Hollman, R. H. Brey, T. J. Bang, and K. R. Kaufman, “Does walking in a virtual environment induce unstable gait?: An examination of vertical ground reaction forces,” Gait & Posture, vol. 26, pp. 289–294, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. W. Fink, P. S. Foo, and W. H. Warren, “Obstacle Avoidance During Walking in Real and Virtual Environments,” Acm Transactions on Applied Perception, vol. 4, p. 2, Jan 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. Y. Grechkin, J. M. Plumert, and J. K. Kearney, “Dynamic affordances in embodied interactive systems: the role of display and mode of locomotion,” IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, vol. 20, pp. 596–605, Apr 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    G. Cirio, A. H. Olivier, M. Marchal, and J. Pettre, “Kinematic evaluation of virtual walking trajectories,” IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, vol. 19, pp. 671–80, Apr 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Auvray, C. Lenay, and J. Stewart, “Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment,” New Ideas in Psychology, vol. 27, pp. 32–47, Apr 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    T. Froese, H. Iizuka, and T. Ikegami, “Embodied social interaction constitutes social cognition in pairs of humans: a minimalist virtual reality experiment,” Sci Rep, vol. 4, p. 3672, Jan 14 2014.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Garau, M. Slater, D. P. Pertaub, and S. Razzaque, “The responses of people to virtual humans in an immersive virtual environment,” Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 14, pp. 104–116, Feb 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. N. Bailenson, J. Blascovich, A. C. Beall, and J. M. Loomis, “Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments,” Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 10, pp. 583–598, Dec 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Kyriakou, X. N. Pan, and Y. Chrysanthou, “Interaction with virtual crowd in Immersive and semi-Immersive Virtual Reality systems,” Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, vol. 28, pp. e1729-n/a, Sep-Oct 2017.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    B. Tarr, M. Slater, and E. Cohen, “Synchrony and social connection in immersive Virtual Reality,” Sci Rep, vol. 8, p. 3693, Feb 27 2018.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. Hale and A. F. D. Hamilton, “Testing the relationship between mimicry, trust and rapport in virtual reality conversations,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, p. 35295, Oct 14 2016.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. Hale, M. E. Payne, K. M. Taylor, D. Paoletti, and C. H. A. F. De, “The virtual maze: A behavioural tool for measuring trust,” Q J Exp Psychol (Hove), vol. 71, pp. 989–1008, Apr 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    N. W. Bode, J. Miller, R. O'Gorman, and E. A. Codling, “Increased costs reduce reciprocal helping behaviour of humans in a virtual evacuation experiment,” Sci Rep, vol. 5, p. 15896, Nov 6 2015.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    L. Gamberini, L. Chittaro, A. Spagnolli, and C. Carlesso, “Psychological response to an emergency in virtual reality: Effects of victim ethnicity and emergency type on helping behavior and navigation,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 48, pp. 104–113, Jul 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    B. Latane and J. M. Darley, “Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies,” JPers Soc Psychol, vol. 10, pp. 215–21, Nov 1968.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    M. Kinateder and W. H. Warren, “Social Influence on Evacuation Behavior in Real and Virtual Environments,” Frontiers in Robotics and Ai, vol. 3, Jul 25 2016.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    M. Moussaid, M. Kapadia, T. Thrash, R. W. Sumner, M. Gross, D. Helbing, et al., “Crowd behaviour during high-stress evacuations in an immersive virtual environment,” J R Soc Interface, vol. 13, Sep 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    A. H. Olivier, J. Bruneau, G. Cirio, and J. Pettre, “A Virtual Reality platform to study crowd behaviors,” Conference on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2014 (Ped 2014), vol. 2, pp. 114–122, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    D. J. Sumpter, R. P. Mann, and A. Perna, “The modelling cycle for collective animal behaviour,” Interface Focus, vol. 2, pp. 764–73, Dec 6 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    W. H. Warren, “The dynamics of perception and action,” Psychol Rev, vol. 113, pp. 358–89, Apr 2006.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    M. T. Turvey, “Coordination,” Am Psychol, vol. 45, pp. 938–53, Aug 1990.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    H. Haken, “Synergetics,” Physics Bulletin, vol. 28, p. 412, 1977.