Skip to main content
Log in

Human-Like Sequential Learning of Escape Routes for Virtual Reality Agents

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Piper Alpha disaster (1988) witnessed 167 casualties. The offshore safety guidelines developed afterward highlighted the need for effective and regular training to overcome the problems in evacuation procedures. Today, virtual environments are effective training platforms due to high-end audio/visual and interactive capabilities. These virtual environments exploit agents with human-like steering capabilities, but with limited or no capacity to learn routes. This work proposes a sequential route learning methodology for agents that resembles the way people learn routes. The methodology developed here exploits a generalized stochastic Petri-net based route learning model iteratively. The simulated results are compared with the route learning strategies of human participants. The data on human participants were collected by the authors from an earlier study in a virtual environment. The main contribution lies in modeling people’s route learning behavior over the course of successive exposures. It is found that the proposed methodology models human-like sequential route learning if there are no easy detours from the original escape route. Although the model does not accurately capture individual learning strategies for all decision nodes, it can be used as a model of compliant, rule-following training guides for a virtual environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allen GL (1999) Spatial abilities, cognitive maps, and wayfinding: bases for individual differences in spatial cognition and behavior. In: Golledge RG (ed) Wayfinding behavior. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 46–80

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bause F, Kritzinger PS (1996) Stochastic Petri nets: an introduction to the theory. Verlag Vieweg, Wiesbaden

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. BBC News Africa (2013) Nairobi siege: how the attack happened. British Broadcasting Company Ltd (BBC). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24189116

  4. Buckland M (2005) Programming game AI by example. Wordware Publishing, Inc., Plano

    Google Scholar 

  5. Caduff D, Timpf S (2005) The landmark spider: representing landmark knowledge for wayfinding tasks. AAAI, California

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cullen WD (1990) The public inquiry into the piper alpha disaster. Department of Energy, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Danial SN, Khan F, Veitch B (2018) A generalized stochastic Petri net model of route learning for emergency egress situations. Eng Appl Artif Intell 72:170–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Eilam MR (2014) Of mice and men: building blocks in cognitive mapping. Neurosci Behav Rev 47:393–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Emo B (2014) Real-world wayfinding experiments: individual preferences, decisions and the space syntax approach at street corners. Ph.D. thesis submitted at University College London, London

  11. Filippidis L, Galea ER, Lawrence P, Geynne S (2001) Visibility catchment area of exits and signs. Interscience Communications Ltd., London, pp 1529–1534

  12. Fire Safety Engineering Group at University of Greenwich (2017) EXODUS capabilities. https://fseg.gre.ac.uk/exodus/exodus_products.html. Accessed 22 Aug 2017

  13. Galea ER (2003) Pedestrian and evacuation dynamics 2003: simulating the interaction of pedestrians with wayfinding systems. The University of Greenwich, Greenwich

    Google Scholar 

  14. Galea ER, Xie H, Lawrence PJ (2014) Experimental and survey studies on the effectiveness of dynamic signage systems. Fire Saf Sci 11:1129–1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gale N, Golledge RG, Pellegrino JW, Doherty S (1990) The acquisition and integration of route knowledge in an unfamiliar neighborhood. J Environ Psychol 10:3–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldsschmidt D, Manoonpong P, Dasgupta S (2017). A neurocomputational model of goal-directed navigation in insect-inspired artificial agents. Front Neurorobot 11:E1004683-17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Golledge RG (1999a) Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. In: Golledge RG (ed) Wayfinding behavior. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 5–45

    Google Scholar 

  18. Golledge RG (ed) (1999b). Wayfinding behavior: cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  19. Götze J, Boye J (2016) Learning landmark salience models from users’ route instructions. J Locat Based Serv 10(1):47–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gruszka A, Hampshire A, Owen AM (2010) Learned irrelevance revisited: pathology-based individual. In: Gruszka A, Matthews G, Szymura B (eds) Handbook of individual differences in cognition: attention, memory, and executive control. Springer, New York, p 127

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Heiner M, et al (2012) Snoopy—a unifying Petri net tool. Springer, Hamburg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. IMO (2009) SOLAS: consolidated editio,. 5th edn. International Maritime Organization, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. Koutamanis A (1995) Multilevel analysis of fire escape routes in a virtual environment. National University of Singapore, Singapore, 331–342

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kristiansen S (2005) Maritime transportation: safety management and risk analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kumar JS, Bhuvaneswari P (2012) Analysis of electroencephalography (EEG) signals and its categorization—a study. Procedia Eng 38:2525–2536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee SA, Shusterman A, Spelke ES (2006) Reorientation and landmark-guided search by young children: evidence for two systems. Psychol Sci 17:577–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lynch K (1964) The image of the city. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mackintosh NJ (1973) Stimulus selection: learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In: Hinde RA, Hinde JS (eds) Constraints on learning. Academic Press, London, pp 75–96

    Google Scholar 

  29. McKinlay R (2016) Technology: use or lose our navigation skills. Nature 531(7596): 573–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Muppala JK, Trivedi KS (1993) GSPN models: sensitivity analysis and applications. Association for Computing Machinery, Greeneville, 24–33

