ArticleScientific reports2026
Quantifying mutual hesitation and identifying kinematic predictors in near-collision avoidance in walking.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans navigate crowded environments by anticipating others' movements. When such mutual anticipation fails, this may result in collisions or near-collisions. Previous research on mutual anticipation in collision avoidance has highlighted the importance of kinematic information. However, it remains unclear how full-body kinematics support mutual anticipation in truly interactive near-collision avoidance scenarios. We introduce cross-recurrence quantification analysis (CRQA) as a novel method to quantify the degree of mutual hesitation (i.e., spatiotemporal overlap between walkers) in near-collision avoidance. Additionally, we examined which pre-avoidance, inter-participant kinematic relationships predict the degree of mutual hesitation. Forty-five dyads (i.e., 90 participants) walked toward each other and aimed at avoiding collision in two differently sized avoidance zones (20 cm, 80 cm). Results revealed that the mean Recurrence Rate in mutual hesitation trials was 37.97 (± 23.2) and 41.95 (± 25.5) in the respective collision avoidance zones. Statistical Parametric Mapping showed that inter-participant head-angle differences diverged earlier than the shoulder or pelvis in non-mutual hesitation trials. Smaller head-angle differences 0.3-0.2s (20 cm) and 0.2-0.1s (80 cm) before avoidance onset predicted a higher degree of mutual hesitation. We conclude that failures in inferring avoidance direction from head kinematics may be linked to mutual anticipation errors that result in mutual hesitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.