IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i24p16727-d1002462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influences of Different Sensory Modalities and Cognitive Loads on Walking Navigation: A Preliminary Study

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaochen Zhang

    (Department of Industrial Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510090, China)

  • Lingling Jin

    (Department of Industrial Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510090, China)

  • Jie Zhao

    (Department of Industrial Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510090, China)

  • Jiazhen Li

    (Department of Industrial Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510090, China)

  • Ding-Bang Luh

    (Department of Industrial Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510090, China)

  • Tiansheng Xia

    (Department of Industrial Design, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510090, China)

Abstract

External cognitive burden has long been considered an important factor causing pedestrian navigation safety problems, as pedestrians in navigation inevitably acquire external information through their senses. Therefore, the influences of different types of sensory modalities and cognitive loads on walking navigation are worthy of in-depth investigation as the foundation for improving pedestrians’ safety in navigation. This study investigated users’ performance in visual, auditory, and tactile navigation under different cognitive loads by experimental simulation. Thirty-six participants were recruited for the experiment. A computer program simulating walking navigation was used, and three different cognitive task groups were set up. Participants’ reaction times and performances were recorded during the experiment, and a post-test questionnaire was administered for evaluation purposes. According to the tests, the following points are summarized. First, visual navigation performed the best in load-free conditions, which was significantly faster than auditory navigation and tactile navigation, but the difference between the latter two was not significant. There was a significant interaction between navigation types and cognitive load types. Specifically, in the condition without load, reaction time in auditory navigation was significantly slower than those in visual navigation and tactile navigation. In the condition with auditory load, reaction time in visual navigation was significantly faster than those in auditory navigation and tactile navigation. In the condition with visual load, there were no significant differences among the three navigations.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaochen Zhang & Lingling Jin & Jie Zhao & Jiazhen Li & Ding-Bang Luh & Tiansheng Xia, 2022. "The Influences of Different Sensory Modalities and Cognitive Loads on Walking Navigation: A Preliminary Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16727-:d:1002462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16727/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16727/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc O. Ernst & Martin S. Banks, 2002. "Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6870), pages 429-433, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simon Weiler & Vahid Rahmati & Marcel Isstas & Johann Wutke & Andreas Walter Stark & Christian Franke & Jürgen Graf & Christian Geis & Otto W. Witte & Mark Hübener & Jürgen Bolz & Troy W. Margrie & Kn, 2024. "A primary sensory cortical interareal feedforward inhibitory circuit for tacto-visual integration," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, December.
    2. Catarina Mendonça & Pietro Mandelli & Ville Pulkki, 2016. "Modeling the Perception of Audiovisual Distance: Bayesian Causal Inference and Other Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Jacques Pesnot Lerousseau & Cesare V. Parise & Marc O. Ernst & Virginie Wassenhove, 2022. "Multisensory correlation computations in the human brain identified by a time-resolved encoding model," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Wen-Hao Zhang & Si Wu & Krešimir Josić & Brent Doiron, 2023. "Sampling-based Bayesian inference in recurrent circuits of stochastic spiking neurons," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Marine Hainguerlot & Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud & Vincent de Gardelle, 2023. "How Overconfidence Bias Influences Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-04197403, HAL.
    6. Adam N Sanborn & Ulrik R Beierholm, 2016. "Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    7. Patricia Besson & Christophe Bourdin & Lionel Bringoux, 2011. "A Comprehensive Model of Audiovisual Perception: Both Percept and Temporal Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-11, August.
    8. Anthony Renard & Evan R. Harrell & Brice Bathellier, 2022. "Olfactory modulation of barrel cortex activity during active whisking and passive whisker stimulation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Seth W. Egger & Stephen G. Lisberger, 2022. "Neural structure of a sensory decoder for motor control," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Wendy J Adams, 2016. "The Development of Audio-Visual Integration for Temporal Judgements," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Tim Genewein & Eduard Hez & Zeynab Razzaghpanah & Daniel A Braun, 2015. "Structure Learning in Bayesian Sensorimotor Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-27, August.
    12. Johannes Burge & Priyank Jaini, 2017. "Accuracy Maximization Analysis for Sensory-Perceptual Tasks: Computational Improvements, Filter Robustness, and Coding Advantages for Scaled Additive Noise," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-32, February.
    13. Yingjie Lai & Chaemoon Yoo & Xiaomin Zhou & Younghwan Pan, 2023. "Elements of Food Service Design for Low-Carbon Tourism-Based on Dine-In Tourist Behavior and Attitudes in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-21, May.
    14. Florent Meyniel & Maxime Maheu & Stanislas Dehaene, 2016. "Human Inferences about Sequences: A Minimal Transition Probability Model," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-26, December.
    15. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2012. "From perception to action: An economic model of brain processes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 81-103.
    16. Jean-François Patri & Pascal Perrier & Jean-Luc Schwartz & Julien Diard, 2018. "What drives the perceptual change resulting from speech motor adaptation? Evaluation of hypotheses in a Bayesian modeling framework," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, January.
    17. Florent Meyniel, 2020. "Brain dynamics for confidence-weighted learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-27, June.
    18. Anna Lambrechts & Vincent Walsh & Virginie van Wassenhove, 2013. "Evidence Accumulation in the Magnitude System," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Carrillo, Juan & Brocas, Isabelle, 2007. "Reason, Emotion and Information Processing in the Brain," CEPR Discussion Papers 6535, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Jannes Jegminat & Maya A Jastrzębowska & Matthew V Pachai & Michael H Herzog & Jean-Pascal Pfister, 2020. "Bayesian regression explains how human participants handle parameter uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-23, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16727-:d:1002462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.