Multiscale Science and Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42493-021-00063-8

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Mouse Models to Investigate the Influence of an Obstacle on Variables

that Create Pedestrian Bottlenecks
Somi Kim1 · Duyen Thi Hai Nguyen1,2 · Hyejin Oh3 · Junyoung Park1,2 

Received: 18 February 2021 / Revised: 17 March 2021 / Accepted: 30 March 2021

© Korean Multi-Scale Mechanics (KMSM) 2021

Abstract
When many people attempt to evacuate a place at the same time, a bottleneck occurs at the exit. Although there are many
experimental variables, such as obstacle size and distance from the exit, there is a lack of experimental studies on the
influence of such variables on escape tendency. Thus, this study was purposed to fill in this gap of knowledge by perform-
ing experiments that varied the exit angle and location of an obstacle. Because experiments with people who assume an
emergency situation may result in actual human casualties, the active avoidance method (i.e., electric shock) was applied to
mouse models in this study. Specifically, electric foot shock was used to induce panic in mice located in a designated wait-
ing section. Then, in a designated measurement section, the escape velocity, escape time, and escape trajectory length were
analyzed to compare the escape tendencies. It was found that the presence of an obstacle in front of the exit increased the
escape velocity, and decreased the escape time. The experimental results also revealed that there was an optimal location
for the obstacle relative to the exit.

Keywords  Rodent experiment · Obstacle · Crowd flow · Evacuation flow · Bottleneck

Introduction
In the event of an indoor emergency situation, such as a
fire or an explosion, evacuation should be performed to
minimize human casualty. In the event that many people
are attempting to evacuate a place with limited entrances
and exits, such as a stadium, movie theater, or concert hall,
they may push each other to escape first, creating a bot-
tleneck at exits. A bottleneck extends the evacuation time,
and cause stampedes that result in human casualties. Such
accidents are reported to occur every year. In September
2015, at least 717 pilgrims died as a result of a stampede
* Junyoung Park
pcello@kumoh.ac.kr
1
Department of Mechanical Design Engineering, Kumoh
National Institute of Technology, 61 Daehak‑Ro,
Gumi 39177, Gyeungbuk, Korea
2
Department of Aeronautic, Mechanical and Electrical
Convergence Engineering, Kumoh National Institute
of Technology, 61 Daehak‑Ro, Gumi 39177, Gyeungbuk,
Korea
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stony Brook
University, 100 Nicolls Rd, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
that occurred during the Hajj in the vicinity of Mecca, Saudi
Arabia [1]. In Madagascar, at least 15 people were killed
in a stadium by people who created a stampede at the end
of the Independence Day celebration on June 27, 2019 [2];
additionally, failure to control the crowd in a soccer sta-
dium on September 9, 2018 left at least one person dead and
approximately 40 people injured [3]. In Angola, 76 casual-
ties, including 17 deaths, occurred on February 10, 2017
as people attempted to enter a stadium before the start of
the opening soccer match [4]. In Nigeria, at least 14 people
were killed in February 2019 as the crowd rushed toward the
gates after the president’s speech [5]. There have also been
stampedes in South Korea that have resulted in human casu-
alties. In Sangju in October 2005, 11 people were killed and
more than 100 people were injured during a stampede that
broke out as people rushed to enter the area of a concert held
by Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (Korea) [6]. These
examples show that stampede-related accidents can occur
anywhere if a number of people suddenly feel the need to
attempt to escape from a congested space.
To preclude such accidents, interventions purposed to
prevent pedestrian bottlenecks from occurring at exits are
required. For example, obstacles can be installed in front of
exits to prevent a bottleneck from occurring in the event of