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nys M, Gyselinck V, Orriols E, Hickmann M (2014) Landmark and route knowledge in children’s spatial representation of a virtual environment. Front Psychol 5:1522

    Google Scholar 

  32. OSHA (2003). Emergency-exit-routes-factsheet. https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/emergency-exit-routes-factsheet.pdf. Accessed 9 Feb 2018

  33. Passini RE (1977) Wayfinding: a study of spatial problem-solving with implications for physical design. Ph.D. thesis. Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania

  34. Reason J (1990) Human error, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Sedgewick R, Wayne K (2011) Algorithms, 4th edn. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sharma G, et al (2017) Influence of landmarks on wayfinding and brain connectivity in immersive virtual reality environment. Front Psychol 8:1220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith J (2015) The effect of virtual environment training on participant competence and learning in offshore emergency egress scenarios. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s

    Google Scholar 

  38. Vandenberg AE (2016) Human wayfinding: integration of mind and body. In: Hunter RH, Anderson LA, Belza BL (eds) Community wayfinding: pathways to understanding. Springer, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  39. Waller D, Lippa Y (2007) Landmarks as beacons and associative cues: their role in route learning. Mem Cognit 35(5):910–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Weinspach PM, et al (1997) Analysis of the Fire on April 11th, 1996; Recommendations and Consequences for Dusseldorf Rhein-Rhur-Airport.Staatskanzlei Nordrhein-Wstfalen, Mannesmannufer, Dusseldorf, 1 A, 40190

  41. Xie H, et al (2011) Experimental and survey studies on the effectiveness of dynamic signage systems. Fire Mater 36(5–6):367–382

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge with gratitude the support of the NSERC-Husky Energy Industrial Research Chair in Safety at Sea, and the Canada Research Chair Program in Offshore Safety and Risk Engineering.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Faisal Khan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: The GSPNRL Model

Appendix A: The GSPNRL Model

GSPN stands for generalized stochastic Petri net. The RL stands for route learning and hence the acronym GSPNRL is a model of route learning that exploits the stochastic Petri nets for representation of the phenomenon a human being undergoes when there is a need to learn a new route in an environment.

The model has thirty places, ten stochastic transition, and twenty-three immediate transitions. The stochastic transitions are depicted in Fig. 2 as simple rectangles, and solid rectangles show the immediate transitions. Circles show the places. A circle with one dot shows a single token on the place, and a circle with a number inside shows the number of tokens that are present in that place. The place A22 is of integer type. The type integer is referred to as NUM in the model. The place A21 and A23 are of type NUMLEVELS, where NUMLEVELS is a product type in which the first member is NUM and the second member is an enumerated datatype D = {LOW, LOWEST, MEDIUM, HIGH, HIGHEST}, which represents the difficulty levels associated with a landmark. The remaining places do not associate any type and, therefore, represent only simple tokens in the model.

The GSPNRL model is 1-bounded. Thus, if any of the transitions from t28 to t32 are enabled, the others will be disabled and cannot execute allowing only one landmark to be processed at a single time. This resembles a real-life situation where people avoid getting confused dealing with more than one landmarks at a time, rather every landmark is processed in a sequential way. The net N3 is the only net in the model that uses colored tokens—tokens with custom datatypes such as the type NUMLEVELS. Colored Petri-net allows the development of compact and parameterized models, which otherwise require a difficult to read and understand, and lengthy models.

The net N2 is the main component of the model. It integrates the information coming from N1 and N3 by using a semi-Markov process [2] such that the firing rates of the stochastic transitions are kept higher for inputs with higher difficulty level landmarks. Table 2 describes the range of stochastic transition rates assigned to the GSPNRL model. The rate ranges in Table 2 are selected, so that: (i) at the lowest difficulty possible, the rate of forgetting is at the minimum, (ii) at the highest difficulty possible, the rate of remembering is at the minimum. The boundaries of the rate ranges are defined to produce results close to the empirical values. The stochastic transitions t8, t10, t12, t14, and t16 can be assigned randomly picked values from the ranges defined in Table 2. A particular assignment of stochastic transition rates is dependent on the application. If a rate λ is to be used, the average time to fire (execute) will be 1/λ, because the model uses exponentially distributed firing delays. The distribution of firing time of transition ti is given by the rule:

$$ F\left( x \right) = 1 - e^{{ - \lambda_{i} x}} . $$

Transitions t8 and t9 are conflicting transitions: if t8 fires, then t9 will become disabled and vice versa. Firing of t8 means that the model will not retain the navigation command, whereas firing of t9 will save the navigation command along with the landmark information. The pairs of stochastic transitions (t8, t9), (t10, t11), (t12, t13), (t14, t15), and (t16, t17) are developed so that the first transition in each pair, if fired, is responsible for showing the behavior of forgetting, say by not saving any of its input data. The second transition in each pair shows the remembering behavior by saving its inputs into the memory of an agent that uses the GSPNRL model.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Danial, S.N., Smith, J., Khan, F. et al. Human-Like Sequential Learning of Escape Routes for Virtual Reality Agents. Fire Technol 55, 1057–1083 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00819-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00819-7

Keywords

Navigation