Determination of visual figure and ground in dynamically deforming shapes

Figure/ground assignment - determining which part of the visual image is foreground and which background - is a critical step in early visual analysis, upon which much later processing depends. Previous research on the assignment of figure and ground to opposing sides of a contour has almost exclusively involved static geometric factors - such as convexity, symmetry, and size - in non-moving images. Here, we introduce a new class of cue to figural assignment based on the motion of dynamically deforming contours. Subjects viewing an animated, deforming shape tended to assign figure and ground so that articulating curvature extrema - i.e., "hinging" vertices - had negative (concave) contour curvature. This articulating-concavity bias is present when all known static cues to figure/ground are absent or neutral in each of the individual frames of the animation, and even seems to override a number of well-known static cues when they are in opposition to the motion cue. We propose that the phenomenon reflects the visual system's inbuilt expectations about the way shapes will deform - specifically, that deformations tend to involve rigid parts articulating at concavities.

[1]  Jon Driver,et al.  Obligatory edge-assignment in vision: The role of figure and part segmentation in symmetry detection. , 1995 .

[2]  Rolf Nelson,et al.  When does grouping happen? , 2003, Acta psychologica.

[3]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Salience of visual parts , 1997, Cognition.

[4]  E. Adelson,et al.  Phenomenal coherence of moving visual patterns , 1982, Nature.

[5]  G. Baylis,et al.  Shape-coding in IT cells generalizes over contrast and mirror reversal, but not figure-ground reversal , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[6]  Jon Driver,et al.  Preserved figure-ground segregation and symmetry perception in visual neglect , 1992, Nature.

[7]  D. D. Hoffman,et al.  The interpretation of biological motion , 1982, Biological Cybernetics.

[8]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Inferring the relative three-dimensional positions of two moving points. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[9]  Manish Singh,et al.  What change detection tells us about the visual representation of shape. , 2005, Journal of vision.

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

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

[12]  Sheba Heptulla Chatterjee,et al.  Configural processing in the perception of apparent biological motion. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  Anastasia V. Flevaris,et al.  Exogenous Spatial Attention Influences Figure-Ground Assignment , 2004 .

[14]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Visual comparisons within and between object parts: evidence for a single-part superiority effect , 2003, Vision Research.

[15]  B. Gibson,et al.  Must Figure-Ground Organization Precede Object Recognition? An Assumption in Peril , 1994 .

[16]  F. Attneave Multistability in perception. , 1971, Scientific American.

[17]  B. Gibson,et al.  Shape Recognition Inputs To Figure-Ground Organization in Three-Dimensional Displays , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  Mary Henle,et al.  Vision and artifact , 1977 .

[19]  Pawan Sinha,et al.  Role of motion integration in contour perception , 2001, Vision Research.

[20]  Edward H Adelson,et al.  The geometry of the occluding contour and its effect on motion interpretation. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[21]  J. Wagemans,et al.  Segmentation of object outlines into parts: A large-scale integrative study , 2006, Cognition.

[22]  Walter Gerbino,et al.  Convexity and Symmetry in Figure-Ground Organization , 1976 .

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

[24]  G. Woodman,et al.  Lower region: a new cue for figure-ground assignment. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  A. Brookes,et al.  The Concave Cusp as a Determiner of Figure—Ground , 1988, Perception.

[26]  Whitman Richards,et al.  Attentional frames, frame curves and figural boundaries: The inside/outside dilemma , 1996, Vision Research.

[27]  Maggie Shiffrar,et al.  Motion integration across differing image features , 1995, Vision Research.

[28]  M. Wertheimer Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II , 1923 .

[29]  K Nakayama,et al.  Stereoscopic Depth: Its Relation to Image Segmentation, Grouping, and the Recognition of Occluded Objects , 1989, Perception.

[30]  R. von der Heydt,et al.  Coding of Border Ownership in Monkey Visual Cortex , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  H. C. Longuet-Higgins,et al.  The interpretation of a moving retinal image , 1980, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[32]  Jean Lorenceau,et al.  Form constraints in motion binding , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[33]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Detection of change in shape: an advantage for concavities , 2003, Cognition.

[34]  R. Turner,et al.  Form and motion coherence activate independent, but not dorsal/ventral segregated, networks in the human brain , 2000, Current Biology.

[35]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of recognition , 1984, Cognition.

[36]  Victor A. F. Lamme The neurophysiology of figure-ground segregation in primary visual cortex , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[37]  K. Koffka Principles Of Gestalt Psychology , 1936 .

[38]  Scott O. Murray,et al.  Processing Shape, Motion and Three-dimensional Shape-from-motion in the Human Cortex , 2003 .