Recovery of structure from motion: Implications for a performance theory based on the structure-from-motion theorem

The structure-from-motion theorem asserts that three projective views of four elements in motion are sufficient to specify the structure of the object to which the elements belong. Seven experiments were conducted to determine whether the perceptual recovery of structure in human observers is favorable to an interpretation of the theorem as aperformance theory. In six experiments, subjects either discriminated simulations of objects in rotation around the y-axis versus randomly perturbed counterparts or tried to identify them. As the rotation angle between frames of the simulations increased, performance accuracy decreased. Furthermore, performance accuracy did not depend upon the type of projection (parallel versus polar) or upon the coplanarity/ noncoplanarity of the stimulus elements. A seventh experiment showed that the subjective appearance of structure breaks down when the angle of rotation between successive frames exceeds about 35.5°. Because the subjects' performance in some conditions exceeded expectations based upon constraints imposed by the structure-from-motion theorem, it is suggested that additional algorithms or heuristic rules might need to be considered when interpreting human recovery of structure in such displays.

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

[2]  M. Braunstein.  Depth perception in rotating dot patterns: effects of numerosity and perspective. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  W. Hershberger,et al.  Depth perception from motion parallax in one-dimensional polar projections: projection versus viewing distance. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

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

[6]  M. Braunstein.  Depth perception through motion , 1976 .

[7]  Gunnar Johansson,et al.  Visual Event Perception , 1978 .

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

[9]  J. Timothy Petersik,et al.  Factors controlling the competing sensations produced by a bistable stroboscopic motion display , 1979, Vision Research.

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

[11]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  Visual psychophysics on the APPLE II: Getting started , 1980 .

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

[13]  J. T. Petersik,et al.  The Effects of Spatial and Temporal Factors on the Perception of Stroboscopic Rotation Simulations , 1980, Perception.

[14]  J T Petersik,et al.  Rotation judgments and depth judgments: Separate or dependent processes? , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  C. Baker,et al.  The basis of area and dot number effects in random dot motion perception , 1982, Vision Research.

[16]  J. T. Petersik,et al.  Failure to find an absolute retinal limit of a putative short-range process in apparent motion , 1983, Vision Research.

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

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

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

[20]  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.

[21]  James E. Cutting,et al.  Perception with an eye for motion , 1986 .