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    J. Kelso, “Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior,” ed: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    H. Haken, J. A. Kelso, and H. Bunz, “A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements,” Biol Cybern, vol. 51, pp. 347–56, 1985.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    J. Gibson, “The theory of affordances The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127–143),” ed: Boston: Houghton Miffin, 1979.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    K. W. Rio, G. C. Dachner, and W. H. Warren, “Local interactions underlying collective motion in human crowds,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, vol. 285, May 16 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    K. Rio and W. H. Warren, “The visual coupling between neighbors in real and virtual crowds,” in Conference on Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2014 (Ped 2014), 2014, pp. 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    T. D. Wirth and W. H. Warren, “The visual neighborhood in human crowds: Metric vs. Topological Hypotheses,” Journal of Vision, vol. 16, pp. 982–982, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    K. W. Rio, “Mapping the visual coupling between neighbors in real and virtual crowds,” Brown University, 2015.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    A. Shendarkar, K. Vasudevan, S. Lee, and Y. J. Son, “Crowd simulation for emergency response using BDI agents based on immersive virtual reality,” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 16, pp. 1415–1429, Oct 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    N. W. F. Bode and E. A. Codling, “Human exit route choice in virtual crowd evacuations,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 86, pp. 347–358, Aug 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    N. W. Bode, A. U. Kemloh Wagoum, and E. A. Codling, “Information use by humans during dynamic route choice in virtual crowd evacuations,” R Soc Open Sci, vol. 2, p. 140410, Jan 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    M. Kinateder, B. Comunale, and W. H. Warren, “Exit choice in an emergency evacuation scenario is influenced by exit familiarity and neighbor behavior,” Safety Science, vol. 106, pp. 170–175, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    R. Lovreglio, A. Fonzone, and L. Dell'Olio, “A mixed logit model for predicting exit choice during building evacuations,” Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice, vol. 92, pp. 59–75, Oct 2016.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    P. Thompson and D. McGrath, “Exploring the Biomechanics of Walking and Crowd ,,Flow“,” presented at the Human Behaviour in Fire Symposium, Cambridge, UK, 2015.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    M. Delin, J. Norén, E. Ronchi, K. Kuklane, A. Halder, and K. Fridolf, “Ascending stair evacuation: walking speed as a function of height,” Fire and Materials, vol. 41, pp. 514–534, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    K. Kuklane and A. Halder, “A model to estimate vertical speed of ascending evacuation from maximal work capacity data,” Safety Science, vol. 89, pp. 369–378, Nov 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    M. Kinateder, E. D. Kuligowski, P. A. Reneke, and R. D. Peacock, “Risk perception in fire evacuation behavior revisited: definitions, related concepts, and empirical evidence,” Fire Sci Rev, vol. 4, p. 1, 2015.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    E. D. Kuligowski, S. M. Gwynne, M. J. Kinsey, and L. Hulse, “Guidance for the Model User on Representing Human Behavior in Egress Models,” Fire Technol, vol. 53, pp. 649–672, Mar 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    M. J. Kinsey, S. M. V. Gwynne, E. D. Kuligowski, and M. Kinateder, “The Impact of Cognitive Biases On Decision-making During Fire Evacuation,” Fire Technology, 2018.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    M. J. Seitz, A. Templeton, J. Drury, G. Köster, and A. Philippides, “Parsimony versus reductionism: how can crowd psychology be introduced into computer simulation?,” Review of General Psychology, vol. 21, p. 95, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    A. Skulmowski, A. Bunge, K. Kaspar, and G. Pipa, “Forced-choice decision-making in modified trolley dilemma situations: a virtual reality and eye tracking study,” Front Behav Neurosci, vol. 8, p. 426, 2014.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    C. D. Navarrete, M. M. McDonald, M. L. Mott, and B. Asher, “Virtual morality: emotion and action in a simulated three-dimensional “trolley problem”,” Emotion, vol. 12, pp. 364–70, Apr2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Kinateder
    • 1
    Email author
  • Trenton D. Wirth
    • 2
  • William H. Warren
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive, Linguistic & Psychological SciencesBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations