Abstract
Wemeasured thresholds for the monocular discrimination of rigidly and nonrigidly moving objects defined by motion parallax. The retinal projections of rigidly moving objects are subject to certain constraints. By applying smooth 2-D transformations to the projections of rigidly moving objects, we created stimuli in which these constraints were affected. Thresholds for (generic) nonrigid transformations that in theory can be detected from rigid ones by processing pairs of views depended not only on the extent to which the rigidity constraints were affected, but also on the structure and the movement of the simulated object. Nonrigid transformations under which every three successive views had a rigid interpretation were not discriminable from rigid transformations, except in cases where the distortions were very large. Under the rigidity assumption, this would mean that a large class of nonrigidly moving objects is erroneously perceived as rigidly moving.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ames, A. (1951). Visual perception and the rotating trapezoidal window. Psychological Monographs, 65 (7, No. 324.
Bennett, B. M., Hoffman, D. D., Nicola, J. E., &Prakash, C. (1989). Structure from two orthographic views of rigid motion.Journal of the Optical Society of America A,6, 1052–1069.
Braunstein, M. L., &Andersen, G. J. (1984). A counterexample to the rigidity assumption in the visual perception of structure from motion.Perception,13, 213–217.
Braunstein, M. L., Hoffman, D. D., &Pollick, E E. (1990). Discriminating rigid from nonrigid motion: Minimum points and views.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 205–214.
Braunstein, M. L., Hoffman, D. D., Shapiro, L. R, Andersen, G. J., & Bennett, B. M. (1987). Minimum points and views for the recovery of three-dimensional structure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 335–343.
Hogervorst, M. A, Kappers, A M. L., &Koenderink, J. J. (1996). Structure from motion: A tolerance analysis.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 449–459.
Husain, M., Treue, S., &Andersen, R. A. (1989). Surface interpolation in three-dimensional structure-from-motion perception.Neural Computation,1, 324–333.
Jansson, G., &Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of bending motion.Perception,2, 321–326.
Johansson, G. (1974). Visual perception of rotary motion as transformation of conic sections.Psychologia,17, 226–237.
Koenderink, J. J., &Van Doorn, A. J. (1986). Depth and shape from differential perspective in the presence of bending deformations.Journal of the Optical Society of America A,3, 242–249.
Koenderink, J. J., &Van Doorn, A. J. (1987). Facts on optic flow.Biological Cybernetics,56, 247–254.
Koenderink, J. J., &Van Doorn, A. J. (1991). Affine structure from motion.Journal of the Optical Society of America A,8, 377–385.
Musatti, C. L. (1924). Sui fenomeni stereocinetici [On stereokinetic phenomena].Archivio Italiano di Psicologia,3, 105–120.
Nakayama, K. (1985). Higher order derivatives of the optical velocity vector field: Limitations imposed by biological hardware. In D. Ingle, M. Jeannerod, & D. Lee (Eds.),Brain mechanisms and spatial vision (pp. 59–71). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Norman, J. E., &Todd, J. T. (1993). The perceptual analysis of structure from motion for rotating objects undergoing affine stretching transformations.Perception & Psychophysics,53, 279–291.
Perotti, V. J., Todd, J. T, & Norman, J. E. (1996). The visual perception of rigid motion from constant flow fields.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 666–679.
Petersik, J. T. (1987). Recovery of structure from motion: Implications for a performance theory based on the structure-from-motion theorem.Perception & Psychophysics,42, 355–364.
Pomerantz, J. R. (1983). The rubber pencil illusion.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 365–368.
Saidpour, A., Braunstein, M. L., &Hoffman, D. D. (1992). Interpolation in structure from motion.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 105–117.
Todd, J. T. (1982). Visual information about rigid and nonrigid motion: A geometric analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 238–252.
Todd, J. T. (1984). The perception of three-dimensional structure from rigid and nonrigid motion.Perception & Psychophysics,36, 97–103.
Todd, J. T., &Bressan, P. (1990). The perception of 3-dimensional affine structure from minimal apparent motion sequences.Perception & Psychophysics,48, 419–430.
Ullman, S. (1977).The interpretation of visual motion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Ullman, S. (1979).The interpretation of visual motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ullman, S. (1983). Recent computational studies in the interpretation of structure from motion. In A. Rosenfeld & J. Beck (Eds.),Human and machine vision (pp. 459–480). New York: Academic Press.
Wallach, H., &O’Connell, D. N. (1953). The kinetic depth effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology,45, 205–217.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hogervorst, M.A., Kappers, A.M.L. & Koenderink, J.J. Monocular discrimination of rigidly and nonrigidly moving objects. Perception & Psychophysics 59, 1266–1279 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214213
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214213