Relative motion parallax and the perception of structure from motion

Empirical findings are reported that delineate properties of the process underlying the perception of structure from motion (SfM). First, it is shown that the usual rotating kinetic depth displays generally involve at least two sources of information: relative motion parallax and changes in the projected envelope of the rotating object. Then, evidence is presented that even when variations in projected envelope are minimized, altering the 3-D motion of an object can greatly affect its perceived shape in ways that hint at properties of the underlying process. It is also shown that circular patterns of relative motion parallax not associated with a rigidly moving object can elicit the perception of depth variation, and that added image rotations which by themselves do not elicit apparent depth variation can nevertheless influence the apparent shape of such circular patterns.<<ETX>>

[1]  G J Andersen,et al.  Shape and depth perception from parallel projections of three-dimensional motion. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  M. Braunstein,et al.  Velocity gradients and relative depth perception , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  J. Todd.  Visual information about rigid and nonrigid motion: a geometric analysis. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  E C Hildreth,et al.  Incremental rigidity scheme for recovering structure from motion: position-based versus velocity-based formulations. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[5]  R N Weinreb,et al.  The cytoskeleton of the cultured human trabecular cell. Characterization and drug responses. , 1988, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  J S Lappin,et al.  Detection of three-dimensional structure in moving optical patterns. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  H. Wallach,et al.  Circles and derived figures in rotation. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[8]  J T Todd,et al.  Perception of structure from motion: is projective correspondence of moving elements a necessary condition? , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  G. Johansson.  Visual motion perception. , 1975, Scientific American.

[10]  Claes von Hofsten,et al.  Visual perception of motion in depth: Application of a vector model to three-dot motion patterns , 1973 .

[11]  David W. Eby,et al.  Perceiving Structure From Motion: Failure Of Shape Constancy , 1988, [1988 Proceedings] Second International Conference on Computer Vision.

[12]  H. Wallach,et al.  The kinetic depth effect. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  B. Rogers,et al.  Similarities between motion parallax and stereopsis in human depth perception , 1982, Vision Research.

[14]  S Ullman,et al.  Maximizing Rigidity: The Incremental Recovery of 3-D Structure from Rigid and Nonrigid Motion , 1984, Perception.

[15]  George J. Andersen,et al.  The use of occlusion to resolve ambiguity in parallel projections , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  J J Koenderink,et al.  Depth and shape from differential perspective in the presence of bending deformations. , 1986, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[17]  S. Cobb,et al.  Perception of 3-D structure from motion: The role of velocity gradients and segmentation boundaries , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  J T Petersik,et al.  Three-dimensional object constancy: Coherence of a simulated rotating sphere in noise , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  C. Hofsten,et al.  Spatial determinants of depth perception in two-dot motion patterns , 1972 .

[20]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Minimum points and views for the recovery of three-dimensional structure. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  M. Braunstein,et al.  The observer-relative velocity field as the basis for effective motion parallax. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  M S Landy,et al.  Parallel model of the kinetic depth effect using local computations. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[23]  G Sperling,et al.  Kinetic depth effect and identification of shape. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  Braunstein Ml,et al.  Testing the rigidity assumption: a reply to Ullman. , 1986 .

[25]  H. Ono,et al.  Depth perception as a function of motion parallax and absolute-distance information. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  M. Braunstein.  Contrasts between Human and Machine Vision: Should Technology Recapitulate Phylogeny? , 1983 .

[27]  S. Ullman.  Recent Computational Studies in the Interpretation of Structure from Motion , 1983 .

[28]  Ellen C. Hildreth,et al.  The perceptual buildup of three-dimensional structure from motion , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  S. Ullman,et al.  The interpretation of visual motion , 1977 .

[30]  B Rogers,et al.  Motion Parallax as an Independent Cue for Depth Perception , 1979, Perception.

[31]  M. Braunstein,et al.  Recovering viewer-centered depth from disparity, occlusion, and velocity gradients , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.