Wholes and subparts in visual processing of human agency

The human visual system is remarkably sensitive to stimuli conveying actions, for example the fighting action between two agents. A central unresolved question is whether each agent is processed as a whole in one stage, or as subparts (e.g. limbs) that are assembled into an agent at a later stage. We measured the perceptual impact of perturbing an agent either by scrambling individual limbs while leaving the relationship between limbs unaffected or conversely by scrambling the relationship between limbs while leaving individual limbs unaffected. Our measurements differed for the two conditions, providing conclusive evidence against a one-stage model. The results were instead consistent with a two-stage processing pathway: an early bottom-up stage where local motion signals are integrated to reconstruct individual limbs (arms and legs), and a subsequent top-down stage where limbs are combined to represent whole agents.

[1]  J. Gaddum.  Probit Analysis , 1948, Nature.

[2]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

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

[4]  D. Burr.  Motion smear , 1980, Nature.

[5]  Jake K. Aggarwal,et al.  Structure from Motion of Rigid and Jointed Objects , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[6]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the movements of shapes , 1982, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[7]  S. Sumi.  Upside-down Presentation of the Johansson Moving Light-Spot Pattern , 1984, Perception.

[8]  I. Biederman.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[9]  H. Barlow.  Cerebral Cortex as Model Builder , 1987 .

[10]  T. Valentine.  Upside-down faces: a review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. , 1988, British journal of psychology.

[11]  B. Bertenthal,et al.  Converging operations revisited: Assessing what infants perceive using discrimination measures , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  Richard G. Kurial,et al.  Representation and recognition , 1990 .

[13]  Karl J. Friston.  Functional and effective connectivity in neuroimaging: A synthesis , 1994 .

[14]  Lamberti Vs,et al.  [Subantral graft: clinical application of the biological principles osseoinduction in the treatment of posterior maxillary atrophy]. , 1994 .

[15]  John Nagle,et al.  Realistic animation of legged running on rough terrain , 1995, Proceedings Computer Animation'95.

[16]  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.

[17]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  Specific Involvement of Human Parietal Systems and the Amygdala in the Perception of Biological Motion , 1996, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  R. Blake,et al.  Perception of Biological Motion , 1997, Perception.

[19]  Pawan Sinha,et al.  Top-down influences on stereoscopic depth-perception , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[20]  David C. Burr,et al.  Seeing biological motion , 1998, Nature.

[21]  M. Shiffrar,et al.  Subconfigurations of the human form in the perception of biological motion displays. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[22]  M. Pavlova,et al.  Orientation specificity in biological motion perception , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  R. Blake,et al.  Brain activity evoked by inverted and imagined biological motion , 2001, Vision Research.

[24]  Mark A. Changizi.  The economy of the shape of limbed animals , 2001, Biological Cybernetics.

[25]  K. Seitz.  Parts and wholes in person recognition: developmental trends. , 2002, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[26]  R. Blake,et al.  What constitutes an efficient reference frame for vision? , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[27]  Michel Vidal-Naquet,et al.  Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[28]  R. Blake,et al.  Brain Areas Active during Visual Perception of Biological Motion , 2002, Neuron.

[29]  Henrik Olsson,et al.  Are Mechanisms for Perception of Biological Motion Different from Mechanisms for Perception of Nonbiological Motion? , 2002, Perceptual and motor skills.

[30]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Visual Recognition of Biological Motion is Impaired in Children With Autism , 2003, Psychological science.

[31]  T. Poggio,et al.  Cognitive neuroscience: Neural mechanisms for the recognition of biological movements , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

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

[33]  M. Fujita,et al.  Adaptive filter model of the cerebellum , 1982, Biological Cybernetics.

[34]  J. Cutting.  Coding Theory Adapted to Gait Perception , 1981 .

[35]  D. Pelli,et al.  Are faces processed like words? A diagnostic test for recognition by parts. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[36]  Aina Puce,et al.  Configural Processing of Biological Motion in Human Superior Temporal Sulcus , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[37]  J. Lange,et al.  A Model of Biological Motion Perception from Configural Form Cues , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[38]  Peter Neri,et al.  Meaningful interactions can enhance visual discrimination of human agents , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[39]  Catherine L Reed,et al.  Turning configural processing upside down: part and whole body postures. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  N. Troje,et al.  The Inversion Effect in Biological Motion Perception: Evidence for a “Life Detector”? , 2006, Current Biology.

[41]  G. Boynton,et al.  Adaptation: from single cells to BOLD signals , 2006, Trends in Neurosciences.

[42]  P. Downing,et al.  The neural basis of visual body perception , 2007, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[43]  P. Haggard,et al.  Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reveals Two Cortical Pathways for Visual Body Processing , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[44]  Dennis M. Levi,et al.  Sensitivity to biological motion drops by ∼1/2 log-unit with inversion, and is unaffected by amblyopia , 2007, Vision Research.

[45]  Klaas E. Stephan,et al.  Funktionelle und effektive Konnektivität , 2009 .