Continuity-based and discontinuity-based segmentation in transparent and spatially segregated global motion

The mechanisms underlying the parsing of a spatial distribution of velocity vectors into two adjacent (spatially segregated) or overlapping (transparent) motion surfaces were examined using random dot kinematograms. Parsing might occur using either of two principles. Surfaces might be defined on the basis of similarity of motion vectors and then sharp perceptual boundaries drawn between different surfaces (continuity-based segmentation). Alternatively, detection of a high gradient of direction or speed separating the motion surfaces might drive the process (discontinuity-based segmentation). To establish which method is used, we examined the effect of blurring the motion direction gradient. In the case of a sharp direction gradient, each dot had one of two directions differing by 135 degrees. With a shallow gradient, most dots had one of two directions but the directions of the remainder spanned the range between one motion-defined surface and the other. In the spatial segregation case the gradient defined a central boundary separating two regions. In the transparent version the dots were randomly positioned. In both cases all dots moved with the same speed and existed for only two frames before being randomly replaced. The ability of observers to parse the motion distribution was measured in terms of their ability to discriminate the direction of one of the two surfaces. Performance was hardly affected by spreading the gradient over at least 25% of the dots (corresponding to a 1 degrees strip in the segregation case). We conclude that detection of sharp velocity gradients is not necessary for distinguishing different motion surfaces.

[1]  A. T. Smith,et al.  What motion distributions yield global transparency and spatial segmentation? , 1999, Vision Research.

[2]  W. Newsome,et al.  A selective impairment of motion perception following lesions of the middle temporal visual area (MT) , 1988, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[3]  Michael S. Landy,et al.  Computational models of visual processing , 1991 .

[4]  R A Andersen,et al.  Transparent motion perception as detection of unbalanced motion signals. III. Modeling , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[5]  T. Caelli Three processing characteristics of visual texture segmentation. , 1985, Spatial vision.

[6]  K. H. Britten,et al.  Neuronal correlates of a perceptual decision , 1989, Nature.

[7]  P Møller,et al.  Psychophysical evidence for fast region-based segmentation processes in motion and color. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Assimilation and contrast in motion perception: Explorations in cooperativity , 1990, Vision Research.

[9]  R A Andersen,et al.  Transparent motion perception as detection of unbalanced motion signals. I. Psychophysics , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[10]  Robert Sekuler,et al.  Coherent global motion percepts from stochastic local motions , 1984, Vision Research.

[11]  T. Poggio,et al.  A parallel algorithm for real-time computation of optical flow , 1989, Nature.

[12]  Michael S. Landy,et al.  Orthogonal Distribution Analysis: A New Approach to the Study of Texture Perception , 1991 .

[13]  D. Burr,et al.  Receptive field size of human motion detection units , 1987, Vision Research.

[14]  Norberto M. Grzywacz,et al.  A computational theory for the perception of coherent visual motion , 1988, Nature.

[15]  T. D. Albright,et al.  Transparency and coherence in human motion perception , 1990, Nature.

[16]  A. V. van den Berg,et al.  The role of early mechanisms in motion transparency and coherence. , 1993, Spatial vision.