In the first condition, subjects were trained to align their gaze and head in the direction in which the car was heading. Then, they shifted their gaze slightly to the side in the direction of the target. https://www.google.com/maps?cid=17544213833887013492 required subjects to maintain a constant target-heading angle, though the magnitude of the target-heading angle varied between participants. In the second condition, the angle of the target constantly changed, which implies that the subject maintained a constant strategy, coordinating head and gaze movements to continuously acquire visual information.
Locomotor interception based on nulling changes in target bearing
Previous studies of locomotor interception have relied on a steady bearing angle for target tracking. But the bearing angle is not always the same as the target’s heading angle. This fact has limited the scope of dynamical model simulations, and alternative control strategies have yet to be explored. In this paper, we study the role of nulling changes in target bearing in locomotor interception.
In the CENTER condition, the direction of the target was changed by 30 degrees from the participant’s initial locomotor direction. Likewise, the target direction of the Approach+ condition was changed by 45 degrees. The speed of the SIDE condition was set to 15 m/s.
Despite this fact, the subjects’ behavior did not follow the constant bearing angle strategy. In fact, they adjusted their speed first, followed by steering adjustment. This shows that the actors were sensitive to the limits of their ability to perceive targets within their speed limits. Consequently, they anticipated the need to steer ahead of the target.
The observed behavior supports the idea that nulling changes in target bearing trigger the motor response. It is consistent with the assumption of uniform motion in the absence of forces, and it is consistent with the theory that the response is modulated by a prior model of the target’s dynamics. The initial acceleration and direction of motion show only a weak correlation, whereas the initial velocity and direction are independently controlled.
A vehicle is driven by a driver who wants to intercept a moving target. The driver can either steer to the target point or avoid the target based on the target’s current location. This can be done through a seek steering behavior where the car follows a predicted path.
Typically, humans display complex active gaze strategies when steering a vehicle in a visually specified path. However, the role of internal models in visual steering control theory is controversial. There are many possible cues that can explain human performance in naturalistic conditions.
In this paper, we will focus on the middle layer of the behavioral hierarchy. We will first introduce a simple model of the locomotion layer, which provides a foundation for our discussion of the different steering behaviors. We will then explore the process of action selection and the integration of basic steering behaviors.
Nulling changes in target bearing
Driving to intercept a moving target requires the driver to be aware of the target’s changing position and bearing, which are derived from the speed and direction of the target. what is alignment car lifts must be aware of a number of factors, including target blur, to ensure accurate interception. The on-line control hypothesis predicts that the interception error increases with target blur and is greatest when the target is completely occluded.
The theoretical model of driving to intercept a moving target contains a stiffness term, kpsm, a damping term, and a distance term, dm + c, that accounts for changes in target angular velocity. The model also includes variables that determine the angular velocity of the target, including its bearing direction and the direction of the car’s heading. In addition, the model also accounts for the target-heading angle, b, which is related to the direction of the target.
During the study, participants were tested under conditions in which occlusion was simulated. The faster the target was moving, the faster the turn rates were. However, in a case where the target was completely obscured, there were no adaptive changes made.
The pursuer may adopt a different target-bearing angle, but still tries to keep the angle around 0o/.17s. Interestingly, the authors found that a number of participants missed their target on nearly half of the trials, and the authors concluded that this might be the result of a learning process. These participants may have developed a mapping strategy, essentially comparing their desired future constant bearing state at time t + Dt to the required speed adjustment. This strategy is more closely related to a heuristic strategy.
1419 N Midland Blvd, Nampa, ID 83651
Phone: (866) 774-7743