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

an emergency situation. One may think that such obstacles
will hinder escape; however, interestingly, they have been
proven to be effective as a means to prevent bottlenecks,
because they reduce pedestrian congestion [7]. Various
related studies have been conducted, including simulated
and actual experiments with pedestrians, silo experiments,
and simulations with animals.
Frank et al. simulated the “social force model” to show
that column-shaped obstacles can reduce evacuation time
[8]. Haghani et al. emphasized that parameter correction is
important for the accurate prediction of pedestrian flow by
simulating it in a bottleneck section using their corrected
parameters. They experimented with 114 people and found
that an obstacle present in front of the exit was effective in
reducing the escape time when the exit width was narrow
(i.e., 60–100 cm), and that the effect of the obstacle was
insignificant when the exit was wide (200 cm). They also
found that a longer obstacle was more effective in reducing
the escape time at the exit [9]. Zuriguel et al. found that the
pressure applied to the walls of a silo for grain and cement
powder storage decreased as a result of installing an obstacle
directly above the exit, indicating an increase in the flow
rate [10].
To date, there have been actual and simulated studies in
which obstacles were installed in front of the exit to mitigate
pedestrian bottlenecking. Zuriguel et al. performed experi-
ments that entailed having a flock of sheep pass through
a narrow door [11], and Lin et al. conducted research on
the escape efficiency afforded by an obstacle by placing
rodents in a competition to escape from the scented candle
[12]. They reported that it is necessary to properly adjust
the obstacle size and distance to the exit to optimally reduce
the evacuation time, and that an obstacle with a diameter as
much as 0.4 to 3 times the exit width that is positioned at a
distance of 1 to 2 times the exit width can increase the flow
rate. They also reported that the presence of an obstacle
in front of the exit did not always increase evacuation effi-
ciency, and that improper obstacle placement may decrease
evacuation efficiency.
Experiments with people were also performed. Shi et al.
found that the flow of pedestrians was significantly increased
by using obstacles to precisely adjust the structural charac-
teristics of the exit pathway; however, they reported that
obstacles may decrease the escape efficiency in non-emer-
gency situations [13]. In experiments with up to 200 people,
Garcimartin et al. confirmed that obstacles do not necessar-
ily shorten the evacuation time; however, they found that
they are helpful in preventing falls by suppressing collective
transversal rushes [7].
The findings of the above-mentioned studies indicate
that the installation of obstacles in front of the exit does not
guarantee desirable results. Pedestrian-focused studies have
also been actively conducted, but there are few experimental
13
Multiscale Science and Engineering
studies on the respective influences of the presence of obsta-
cles, the exit angle, and the distance to the exit on the escape
efficiency. Thus, in this study, the presence of an obstacle in
front of the exit, as well as the exit angle, were investigated
as factors that affect the escape efficiency; specifically, the
respective influences of the distance between the obstacle
and exit, exit angle, and distance between the obstacle and
the escape wall on the escape tendency of mice were experi-
mentally investigated.
One of the biggest problems of research based on simu-
lation is the validation. Espeically, the parameters used in
the simulation study should be chosen by the results based
on the experiments like this study. The feasibilities of the
simulation validation using experimental study is already
done by authors [14].
Experiment
Background and Experimental Target
Because experiments with people who assume an emergency
situation may result in actual human casualties, rodent simu-
lations were performed in this study. The brains of rodents
include a hippocampus and an amygdala, which are known
to process fear and induce the subsequent response in a way
that is very similar to that in the human brain; thus, it is
reasonable to use rodents to predict the escape tendency of
humans in an experiment that induces panic [15]. There are
various methods that have been employed to induce panic
in rodents, e.g., placing mice in a pool of water [16, 17], or
introducing the scent of a burning candle [12, 18]. Although
there are various other methods, the experimental environ-
ment required to employ most of them is not easy to control;
this makes them unsuitable for inducing the level of anxiety
or fear that would result in a sudden need to quickly evacu-
ate. Thus, electric foot shock was used in this study [14].
The active avoidance test method entails using electric
shock to induce panic in mice such that they would to want
to evacuate an enclosed space [19]. In an active avoidance
test, electric shock is applied to mice, allowing them to
escape to a safe section within the enclosed space where
they do not experience electric shock. After several training
sessions, the rodents learn to escape to the safe section to
avoid the electric shock. It should be noted that the strength
of the electric shock is maintained at a level at which the
rodents experience a tingling feeling, and there is no threat
to their life.
Regarding the animal model, a total of 48 C57BL/6N
mice with small inter-individual genetic differences were
used (29 females and 19 males). Because environmental
changes, such as breeding, may affect behavior analysis,
males and females were separated and limited to four to five
Multiscale Science and Engineering
mice were per cage to minimize such changes. The experi-
ments were performed in accordance with Internal Animal
Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol to minimize
stress on the rodents (authorized No. UNISTIACUC-20-27).
Experimental Setup
Figure 1 shows a schematic of the experimental setup. The
setup consisted of a waiting section, measurement section,
and safe section. The walls of the waiting section and meas-
urement section were acrylic, but the floor was composed
of stainless steel rods to enable electric shock application
to the mice. The 2-mm-diameter stainless steel rods were
spaced 1 cm apart to prevent the feces from creating a short
Fig. 1  Experimental settings. a Schematic of experimental setup (W = 40 cm, L = 170 cm, L’ = 100 cm, H = 5 cm), and b schematic floor plan. X
and θ are variables
circuit in the event that they are too close, and to prevent the
mice from falling in between the rods in the event that the
spacing is too wide. An electric stimulator was connected
to the stainless steel rods in parallel to enable the electric
shock. The safe section, i.e., the section where electric shock
could be avoided, was fabricated by using black acrylic, with
sawdust laid on the floor.
Two types of entrance restrictions were applied, i.e., a full
partition, and a partition with an opening. The dimensions
of the exit to the safe section were 5 × 5 cm. These dimen-
sions were set in consideration of the 2–3-cm width of the
abdomen of an adult mouse to allow two mice to escape at
the same time. However, the exit angle and distance from
the exit to the obstacle were variable.
13

