The Visual Computer

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 335–345 | Cite as

Dynamic social formations of pedestrian groups navigating and using public transportation in a virtual city

  • Francisco Rojas
  • Fernando Tarnogol
  • Hyun S. Yang
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Most prior crowd simulations do not have groups of people moving in a social manner. In our work, we use a two-level steering system based on two classes: group agent and pedestrian agent. By interpolating the current and desired slot positions of the group agent according to formation templates, dynamic social group formations can be achieved and can also adapt to the width of passageways using our robust and optimized ray casting technique. Based on this interpolation approach, slot-locking keeps subgroups in a group shoulder-to-shoulder regardless of the current formation assuming sufficient surrounding space exists. At times pal social gestures between adjacent members may occur. We also introduce the social FIFO queue to be used in situations such as waiting for the bus. In the subway scene, we describe a seating strategy for passengers entering the subway car and being aware of your presence. In an immersive evaluation using an Oculus DK2 head-mounted display, participants validated the realism of dynamic social group behavior for navigation and making use of public transportation.

Keywords

Crowd simulation Social group formations and queuing  Pal social gestures Ray casting Slot-locking Public transportation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This crowd simulation is integrated into the city and subway scenes of PsyTech’s PHOBOS\({}^{\textregistered }\), a virtual reality platform being developed for the treatment of a wide range of phobias and anxiety disorders. It is funded by the IT R&D program of MSIP/KEIT [14-811-12-002].

References

  1. 1.
    James, J.: The distribution of free-forming small group size. Am. Sociol. Rev. 18, 569–570 (1953). doi: 10.2307/2087444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coleman, J.S., James, J.: The equilibrium size distribution of freely-forming groups. Sociometry 24(1), 36–45 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pelechano, N., Allbeck, J., Badler, N.: Virtual Crowds: Methods, Simulation, and Control. Morgan and Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thalmann, D., Musse, S.: Crowd Simulation, 2nd edn. Springer, London (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Musse, S.R., Thalmann, D.: A hierarchical model for real time simulation of virtual human crowds. IEEE Trans. Vis. Computer Graph. 22(2), 152–164 (2001). doi: 10.1109/2945.928167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Musse, S.R.: Human crowd modeling with various levels of behaviour control. PhD thesis, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loscos, C., Marchal, D., Meyer, A.: Intuitive crowd behaviour in dense urban environments using local laws. In: Proceedings of Theory and Practice of Computer Graphics (TPCG 2003), pp. 122–129. (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qiu, F., Hu, X.: Modeling group structures in pedestrian crowd simulation. Simul. Model. Practice Theory 18(2), 190–205 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2009.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Niederberger, C., Gross, M.: Hierarchical and heterogeneous reactive agents for real-time applications. Computer Graph. Forum 22(3), 323–331 (2003). doi: 10.1111/1467-8659.00679 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hostetler, T., Kearney, J.: Strolling down the avenue with a few close friends. In: Proceedings of Eurographics Ireland Workshop, pp. 7–14 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peters, C., Ennis, C.: Modeling groups of plausible virtual pedestrians. IEEE Computer Graph. Appl. 29(4), 54–63 (2009). doi: 10.1109/MCG.2009.69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moussaïd, M., Perozo, N., Garnier, S., Helbing, D., Theraulaz, G.: The walking behavior of pedestrian social groups and its impact on crowd dynamics. PloS One, 5(4) (2010). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010047
  13. 13.
    Federici, M., Gorrini, A., Manenti, L., Vizzari, G.: Data collection for modeling and simulation: case study at the University of Milan-Bicocca. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7495, pp. 699–708 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hocevar, R., Marson, F., Cassol, V., Braun, H., Bidarra, R., Musse, S.R.: From their environment to their behavior: a procedural approach to model groups of virtual agents. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA 2012), pp. 370–376. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karamouzas, I., Overmars, M.H.: Simulating and evaluating the local behavior of small pedestrian groups. IEEE Trans. Vis. Computer Graph. 18(3), 394–406 (2012). doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rojas, F.A., Yang, H.S.: Immersive Human-in-the-Loop HMD evaluation of dynamic group behavior in a pedestrian crowd simulation that uses group agent-based steering. In: Proceedings of Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry (VRCAI 2013), pp. 31–40. (2013). doi: 10.1145/2534329.2534336
  17. 17.
    Pedica, C., Vilhjálmsson, H.H.: Spontaneous avatar behavior for human territorality. Appl. Artif. Intell. 24(6), 575–593 (2010). doi: 10.1080/08839514.2010.492165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pedica, C., Vilhjálmsson, H.H., Lárusdóttir, M.: Avatars in conversation: the importance of simulating territorial behavior. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA 2010), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6356, pp. 336–342 (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15892-6_35
  19. 19.
    Pedica, C., Vilhjálmsson, H.H.: Social perception and steering for online avatars. In: Proceedings of Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA 2008), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5208, pp. 104–116 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scheflen, A.E.: Human Territories: How We Behave in Space and Time. Prentice-Hall, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kendon, A.: Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ennis, C., O’Sullivan, C.: Perceptually plausible formations for virtual conversers. Computer Anim. Virtual Worlds 23(3–4), 321–329 (2012). doi: 10.1002/cav.1453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kamphuis, A., Overmars, M.H.: Finding paths for coherent groups using clearance. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA 2004), ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics, 2004, pp. 19–28 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hsu, D., Kindel, R., Latombe, J.-C., Rock, S.: Randomized kinodynamic motion planning with moving obstacles. Int. J. Robot. Res. 21(3), 233–255 (2002). doi: 10.1177/027836402320556421 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    LaValle, S., Kuffner, J.: Randomized kinodynamic planning. Int. J. Robot. Res. 20(5), 378–400 (2001). doi: 10.1177/02783640122067453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kavraki, L., Svestka, P., Latombe, J.-C., Overmars, M.H.: Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 12(4), 566–580 (1996). doi: 10.1109/70.508439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rojas, F.A., Park, J.H., Yang, H.S.: Group agent-based steering for the realistic corner turning and group movement of pedestrians in a crowd simulation. In: Proceedings of Computer Animation and Social Agents (CASA 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knabe, T.: Tore Knabe’s Blog. http://tore-knabe.com/virtual-reality#SubwayCar (2014). Accessed 28 Feb 2015

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Rojas
    • 1
  • Fernando Tarnogol
    • 2
  • Hyun S. Yang
    • 1
  1. 1.KAIST A.I. & Media Lab.DaejeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.PsyTech LLCBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations