Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Publisher：Elsevier {BV}  

DOI： 10.1016/j.trf.2022.06.007

Language：Japanese   Publisher：Japanese Cognitive Science Society  

DOI： 10.11225/cs.2024.037

CiNii Research

Publishing type：Research paper (international conference proceedings)   Publisher：SAGE Publications  

A braking index that incorporates the risk perception of human drivers has been developed to estimate how many drivers would brake in a given situation. We used agent simulations to verify whether incorporating the braking index can improve the efficiency of the agents’ movement in the whole space. The completion time and the number of collisions were measured to compare the simple avoidance algorithm without the braking index and the proposed algorithm with it. While a simple avoidance algorithm showed a strong trade-off between the completion time and the number of collisions, the proposed algorithm resulted in an efficient movement with a shorter time and fewer collisions. More efficient movement could be achieved by incorporating human risk perception because the risk of collision with others was individually evaluated according to others’ position and direction, and only as much avoidance as necessary was performed.

DOI： 10.1177/10711813241275081

Scopus

Other Link： https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full-xml/10.1177/10711813241275081

Language：Japanese   Publisher：Japanese Cognitive Science Society  

DOI： 10.11225/cs.2023.077

CiNii Research

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Publisher：{SAGE} Publications  

Objective

The objective is to clarify the nature of cooperative moving behavior that realizes smooth traffic with others from the viewpoint of the trade-off between self-benefit and others’ benefit in the shared space.

Background

The shared space is not constrained by formal rules or behavioral norms, and is a potentially ambiguous situation where it is not clear who has priority. Therefore, the nature of cooperative behavior in the shared space is unclear.

Method

An experimental task was conducted to compare cooperative and nonurgent moving behavior regarding completion time (self-benefit), the amount of interruption (others’ benefit), and the amount of operation (cognitive effort).

Results

First, cooperative behavior benefits others. Second, although cooperative behavior decreases self-benefit compared to the baseline without any instructions, it can obtain relatively more self-benefit than nonurgent behavior without considering self-benefit. Third, cooperative behavior requires cognitive effort.

Conclusion

Cooperative behavior provides benefit to both oneself and others by spending cognitive effort in not interrupting others.

Application

If the nature of the cooperative behavior can be clarified, a cooperative module can be implemented into the algorithms of various mobilities.

DOI： 10.1177/00187208221121404

Web of Science

Scopus

PubMed

Other Link： http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full-xml/10.1177/00187208221121404

Authorship：Lead author,　Corresponding author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.11225/cs.2020.021

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (international conference proceedings)   Publisher：Springer  

Driving often involves situations where interaction between drivers is required, for instance in situations where two lanes merge. In previous studies, models have been proposed wherein the environmental relationship, such as relative distance between two cars determines the drivers’ driving behavior (Hiramatsu, Jang, Naemoto, Ito, Yamazaki, and Sunda, 2017). However, according to Simulation Theory in the Theory of Mind, the driver may think “If I were you, I would drive in this way,” and so their behavior is determined by referring to this simulation. In this study, this hypothesis was examined in the merging scenario. Results show that a driver would drive according to traffic norms or the driving tendency (e.g., the degree of acceleration/deceleration, or average speed). This suggests that the Simulation Theory proposed in the Theory of Mind is unlikely to be adopted in decision-making process in the merging scenario.

DOI： 10.1007/978-3-030-50537-0_9

Scopus

Authorship：Lead author,　Corresponding author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.11225/jcss.25.421

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.15077/jjet.S41064

Event date： 2021.9

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Event date： 2021.9

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Event date： 2021.7

Language：English  

Event date： 2020.9

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Event date： 2020.9

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Event date： 2020.7

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Language：English   Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

メモ
二宮 由樹・下條 朝也・寺井 仁・松林 翔太・三輪 和久 (2022) 自律エージェントの利用する情報の顕著性が行動ルールの言語的・非言語的推定に与える影響，『日本認知科学会第39回大会発表論文集』， 598-601.

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

File： JCSS2023_O2-002A.pdf

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Presentation type：Poster presentation  

Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc.