2016
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2016.0502
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using collision cones to assess biological deconfliction methods

Abstract: Biological systems consistently outperform autonomous systems governed by engineered algorithms in their ability to reactively avoid collisions. To better understand this discrepancy, a collision avoidance algorithm was applied to frames of digitized video trajectory data from bats, swallows and fish (Myotis velifer, Petrochelidon pyrrhonota and Danio aequipinnatus). Information available from visual cues, specifically relative position and velocity, was provided to the algorithm which used this information to… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the degree of alignment to the i th neighbour varies with distance to that neighbour as expected under physical distance behavioural rules (figures 3 c and 4 b ), so that even if swifts limit their interaction to a finite n neighbours, the strength of the interaction is weighted by physical distance. For this reason, topological and physical distance metrics are difficult to differentiate without large datasets of varying animal density, possibly explaining support for topological rules recently noted in studies with much smaller groups (15–86) [ 23 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…However, the degree of alignment to the i th neighbour varies with distance to that neighbour as expected under physical distance behavioural rules (figures 3 c and 4 b ), so that even if swifts limit their interaction to a finite n neighbours, the strength of the interaction is weighted by physical distance. For this reason, topological and physical distance metrics are difficult to differentiate without large datasets of varying animal density, possibly explaining support for topological rules recently noted in studies with much smaller groups (15–86) [ 23 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The most representative parameters of the analysis, reflecting the average embryo behavior within the various treatment groups, are illustrated in Figure 4 . Namely, two groups of locomotor alterations, the first dynamic (distance moved and velocity) and the second static (heading and rotation), after lanthionine and/or GSH treatment [ 16 ], were considered. In particular, rotation is related to the circular rotation of an embryo around its own body axis and heading is the inclination of an embryos head in degrees with respect to the water layer [ 16 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At one extreme, an animal may simply turn multi-objective control to a single-objective control by focusing only on the most immediate task [12] or that which can be achieved with the least disruption to some longer-term goal [89]. An alternative is to represent objectives in some form of common currency and to choose between them using heuristics [90] or time-varying weights [38]. The extent to which algorithms for evasion trajectory control resemble these alternatives and how such algorithms are implemented in the brain remain to be discovered.…”
Section: Open Questions About Pursuit and Evasion Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%