Analytic determination of the depth effect in stereokinetic phenomena without a rigidity assumption

When a circular disk with an eccentric dot is set in slow rotary motion a compelling impression of a three-dimensional cone is observed. Similarly a line segment of constant length, a bar, rotating on the frontal plane appears slanted in depth. The two stereokinetic phenomena cannot be explained on the basis of Ullman's method of extracting depth from 2-D moving stimuli i.e. the rigidity assumption. A new analytic model is here presented based on the hypothesis that the visual system minimizes the relative velocity differences among all the points of the moving pattern. Two different methods of calculating the depth displacement are described: the velocity field method and the trajectories method. Both lead to the same results. A comparison of the theoretical results with the experimental ones supports the validity of the model.

[1]  M. Zanforlin.  The height of a stereokinetic cone: A quantitative determination of a 3-D effect from 2-D moving patterns without a “rigidity assumption” , 1988, Psychological research.

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

[3]  G Johansson,et al.  Vector analysis in visual perception of rolling motion , 1974, Psychologische Forschung.

[4]  H. Wallach,et al.  Circles and derived figures in rotation. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  R. B. Mefferd.  Perception of Depth in Rotating Objects: 7. Influence of Attributes of Depth on Stereokinetic Percepts , 1968 .

[6]  K. Duncker,et al.  Über induzierte Bewegung , 1929 .

[7]  Mario Zanforlin,et al.  Quantitative determination of the three-dimensional appearances of a rotating ellipse without a rigidity assumption , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

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

[9]  G. Fischer.  Factors affecting estimation of depth with variations of the stereokinetic effect. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[10]  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.

[11]  J E Cutting,et al.  Perception and information. , 1987, Annual review of psychology.

[12]  D. D. Hoffman,et al.  The computation of structure from fixed-axis motion: rigid structures , 1986, Biological Cybernetics.

[13]  H. C. Longuet-Higgins.  Visual motion ambiguity , 1986, Vision Research.

[14]  G. Vallortigara,et al.  The Magic Wand: A New Stereokinetic Anomalous Surface , 1990, Perception.

[15]  S Ullman,et al.  Rigidity and Misperceived Motion , 1984, Perception.

[16]  G. Vallortigara,et al.  Depth effect from a rotating line of constant length , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  M. Egelhaaf,et al.  Movement detectors provide sufficient information for local computation of 2-D velocity field , 1988, Naturwissenschaften.

[18]  G J Andersen,et al.  A Counterexample to the Rigidity Assumption in the Visual Perception of Structure from Motion , 1984, Perception.

[19]  D. Piggins,et al.  Shape, Height and Angular Movement in Stereokinesis , 1985, Perception.