Metrics for the strength of low-level motion perception

Abstract It is tempting to explain apparent motion perception in terms of a similarity metric: the perception of apparent motion between two image elements, displayed at different positions in space and different moments in time, is carried by the similarity of the elements. Alternatively, apparent motion perception can be modeled in terms of a covariance metric: motion strength is determined by the product of receptive subunit outputs that sense certain local image qualities (e.g., incremental flux). We present an ambiguous motion paradigm that (in contrast to previously used paradigms) allows us to discriminate between a similarity metric and a covariance metric. The results provide clear evidence against a similarity metric. It is shown that motion between elements that differ in some qualities can easily dominate motion between identical elements (which is predicted by a covariance metric). The element qualities examined are contrast, area, and incremental flux. This study is aimed at the low-level motion domain.

[1]  S. McKee,et al.  The detection of motion in the peripheral visual field , 1984, Vision Research.

[2]  D. Navon,et al.  Irrelevance of figural identity for resolving ambiguities in apparent motion. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[4]  S. Ullman.  The Effect of Similarity between Line Segments on the Correspondence Strength in Apparent Motion , 1980, Perception.

[5]  L Chen,et al.  Topological Structure in the Perception of Apparent Motion , 1985, Perception.

[6]  J. van Santen,et al.  Temporal covariance model of human motion perception. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[7]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  The perception of apparent motion. , 1986, Scientific American.

[8]  Robert B. Lawson,et al.  Human stereopsis : a psychophysical analysis , 1976 .

[9]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  Apparent motion occurs only between similar spatial frequencies , 1986, Vision Research.

[10]  John A. Baro,et al.  Apparent motion can be perceived between patterns with dissimilar spatial frequencies , 1988, Vision Research.

[11]  O. Braddick.  A short-range process in apparent motion. , 1974, Vision research.

[12]  S. Anstis.  The perception of apparent movement. , 1980, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[13]  Shaul Hochstein,et al.  Size, flux and luminance effects in the apparent motion correspondence process , 1989, Vision Research.

[14]  Peter Hillman,et al.  Shape similarity and distance disparity as apparent motion correspondence cues , 1988, Vision Research.

[15]  J. van Santen,et al.  Elaborated Reichardt detectors. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[16]  P. Burt,et al.  Time, distance, and feature trade-offs in visual apparent motion. , 1981, Psychological review.

[17]  W. Reichardt.  Movement perception in insects , 1969 .

[18]  E H Adelson,et al.  Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[19]  B. Julesz,et al.  Displacement limits for spatial frequency filtered random-dot cinematograms in apparent motion , 1983, Vision Research.

[20]  J J Koenderink,et al.  Effects of element orientation on apparent motion perception , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  A J Ahumada,et al.  Model of human visual-motion sensing. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[22]  M E Wilson,et al.  Invariant features of spatial summation with changing locus in the visual field , 1970, The Journal of physiology.

[23]  D. G. Albrecht,et al.  Striate cortex of monkey and cat: contrast response function. , 1982, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  J. Frisby.  The effect of stimulus orientation on the phi phenomenon. , 1972, Vision research.

[25]  P. Burt,et al.  Time, distance, and feature trade-offs in visual apparent motion. , 1981 .

[26]  J. Koenderink,et al.  The distribution of human motion detector properties in the monocular visual field , 1986, Vision Research.