Applications of computer-graphics animation for motion-perception research

The advantages and limitations of using computer-animated stimuli in studying motion-perception are presented and discussed. Most current programs of motion-perception research could not be pursued without the use of computer-graphics animation. Computer-generated displays afford latitudes of freedom and control that are almost impossible to attain through conventional methods. There are, however, limitations to this presentational medium. Computer-generated displays present simplified approximations of the dynamics in natural events. Very little is known about how the differences between natural events and computer simulations influence perceptual processing. In practice, it is assumed that the findings of computer generated stimuli will generalize to natural events.

[1]  Margaret A. Hagen,et al.  The Perception of Pictures , 1982 .

[2]  Bennett I. Bertenthal,et al.  3-D graphics animation program for the Apple II , 1985 .

[3]  B. Bertenthal,et al.  The role of occlusion in reducing multistability in moving point-light displays , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  S. Gunnar O. Johansson,et al.  Configurations in event perception : an experimental study , 1951 .

[5]  Nelson L. Max,et al.  A two-and-a-half-D motion-blur algorithm , 1985, SIGGRAPH '85.

[6]  Myron L. Braunstein,et al.  Depth perception through motion , 1976 .

[7]  Tomoyuki Nishita,et al.  Continuous tone representation of three-dimensional objects taking account of shadows and interreflection , 1985, SIGGRAPH '85.

[8]  P. Kutler,et al.  A perspective of theoretical and applied computational fluid dynamics , 1983 .

[9]  Ida.  NASA-TM - , 2022 .

[10]  James E. Cutting,et al.  A program to generate synthetic walkers as dynamic point-light displays , 1978 .

[11]  Anthony A. Maciejewski,et al.  Computational modeling for the computer animation of legged figures , 1985, SIGGRAPH.

[12]  George J. Andersen,et al.  The use of occlusion to resolve ambiguity in parallel projections , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[14]  C. Sparrow.  The Fractal Geometry of Nature , 1984 .

[15]  B. Bertenthal,et al.  Infant sensitivity to figural coherence in biomechanical motions. , 1984, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[16]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Judgments of natural and anomalous trajectories in the presence and absence of motion. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  Norman I. Badler,et al.  Parametric keyframe interpolation incorporating kinetic adjustment and phrasing control , 1985, SIGGRAPH.

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

[19]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  Window of visibility: a psychophysical theory of fidelity in time-sampled visual motion displays , 1986 .

[20]  G. Johansson.  Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis , 1973 .

[21]  James T. Kajiya,et al.  Anisotropic reflection models , 1985, SIGGRAPH.

[22]  B Rogers,et al.  Motion Parallax as an Independent Cue for Depth Perception , 1979, Perception.

[23]  Robert L. Cook,et al.  Distributed ray tracing , 1984, SIGGRAPH.