Bounds on time-to-collision and rotational component from first-order derivatives of image flow

Abstract A moving rigid object produces a moving image on the retina of an observer. It is shown that only the first-order spatial derivatives of image motion are sufficient to determine (i) the maximum and minimum time-to-collision of the observer and the object and (ii) the maximum and minimum angular velocity of the object along the direction of view. The second or higher order derivatives whose estimation is expensive and unreliable are not necessary. (The second-order derivatives are necessary to determine the actual motion of the object.) These results are interpreted in the image domain in terms of three differential invariants of the image flow field: divergence, curl , and shear magnitude . In the world domain, the above results are interpreted in terms of the motion and local surface orientation of the object. In particular, the result that the minimum time-to-collision could be determined from only the first order derivatives has a fundamental significance to both biological and machine vision systems. It implies that an organism (or a robot) can quickly respond to avoid collision with a moving object from only coarse information. This capability exists irrespective of the shape or motion of the object. The only restriction is that motion should be rigid.

[1]  M. Subbarad,et al.  Interpretation of Visual Motion: A Computational Study , 1988 .

[2]  Berthold K. P. Horn,et al.  Determining Optical Flow , 1981, Other Conferences.

[3]  K. Kanatani Structure and motion from optical flow under orthographic projection , 1986 .

[4]  Andrea J. van Doorn,et al.  Invariant Properties of the Motion Parallax Field due to the Movement of Rigid Bodies Relative to an Observer , 1975 .

[5]  Allen M. Waxman,et al.  Contour Evolution, Neighborhood Deformation, and Global Image Flow: Planar Surfaces in Motion , 1985 .

[6]  Allen M. Waxman,et al.  Surface Structure and Three-Dimensional Motion from Image Flow Kinematics , 1985 .

[7]  James A. Caviness,et al.  Persistent Fear Responses in Rhesus Monkeys to the Optical Stimulus of "Looming" , 1962, Science.

[8]  Kenichi Kanatani Structure from Motion Without Correspondence: General Principle , 1985, IJCAI.

[9]  Muralidhara Subbarao Interpretation of Image Flow: A Spatio-Temporal Approach , 1989, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[10]  Gilad Adiv,et al.  Inherent Ambiguities in Recovering 3-D Motion and Structure from a Noisy Flow Field , 1989, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[11]  R. Aris Vectors, Tensors and the Basic Equations of Fluid Mechanics , 1962 .

[12]  Kenichi Kanatani,et al.  Structure and motion from optical flow under perspective projection , 1987, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[13]  Ellen C. Hildreth,et al.  Measurement of Visual Motion , 1984 .

[14]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Local structure of movement parallax of the plane , 1976 .

[15]  Allen M. Waxman,et al.  Closed from solutions to image flow equations for planar surfaces in motion , 1986, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[16]  H C Longuet-Higgins,et al.  The visual ambiguity of a moving plane , 1984, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[17]  K. Kanatani Group-Theoretical Methods in Image Understanding , 1990 .

[18]  H. C. Longuet-Higgins,et al.  The interpretation of a moving retinal image , 1980, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[19]  Randal C. Nelson,et al.  Using Flow Field Divergence For Obstacle Avoidance: Towards Qualitative Vision , 1988, [1988 Proceedings] Second International Conference on Computer Vision.