Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 172, Issue 4, pp 533–555 | Cite as

On the similarities between the perception and production of elliptical trajectories

  • Nava Levit-Binnun
  • Edna Schechtman
  • Tamar FlashEmail author
Research Article


In an earlier study, Viviani and Stucchi (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:603–623, 1992) have introduced a visual illusion, whereby it was shown that when subjects are asked to determine what movement of a light spot, when tracing an elliptical trajectory, appears to be most uniform, they tend to choose movements that are close to obeying the 2/3 power law (Lacquaniti et al. Acta Psychol 54:115–130, 1983) rather than constant speed movements, even though the actual changes in velocity could exceed 200%. Here we have extended the study of this illusion by directly testing the effect of the shape (eccentricity) and size (perimeter) of the elliptical trajectory, the duration of the tracing of the ellipse and the effect of fixation on the subjects’ decision regarding movement uniformity. We found that the ellipse’s eccentricity and tracing out speed of the elliptical trajectory significantly affect the subjects’ decisions, although the effect of eccentricity seems to be stronger than that of speed. Our findings also indicated that fixation significantly affects the subject’s decision for ellipses that are more eccentric. Surprisingly, the ellipse’s perimeter had a much smaller effect on the subjects’ decisions, although changes in the ellipse’s perimeter should have the same effect on the average velocity as changes in the time it takes to trace out the ellipse. This suggested the possibility that the subjects based their decision regarding movement uniformity on other velocity variables in addition to tangential velocity. Computer simulations we have performed have led us to conclude that the subjects’ perception of movement uniformity may also be based on assessing the variations in angular velocity and possibly also in affine velocity. Our behavioral and simulation studies thus suggest that the motion perception system is quite responsive to variations in the velocity along an elliptical trajectory but in a way that depends on the path’s curvature. Furthermore, the movement is judged to be more uniform when there are minimal differences in angular, tangential and perhaps also in affine velocities, along the trajectory. Our results suggest the existence of similar underlying constraints that affect both the motion perception and production systems when the movements are associated with very large velocities or large changes in velocity along more curved portions of the trajectory. Our observations therefore provide further insight into the possibility that these constraints are either imposed by the underlying neuronal dynamics, the internal architecture of the cortical neural populations or the variables used in the coding of both sensory and motor information regarding movement.


Tangential Velocity Motion Perception Uniform Velocity Movement Uniformity High Eccentricity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The research was supported in part by a grant from DIP (the German-Israeli Project Cooperation and by the Moross laboratory. Tamar Flash is the incumbent of Dr. Hymie Moross Professorial Chair.


