基于眼动特性的疏散决策和寻路行为研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.03.0553

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探究疏散过程中个体风险型决策行为特征和通道结构对疏散行为的影响,开展带计分奖励规则的模拟疏散试验。被试分别基于电脑端和地下车库疏散任务进行连续决策,利用眼动追踪技术采集被试在此过程中的眼动参数,采用注视时间、注视次数等眼动特性数据表征被试的视觉分配与感知特性,结合决策中冒险行为统计结果,分析疏散过程中被试面对风险时的决策行为变化特征,以及路径特征对寻路行为的影响。结果表明:对于模拟疏散中连续出现的风险型决策任务,随体力消耗,被试更倾向于选择风险较低的路径;被试感觉临近出口时,冒险行为比例增加;被试对首次感知或潜在目标的关键信息会给予更多关注,对疏散决策行为有一定影响;与平坦笔直路径相比,被试在消防门区域、不规则岔路口、连续转弯区域等通道突变处注视时间增加4~6倍,表现出更多的犹豫和折返行为。

关键词: 眼动特性, 疏散决策, 寻路行为, 地下建筑, 应急疏散, 风险型决策

Abstract:

In order to explore the characteristics of individual risk-based decision-making behavior in the evacuation process and the influence of channel structure on evacuation behavior, simulated evacuation experiments with scoring and reward rules were conducted. The evacuees made continuous decisions based on the evacuation tasks of the computer terminal and the underground garage, respectively. The evacuees' eye movement parameters were collected using eye tracking technology. The evacuees' visual distribution and perception characteristics were characterized by gaze duration, fixation times and other data. Combined with the statistical results of risky behaviors in decision-making, the change characteristics of decision-making behaviors of subjects facing risks in the evacuation process and the influence of path characteristics on wayfinding behaviors were analyzed. The results show that when risky decision-making tasks appear continuously in the simulated evacuation, with physical exhaustion, participants are more inclined to choose the safe road. The proportion of risk-seeking behaviors increases when subjects feel that they are approaching the exit. The evacuees pay more attention to the key information of the first perception or potential target, which influences evacuation decision-making behavior. Compared with the flat and straight path, the subjects' gaze time increases by 4-6 times at the sudden change of the passage, such as the fire gate area, rugged paths, and irregular angles, and show more hesitation and turning back behaviors.

Key words: eye movement characteristics, evacuation decision, wayfinding behavior, underground building, emergency evacuation, risky based decision-making

丁天祺, 汪澍, 魏祎璇, 徐一菲, 金龙哲. 基于眼动特性的疏散决策和寻路行为研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(3): 174-180.

DING Tianqi, WANG Shu, WEI Yixuan, XU Yifei, JIN Longzhe. Study on evacuation decision and wayfinding behavior based on eye tracking characteristics[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(3): 174-180.

