Abstract
Human observers can perceive the three- dimensional (3-D) structure of their environment using various cues, an important one of which is optic flow. The motion of any point’s projection on the retina depends both on the point’s movement in space and on its distance from the eye. Therefore, retinal motion can be used to extract the 3-D structure of the environment and the shape of objects, in a process known as structure-from-motion (SFM). However, because many combinations of 3-D structure and motion can lead to the same optic flow, SFM is an ill-posed inverse problem. The rigidity hypothesis is a constraint supposed to formally solve the SFM problem and to account for human performance. Recently, however, a number of psychophysical results, with both moving and stationary human observers, have shown that the rigidity hypothesis alone cannot account for human performance in SFM tasks, but no model is known to account for the new results. Here, we construct a Bayesian model of SFM based mainly on one new hypothesis, that of stationarity, coupled with the rigidity hypothesis. The predictions of the model, calculated using a new and powerful methodology called Bayesian programming, account for a wide variety of experimental findings.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cornilleau-Pérès V, Wexler M, Droulez J, Marin E, Miège C and Bourdoncle B (2002). Visual perception of planar orientation: dominance of static depth cues over motion cues. Vision Res 42: 1403–1412
Dijkstra T, Cornilleau-Pérès V, Gielen C and Droulez J (1995). Perception of three-dimensional shape from ego- and object-motion: comparison between small- and large-field stimuli. Vision Res 35(4): 453–462
Domini F and Braunstein M (1998). Recovery of 3-D structure from motion is neither Euclidean nor affine. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24(4): 1273–1295
Domini F and Caudek C (1999). Perceiving surface slant from deformation of optic flow. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25(2): 426–444
Domini F and Caudek C (2003). 3-D structure perceived from dynamic information: a new theory. Trends Cogn Sci 7(10): 444–449
Ernst M and Banks M (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415(6870): 429–433
Kersten D, Mamassian P and Yuille A (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annu Rev Psychol 55: 271–304
Koenderik J (1986). Optic flow. Vision Res 26(1): 161–179
Landy M, Maloney L, Johnston E and Young M (1995). Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion. Vision Res 35: 389–412
Lebeltel O, Bessière P, Diard J, Mazer E (2004) Bayesian robot programming. Adv Robot 16(1):49–79. http://emotion.inrialpes.fr/bibemotion/2004/LBDM04/
Longuet-Higgins H (1984). The visual ambiguity of a moving plane. Proc R Soc Lond (B Biol Sci) 223: 165–175
Mayhew J and Longuet-Higgins H (1982). A computational model of binoculard depth perception. Nature 297(5865): 376–378
Naji J and Freeman T (2004). Perceiving depth order during pursuit eye movement. Vision Res 44: 3025–3034
Rogers B and Graham M (1979). Motion parallax as an independent cue for depth perception. Perception 8: 125–134
Rogers B and Rogers S (1992). Visual and nonvisual information disambiguate surfaces specified by motion parallax. Percept Psychophys 52: 446–452
Todd J and Bressan P (1990). The perception of 3-dimensional affine structure from minimal apparent motion sequences. Percept Psychophys 45(5): 419–430
Todd J and Norman J (1991). The visual perception of smoothly curved surfaces from minimal apparent motion sequences. Percept Psychophys 50(6): 509–523
Ullman S (1979). The interpretation of visual motion. MIT Press, Cambridge
van Boxtel J, Wexler M, Droulez J (2003) Perception of plane orientation from self-generated and passively observed optic flow. J Vis 3(5):318–332. http://journalofvision.org/3/5/1/
Helmholtz H (1867). Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik. Voss, Hamburg
Wallach H and O’Connell D (1953). The kinetic depth effect. J Exp Psychol 45: 205–217
Wallach H, Stanton J and Becker D (1974). The compensation for movement-produced changes in object orientation. Percept Psychophys 15: 339–343
Weiss Y, Simoncelli E and Adelson E (2002). Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nat Neurosci 5(6): 508–510
Wexler M (2003). Voluntary head movement and allocentric perception of space. Psychol Sci 14: 340–346
Wexler M, Lamouret I and Droulez J (2001a). The stationarity hypothesis: an allocentric criterion in visual perception. Vision Res 41: 3023–3037
Wexler M, Panerai F, Lamouret I and Droulez J (2001b). Self-motion and the perception of stationary objects. Nature 409: 85–88
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Colas, F., Droulez, J., Wexler, M. et al. A unified probabilistic model of the perception of three-dimensional structure from optic flow. Biol Cybern 97, 461–477 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-007-0183-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-007-0183-z