  1. de’Sperati C, Stucchi N (1995) Visual tuning to kinematics of biological motion: the role of eye movements. Exp Brain Res 105:254–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. de’Sperati C, Viviani P (1997) The relationship between curvature and velocity in two-dimensional smooth pursuit eye movements. J Neurosci 17:3932–3945PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Flach R, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2004) The two-thirds power law in motion perception. Vis Cogn 11(4):461–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Flash T, Handzel AA (1996) Affine differential geometry of human arm trajectories. Abstracts of the Society for NeuroscienceGoogle Scholar
  5. Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5:1688–1703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Freyd JJ, Finke RA (1984) Representational momentum. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 10:126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Georgopoulos AP (1995) Current issues in directional motor control. Trends Neurosci 18:506–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Georgopoulos AP, Schwartz AB, Kettner RE (1986) Neuronal population coding of movement direction. Science 233:1416–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gribble PL, Ostry DJ (1996) Origins of the power law relation between movement velocity and curvature: modeling the effects of muscle mechanics and limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol 76:2853–2860PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Groh JM (2000) Predicting perception from population codes. Nat Neurosci 3(3):201–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Handzel AA, Flash T (1999) Geometric methods in the study of human motor control. Cogn Stud 6:1–13Google Scholar
  12. Harris CM, Wolpert DM (1998) Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394(6695):780–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kandel S, Orliaguet JP, Viviani P (2000) Perceptual anticipation in handwriting: the role of implicit motor competence. Percept Psychophys 62(4):706–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lacquaniti F, Terzuolo C, Viviani P (1983) The law relating the kinematic and figural aspects of drawing movements. Acta Psychol 54:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Massey JT, Lurito JT, Pellizzer G, Georgopoulos AP (1992) TI 3-dimensional drawings in isometric conditions—relation between geometry and kinematics. Exp Brain Res 88:685–690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moran DW, Schwartz AB (1999) Motor cortical activity during drawing movements: population representation during spiral tracing. J Neurophysiol 82:2693–2704PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ott RL, Longnecker M (2000) An introduction to statistical methods and data, 5th edn. Duxbury Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Pellizzer G (1997) Transformation of the intended direction of movement during continuous motor trajectories. Neuroreport 8:3447–3452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pollick F, Sapiro G (1997) Constant affine velocity predicts the 1/3 power law of planar motion perception and generation. Vision Res 37:347–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Richardson MJE, Flash T (2002) Comparing smooth arm movements with the two-thirds power law and the related segmented-control hypothesis. J Neurosci 22:8201–8211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Runeson S (1974) Constant velocity—not perceived as such. Psychol Res 37:3–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schaal S, Sternad D (2001) Origins and violations of the 2/3 power law in rhythmic three-dimensional arm movements. Exp Brain Res 136:60–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schwartz AB (1992) Motor cortical activity during drawing movements: single-unit activity during sinusoid tracing. J Neurophysiol 68:528–541PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwartz AB (1993) Motor cortical activity during drawing movements: population representation during sinusoid tracing. J Neurophysiol 70:28–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schwartz AB (1994) Direct cortical representation of drawing. Science 265:540–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwartz AB, Moran DW (1999) Motor cortical activity during drawing movements: population representation during lemniscate tracing. J Neurophysiol 82:2705–2718PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwartz AB, Moran DW (2000) Arm trajectory and representation of movement processing in motor cortical activity. Eur J Neurosci 12:1851–1856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Snowden RJ, Treue S, Andersen RA (1992) The response of neurons in area-VI and area-MT of the alert Rhesus monkey to moving random dot patterns. Exp Brain Res 88(2):389–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Todorov E, Jordan MI (1998) Smoothness maximization along a predefined path accurately predicts the speed profiles of complex arm movements. J Neurophysiol 80:696–714PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Treue S, Hol K, Rauber HJ, (2000) Seeing multiple directions of motion—physiology and psychophysics. Nat Neurosci 3:270–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Viviani P (2002) Motor competence in the perception of dynamic events: a tutorial. Atten Perform 19:406–442Google Scholar
  32. Viviani P, Cenzato M (1985) Segmentation and coupling in complex movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 11:828–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Viviani P, Flash T (1995) Minimum-jerk, two-thirds power law, and isochrony: converging approaches to movement planning. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:32–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Viviani P, Schneider R (1991) A developmental study of the relationship between geometry and kinematics in drawing movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 17:198–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Viviani P, Stucchi N (1989) The effect of movement velocity on form perception: geometric illusions in dynamic displays. Percept Psychophys 46:266–274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Viviani P, Stucchi N (1992) Biological movements look uniform: evidence of motor-perceptual interactions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:603–623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Viviani P, Terzuolo C (1982) Trajectory determines movement dynamics. Neuroscience 7:431–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wann J, Nimmo-Smith I, Wing AM (1988) Relation between velocity and curvature in movement: equivalence and divergence between a power law and a minimum-jerk model. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 14:622–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nava Levit-Binnun
    • 1
    • 3
  • Edna Schechtman
    • 2
  • Tamar Flash
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Applied MathematicsWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering and ManagementBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer ShevaIsrael
  3. 3.Physics of Complex SystemsWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations