Person identification from biological motion: Effects of structural and kinematic cues

Human observers are able to identify a person based on his or her gait. However, little is known about the underlying mechanisms and the kind of information used to accomplish such a task. In this study, participants learned to discriminate seven male walkers shown as point-light displays from frontal, half-profile, or profile view. The displays were gradually normalized with respect to size, shape, and walking frequency, and identification performance was measured. All observers quickly learned to discriminate the walkers, but there was an overall advantage in favor of the frontal view. No effect of size normalization was found, but performance deteriorated when shape or walking frequency was normalized. Presenting the walkers from novel viewpoints resulted in a further decrease in performance. However, even after applying all normalization steps and rotating the walker by 90°, recognition performance was still nearly three times higher than chance level.

[1]  G. Johansson.  Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis , 1973 .

[2]  G Johansson,et al.  Spatio-temporal differentiation and integration in visual motion perception , 1976, Psychological research.

[3]  J. Cutting,et al.  Recognizing the sex of a walker from a dynamic point-light display , 1977 .

[4]  J. Cutting,et al.  Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues , 1977 .

[5]  J. Cutting,et al.  Temporal and spatial factors in gait perception that influence gender recognition , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  J E Cutting,et al.  A biomechanical invariant for gait perception. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  S. Sumi.  Upside-down Presentation of the Johansson Moving Light-Spot Pattern , 1984, Perception.

[8]  V. Bruce,et al.  The basis of the 3/4 view advantage in face recognition , 1987 .

[9]  Ronen Basri,et al.  Recognition by Linear Combinations of Models , 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[10]  W. Dittrich.  Action Categories and the Perception of Biological Motion , 1993, Perception.

[11]  K. Verfaillie.  Orientation-dependent priming effects in the perception of biological motion. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  G. Mather,et al.  Gender discrimination in biological motion displays based on dynamic cues , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  T. Poggio,et al.  The importance of symmetry and virtual views in three-dimensional object recognition , 1994, Current Biology.

[14]  M J Tarr,et al.  Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  I. Biederman,et al.  Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). , 1995 .

[16]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Face recognition under varying poses: The role of texture and shape , 1996, Vision Research.

[17]  Nikolaus F. Troje,et al.  How is bilateral symmetry of human faces used for recognition of novel views? , 1998, Vision Research.

[18]  S. Stevenage,et al.  Visual analysis of gait as a cue to identity , 1999 .

[19]  F. Pollick,et al.  Exaggerating Temporal Differences Enhances Recognition of Individuals from Point Light Displays , 2000, Psychological science.

[20]  Armin Bruderlin,et al.  Perceiving affect from arm movement , 2001, Cognition.

[21]  F. Pollick,et al.  Recognising the style of spatially exaggerated tennis , 2001 .

[22]  Vic Braden,et al.  Recognising the Style of Spatially Exaggerated Tennis Serves , 2001, Perception.

[23]  Sung-Bae Cho,et al.  Estimating the efficiency of recognizing gender and affect from biological motion , 2002, Vision Research.

[24]  D. Foster,et al.  Recognizing novel three–dimensional objects by summing signals from parts and views , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  N. Troje.  Decomposing biological motion: a framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[26]  T. Shipley.  The Effect of Object and Event Orientation on Perception of Biological Motion , 2003, Psychological science.

[27]  F. Pollick,et al.  Recognising Facial Expression from Spatially and Temporally Modified Movements , 2003, Perception.

[28]  J. Cutting.  Coding Theory Adapted to Gait Perception , 1981 .