Figure 2 shows the device used to apply electric shock.
An isolated square-wave stimulator (PHIPPS & BIRD, NO.
7092-611/120) was used. A Sony FDR-AX700 camcorder
was used to obtain video for experimental analysis. An in-
house program, referred to as the MouseTracker program,
was developed and used to enable video analysis. This pro-
gram was designed to allow the operator to select x and y
positions in each frame, thus enabling measurement of the
instantaneous velocity, average velocity, escape time, and
escape trajectory of the mice. Figure 3 is a screenshot that
provides an example of how the program was used to ana-
lyzing the video.
Experimental Method
To begin the experiment, the mice were placed in the wait-
ing section. Electricity was applied to the stainless steel rods
via the isolated square-wave stimulator that was connected
in parallel; this resulted in an electric shock being applied
to the feet of the mice standing on the rods in the waiting
section. The mice were surprised and appeared to panic
when they experienced the electric shock. When it was con-
firmed that all of the mice were panicked, the partition that
Fig. 2  Electric shock device and stimulation output. a Isolated square-wave stimulator, and b example of electrical stimulation output
Fig. 3  Screenshot showing an example of video analysis with the MouseTracker program
13
Multiscale Science and Engineering
blocked the waiting section was removed to allow the mice
to escape to the safe section by passing through the meas-
urement section. The experiment was concluded once all of
the mice reached the safe section. The entire process, which
corresponds to the span of time beginning at the moment
when the first mouse escaped from the waiting section to
the measurement section, and ending at the moment when
the last mouse reached the safe section, was recorded using
the camcorder. The recorded video was transferred to a com-
puter and analyzed using the MouseTracker program.
The experiments were performed under the conditions of
three values each for the exit angle and distance between the
exit and obstacle (Table 1).
The exit angle (15°, 45°, and 75°) and distance of the
obstacle from the exit were varied to investigate their respec-
tive influences on escape tendency. The effects of having an
obstacle were also investigated by performing experiments
with and without the obstacle. If there is an obstacle, it may
not be possible to escape if the distance between the obsta-
cle and the wall at the exit angle of 75°, the most difficult
to escape, is too narrow. Therefore, the experiment was
conducted with a minimum distance of 15 cm for smooth
escape by adjusting the distance between the exit wall and the
Multiscale Science and Engineering
Table 1  Experimental conditions
Exit angle (°) 15, 45, 75
Distance between the exit 15, 40, 60
and obstacle (cm)
Measurement section
entrance restrictions
obstacles. Figure 4a provides an example of how the experi-
ment proceeded under the condition that the full partition was
used. Because the mice exhibited a tendency to pass through
the measurement section along the walls, which allowed them
to escape without being affected by the obstacle, an entrance
restriction (Fig. 4b) was applied to enable analysis of how
the presence of an obstacle influences escape tendency. The
operating conditions for the isolated square-wave stimulator
were fixed as follows: an amplitude of 45 V was applied at a
frequency of 400 Hz for a duration of 1 ms.
Experimental Results and Discussion
Effects of the Presence of an Obstacle
To examine the effects of the presence of an obstacle in front
of the exit on the escape tendency of the mice, the results of
experiments with an obstacle placed 15 cm in front of the
exit were compared to those without an obstacle (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4  Screenshot showing the moment of escape from the waiting section to the measurement section in the case of a no entrance restriction
and b an entrance restriction
Fig. 5  Escape velocity and escape time as functions of the exit angle
(blue: no obstacle; red: with obstacle)
Figure 5 shows the results of the experiment performed
with 48 mice. The blue bars indicate the average escape
times, which were consistently shorter than those corre-
sponding to the trials in which an obstacle was in place.
The line graph results show that the average escape velocity
was higher for the trials with an obstacle than those without
an obstacle. These results indicate that installing an obstacle
in front of the exit increased the escape velocity and reduced
the escape time.
Figure  6 shows the escape trajectories of the mice
according to the escape angle, and Fig. 7 shows the aver-
age escape trajectories. In Fig. 6, the red solid lines repre-
sent the average trajectories. The experimental equipment
is symmetrical with respect to the center exit. Since the
average trajectory of the mice simply showed a straight
line in the center, the average trajectory was obtained
after all the trajectories on the left were transformed sym-
metrically to the right. Then, the average trajectory on the
13