图/表 10

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

参考文献 22

[1]	王印. 复杂地下空间火灾安全数值模拟分析研究[D]. 上海: 上海应用技术大学, 2020.
	WANG Yin. Stud on fir safety numerical simulation of complex underground space[D]. Shanghai: Shanghai Institute of Technology, 2020.
[2]	刘勇, 阳晓剑, 陈晓勇, 等. 地下建筑火灾风险分析[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2018, 37(3): 414-416.
	LIU Yong, YANG Xiaojian, CHEN Xiaoyong, et al. Fire risk analysis of underground building[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2018, 37(3): 414-6.
[3]	苏诺尔. 紧急情况下人群疏散出口决策行为研究:基于问卷调查和情境实验数据[D]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古财经大学, 2022.
	SU Nuoer. A study of crowd evacuation exit decision making behaviour in emergency situations:based on questionnaire and situational experimental data[D]. Huhehot: Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, 2022.
[4]	ARIAS S, LA MENDOLA S, WAHLQVIST J, et al. Virtual reality evacuation experiments on way-finding systems for the future circular collider[J]. Fire Technology, 2019, 55(6): 2319-2340. doi: 10.1007/s10694-019-00868-y
[5]	陈一洲, 张无敌, 晏风, 等. 暴恐事件下机场航站楼疏散能力研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(2): 86-92. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.02.014
	CHEN Yizhou, ZHANG Wudi, YAN Feng, et al. Study on evacuation ability of airport terminals to violent terrorist attacks[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(2) : 86-92. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.02.014
[6]	王芳, 何胜学, 向乐佳. 突发事件下高层建筑楼梯疏散最佳策略分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(7): 88-92.
	WANG Fang, HE Shengxue, XIANG Lejia. Optimal strategy for high-rise building evacuation with stairs under emergency[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2014, 24(7): 88-92.
[7]	徐滢, 叶永峰, 蒋燕锋, 等. 地铁车站人员安全疏散仿真理论分析与应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010, 20(3): 39-45.
	XU Ying, YE Yongfeng, JIANG Yanfeng, et al. Theoretical analysis and application of personnel evacuation in metro station[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2010, 20(3): 39-45.
[8]	WANG Ning, GAO Ying, LI CHaoying, et al. Integrated agent-based simulation and evacuation risk-assessment model for underground building fire: a case study[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, 40:DOI:10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102609. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102609
[9]	LI Ziwei, HUANG Huang, LI Nan, et al. An agent-based simulator for indoor crowd evacuation considering fire impacts[J]. Automation In Construction, 2020, 120:DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103395. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103395
[10]	ZOU Hao, LI Nan, CAO Lojun. Emotional response-based approach for assessing the sense of presence of subjects in virtual building evacuation studies[J]. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 2017, 31(5):DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000679. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000679
[11]	PAULSEN R L. Human behavior and fires: an introduction[J]. Fire Technology, 1984, 20(2): 15-27. pmid: 10299503
[12]	郭子慧, 郭伟伟, 谭墍元. 驾驶员接管自动驾驶车辆的眼动特性和行为分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(1): 65-71. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.009
	GUO Zihhui, GUO Weiwei, TAN Jiyuan. Analysis on eye movement characteristics and behavior of drivers taking over automated vehicles[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1):65-71. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.009
[13]	柳忠起, 袁修干, 刘伟, 等. 基于模拟飞行任务下的眼动指标分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2006, 16(2): 47-51.
	LIU Zhongqi, YUAN Xiugan, LIU Wei, et al. Analysis on eye movement indices based on simulated flight task[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2006, 16(2): 47-51.
[14]	BEHREND J, DEHAIS F. How role assignment impacts decision-making in high-risk environments: evidence from eye-tracking in aviation[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 127:DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104738. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104738
[15]	王翠翠, 郑静漪, 陈雪. 默认选项对用户决策行为影响的眼动研究[J]. 合肥工业大学学报:社会科学版, 2022, 36(1): 52-59.
	WANG Cuicui, ZHENG Jingyi, CHEN Xue. Eye-tracking study on the effect of default option on users'decision-making behavior[J]. Journal of Hefei University of Technology:Social Sciences, 2022, 36(1): 52-59.
[16]	YANG J W, KIM D, JUNG S. Using eye-tracking technology to measure environmental factors affecting street robbery decision-making in virtual environments[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(18): DOI:10.3390/su12187419. doi: 10.3390/su12187419
[17]	BAE Y H, KIM Y C, OH R S, et al. Gaze point in the evacuation drills: analysis of eye movement at the indoor wayfinding[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(7): DOI:10.3390/su12072902. doi: 10.3390/su12072902
[18]	ARMOUGUM A, GASTON-BELLEGARDE A, MARLE J L, et al. Physiological investigation of cognitive load in real-life train travelers during information processing[J]. Applied Ergonomics, 2020, 89:DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103180. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103180
[19]	GAO Minzhi, MENG Fang, MENG Yan. Analysis of consumer supermarket shopping behaviors based on eye movement information[C]. 2020 13^th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-BMEI), 2020:DOI: 10.1109/CISP-BMEI51763.2020.9263613. doi: 10.1109/CISP-BMEI51763.2020.9263613
[20]	BAO Xinzong, YE Shuxiang, GE Guangying, et al. Study on monitoring of smoke ringelmann black degree bassed dsp and ann[C]. 8^th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation (WCICA), 2010:DOI: 10.1109/WCICA.2010.5554555. doi: 10.1109/WCICA.2010.5554555
[21]	KIM S, DONG Zhihua, XIAN Huijun, et al. Does an eye tracker tell the truth about visualizations? findings while investigating visualizations for decision making[J]. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2012, 18(12): 2421-2430. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.215
[22]	WIENER J M, HÖLSCHER C, BÜCHNER S, et al. Gaze behaviour during space perception and spatial decision making[J]. Psychological Research, 2012, 76(6): 713-729. doi: 10.1007/s00426-011-0397-5 pmid: 22139023

特征	类别	人数	比例/%
年龄/岁	≤20	10	38.46
年龄/岁	21~44	16	61.54
是否经历过突发事件	是	2	7.69
是否经历过突发事件	否	24	92.31
是否有应急疏散(演练)经历	是	16	61.54
是否有应急疏散(演练)经历	否	10	38.46