Fig. 6  Complete escape trajectory results obtained under the conditions of no obstacle (left) and an obstacle at X = 15 cm (right); a exit angle:
15°, b exit angle: 45°, and c exit angle: 75°
right side is also drawed in symmetry on the left side. The
results presented in Figs. 6 and 7 indicate that the aver-
age escape trajectory was not significantly affected by the
presence of an obstacle. Thus, although the presence of
an obstacle did not significantly affect the escape trajec-
tory, its presence corresponded to more desirable escape
velocity and escape time results. The reason for this is
believed to be that the obstacle in front of the exit prevent
a bottleneck from occurring.
It can be ascertained from Table 2 that, under the condi-
tion of an obstacle placed at 15 cm in front of the exit, the
average escape trajectory length was shorter for an exit angle
of 75° than for that of 15°. Because the average escape tra-
jectory length was shorter, the escape time was also expected
to be shorter. However, the escape time associated with an
exit angle of 75° was longer than those associated with exit
angles of 15° and 45°, as shown in Fig. 5. Additionally, there
was no significant difference in escape velocity between the
75° and 45° exit angles. These results indicate that, under the
condition of an exit angle of 75°, the presence of an obstacle
in front of the exit may hinder escape.
13
Multiscale Science and Engineering
It can be seen in Fig. 8 that the mice tended to escape in
a more orderly manner when the exit angle was 45° than
when it was 15°. In the case of the 75° exit angle, the obsta-
cle appeared to have hindered escape because the escape
path was already very narrow. These observations indicate
that escape efficiency is affected by the exit angle, the dis-
tance between the obstacle and exit walls, and the distance
between the exit and the obstacle (X).
Obstacle Location
Figure 9a, b show the measured escape velocity and escape
time results for an obstacle positioned at X = 15, 40, and
60 cm.
Figure 9 shows that the escape velocity increased and
the escape time decreased as the distance between the exit
and obstacle was increased from 15 to 40 cm, regardless of
the exit angle. Furthermore, the results presented in Table 3
show that the average escape trajectory length observed
at X = 40 cm was shorter than that observed at X = 15 cm
for all exit angles. Alternatively, a comparison of the
Multiscale Science and Engineering

Entrance Restriction

All of the results presented above corresponded to no

entrance restriction. As previously mentioned, because the
mice were able to escape along the walls from the beginning,
obstacle existence and placement did not play a significant
role until they approached the exit at the same time. Because
the influence of such congestion can be partially removed
by applying an entrance restriction, experiments with an
entrance restriction were also performed. The entrance
restriction is controlled by the partition existing between
the Waiting section and the Measurement section. (Refer to
Fig. 1a and Table 1) The entrance size of the restricted parti-
tion was 5 cm in consideration of the fact that width of the
abdomen of an adult mouse was 2–3 cm in the same way as
the exit size. Since the experimental equipment is symmetri-
cal, a square hole is located at the center of the partition.
Figure 10 shows the results according to the presence or
absence of entrance restrictions when there was no obstacle.
When there was entrance restriction, the bar graph shows
that the escape time decreased and the line graph shows
that the escape velocity also increased at 45° and 75°. This
indicates that cases with entrance restriction bring more
favorable results for escape than those without entrance
restriction, because significant congestion occurs near the
exit. If there is an entrance restriction, the escape time and
velocity varies noticeably as the exit angle changes. It may
be related with “the congestion at the exit”. Namely, the
Fig. 7  Averaged escape trajectory results; a exit angle: 15°, b exit escape time and velocity are dependent on the exit angle in
angle: 45°, and c exit angle: 75° the case of entrance restriction. And they are not in the case
of no entrance restriction.
Figure  11 shows how the existence of an obstacle at
Table 2  Average escape trajectory lengths for various exit angles X = 15 cm affected the escape time and escape velocity when
Exit angle Case: No obstacle Case: there was an entrance restriction. It can be ascertained from
X = 15 cm this figure that the existence of an obstacle tended to shorten
obstacle the escape time, but that the difference in escape times
15° 125.5 cm 134.4 cm
between the present/absent obstacle conditions decreased
45° 123.3 cm 124.7 cm
as the exit angle was increased from 15° to 75°. Regarding
75° 121.9 cm 127.5 cm
the escape velocity results, under the condition of an exit
angle of 15°, the escape velocity tended to be higher when
there was an obstacle; however, it was comparatively lower
when the exit angle was set at 75°. At an exit angle of 45°,
average escape trajectory lengths at X = 40 cm and X = 60 cm the average escape velocities were roughly equal, indicat-
revealed similar average escape trajectory lengths, even ing that the presence of an obstacle had minimal influence;
though the escape velocity decreased and the escape time however, the escape time was much shorter when there was
increased at X = 60 cm. These results indicate that there is an an obstacle.
optimal obstacle position. The reason for this is believed to It can be ascertained from the results presented in
be related to the congestion that was observed near the exit. Table 4 that the presence of an obstacle did not signifi-
Specifically, the optimal distance from the exit seems to be cantly affect the average escape trajectory length. Thus,
close to 40 cm, because the associated conditions resulted the results obtained under the condition of an entrance
in less congestion, whereas more congestion was observed restriction revealed that, when the exit angle was set to 45°,
in the cases of X = 15 cm and 60 cm, even though there was even though the escape velocities were roughly the same,
improvement as compared to the trials without an obstacle. the escape time in the presence of an obstacle tended to be

13
 Multiscale Science and Engineering

Fig. 8  Screenshots showing mice evacuating the measurement section; a exit angle: 15°, b exit angle: 45°, and c exit angle: 75°

Fig. 9  Escape time (a) and escape velocity (b) as functions of the distance between the exit and obstacle for various exit angles

Table 3  Average escape trajectory length results for different obstacle when there was an obstacle. Furthermore, the escape time
distances was similar regardless of the presence of an obstacle. This
Exit angle Case: X = 15 cm Case: X = 40 cm Case: X = 60 cm is because the time delay caused by the bottleneck at the exit
when there was no obstacle nearly matched the time required
15° 134.4 cm 117.2 cm 120.5 cm for the mice to slowly line up in front of the obstacle to pass
45° 124.7 cm 118.4 cm 118.6 cm through the exit.
75° 127.5 cm 116.9 cm 116.3 cm

shorter; this is because the obstacle prevented a bottleneck
from occurring at the exit. When the exit angle was set to
75°, the escape trajectory length was not influenced by the
presence of an obstacle, but the escape velocity was lower
Conclusion
In this study, experiments were performed to investigate
how an obstacle positioned in front of the exit may prevent
stampedes from occurring in the event of an emergency. The

13
Multiscale Science and Engineering
Fig. 10  Effects of entrance restriction application. Escape velocity
and escape time as functions of the exit angle in the case of no obsta-
cle (green: no entrance restriction; orange: entrance restriction)
Fig. 11  Effects of entrance restriction and the existence of an obsta-
cle. Escape velocity and escape time as functions of the exit angle
(blue: no obstacle; gold: with obstacle)
Table 4  Average escape trajectory length results obtained under the
condition of an entrance restriction
Exit angle Case: no obstacle Case:
X = 15 cm
obstacle
15° 115.6 cm 112.7 cm
45° 113.0 cm 115.0 cm
75° 111.1 cm 111.0 cm
experimental results revealed that positioning an obstacle
in front of the exit tended to yield a more desirable escape
velocity and escape time, regardless of the exit angle. The
experiments were performed by varying the exit angle, and
it was found that the application of an exit angle of 75° in the
presence of an obstacle (X = 15 cm) hindered escape because
the distance between the obstacle and the walls near the exit
was too small. Additionally, an exit angle of 45° was found
to maximize escape efficiency in all cases.
In the case of the obstacle position-varying experiments,
the escape trajectory and escape time were found to be
shorter in the cases of X = 40 cm and X = 60 cm as com-
pared to the case of X = 15 cm. A comparison between the
X = 40 cm and X = 60 cm results revealed that the condi-
tions created by X = 60 cm (i.e., obstacle placement closer to
the entrance) resulted in a lower escape velocity and longer
escape time. Additionally, although it would seem that the
obstacle would hinder escape, the escape time was found to
be much shorter when an obstacle was present, indicating
that the presence of an obstacle creates conditions that are
more favorable for a safe escape.
Finally, the application of an entrance restriction was
found to comparatively reduce the escape time and increase
the escape velocity, demonstrating its ability to improve
evacuation outcomes. However, unlike the results obtained
from the experiments with no entrance restriction, the
escape trajectory and escape time were shorter in the case
of X = 15 cm than in the cases of X = 40 cm and X = 60 cm.
Specifically, in the cases of X = 40 cm and X = 60 cm, when
there was no entrance restriction, the mice were able to
escape along the walls, with the obstacle in the center hav-
ing minimal influence on their escape route. However, when
the entrance restriction was applied, none of the mice were
able to avoid the obstacle in the measurement section. Thus,
although the application of an entrance restriction may seem
to be counterintuitive, it was found to prevent the congestion
at the exit that was observed when there was no entrance
restriction. The effects of obstacles and entrance restric-
tions on escape efficiency may be topics for future research;
however, it is predicted that the positive effects of entrance
restrictions will reduce as the number of mice increases.
Acknowledgements  We would like to acknowledge the financial
support from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
[NRF-2018R1A2B 2004207] and the MSIT(Ministry of Science
and ICT), Korea, under the Grand Information Technology Research
Center support program(IITP-2021-2020-0-01612) supervised by the
IITP(Institute for Information & communications Technology Planning
& Evaluation).
Funding  This work was supported by the National Research Foun-
dation of Korea (Grant number NRF-2018R1A2B 2004207) and the
Ministry of Science and ICT of South Korea under the Grand Infor-
mation Technology Research Center support program (Grant number
IITP-2021-2020-0-01612) supervised by the Institute for Information
& Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest  Not applicable.
References
1. BBC NEWS, Hajj stampede: At least 717 killed in Saudi Arabia.
(BBC NEWS, 2015), https://​www.​bbc.​com/​news/​world-​middle-​
east-​34346​449. Accessed 24 September 2015
13

2. BBC NEWS, Madagascar stadium crush kills 16 during national
celebrations. (BBS NEWS, 2019), https://​www.​thest​adium​busin​
ess.c​ om/2​ 019/0​ 6/2​ 7/s​ tampe​ de-m
​ adaga​ scar-s​ tadiu​ m-l​ eaves-m​ any-​
dead/. Accessed 27 June 2019
3. BBC NEWS, Deadly stadium stampede at Madagascar v Senegal
match. (BBC News, 2018), https://​www.​bbc.​com/​news/​world-​
africa-​45465​970. Accessed 9 September 2018
4. The Guardian, More than a dozen fans killed in stampede at
Angolan football match. (The Guardian, 2017), https://w ​ ww.t​ hegu​
ardian.​com/​world/​2017/​feb/​10/​17-​fans-​killed-​stamp​ede-​footb​all-​
match-​angola. Accessed 10 February 2017
5. BBC NEWS, Nigeria stampede: Deaths at Buhari rally in Port
Harcourt. (BBC NEWS, 2019), https://w ​ ww.b​ bc.c​ om/n​ ews/w ​ orld-​
africa-​47220​825. Accessed 13 February 2019
6. BBC NEWS, S Korea concert stampede kills 11. (BBC NEWS,
2005), http://​n ews.​b bc.​c o.​u k/2/​h i/​a sia-​p acif ​i c/​4 3046​9 8.​stm.
Accessed 3 October 2005
7. A. Garcimartín, D. Maza, J.M. Pastor, D.R. Parisi, C. Martín-
Gómez, I. Zuriguel, New J. Phys. (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​
1367-​2630/​aaf4ca
8. G.A. Frank, C.O. Dorso, Phys. A (2011). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.​
physa.​2011.​01.​015
9. M. Haghani, M. Sarvi, Simulating pedestrian flow through narrow
exits. Appl. Phys. Lett. (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​physl​eta.​
2018.​10.​029
10. I. Zuriguel, A. Janda, A. Garcimartín, C. Lozano, R. Arévalo,
D. Maza, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1103/​PhysR​
evLett.​107.​278001
13
Multiscale Science and Engineering
11. I. Zuriguel, D.R. Parisi, R.C. Hidalgo, C. Lozano, A. Janda, P.A.
Gago, J.P. Peralta, L.M. Ferrer, L.A. Pugnaloni, E. Clément, D.
Maza, I. Pagonabarraga, A. Garcimartín, Sci. Rep. (2014). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1038/​srep0​7324
12. P. Lin, J. Ma, T.Y. Liu, T. Ran, Y.L. Si, F.Y. Wu, G.Y. Wang, Phys.
A (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​physa.​2017.​04.​021
13. X. Shi, Z. Ye, N. Shiwakoti, D. Tang, J. Lin, Phys. A (2019).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​physa.​2019.​01.​086
14. H. Oh, J. Park, Sci. Rep. (2017). https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 038/​
s41598-​017-​14007-6
15. J.F. Cryan, A. Holmes, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. (2005). https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1038/​nrd18​25
16. C. Saloma, G.J. Perez, G. Tapang, M. Lim, C.P. Saloma, in Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (2003). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​20319​
12100
17. R. Morris, J. Neurosci. Methods (1984). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
0165-​0270(84)​90007-4
18. P. Lin, J. Ma, T. Liu, T. Ran, Y. Si, T. Li, Phys. A (2016). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​physa.​2016.​02.​017
19. H. Kim, Brain Functional Animal Behavior Test for Brain Neu-
rologists (Sigma Press, 2006), pp. 36–41
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.