Abstract
Theoretical investigations of structure from motion have demonstrated that an ideal observer can discriminate rigid from nonrigid motion from two views of as few as four points. We report three experiments that demonstrate similar abilities in human observers: In one experiment, 4 of 6 subjects made this discrimination from two views of four points; the remaining subjects required five points. Accuracy in discriminating rigid from nonrigid motion depended on the amount of nonrigidity (variance ofthe interpoint distances overviews) in the nonrigid structure. The ability to detect a rigid group dropped sharply as noise points (points not part of the rigid group) were added to the display. We conclude that human observers do extremely well in discriminating between nonrigid and fully rigid motion, but that they do quite poorly at segregating points in a display on the basis of rigidity.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bennett, B., &Hoffman, D. (1985). The computation of structure from fixed axis motion: Nonrigid structures.Biological Cybernetics,51, 293–300.
Bennett, B., Hoffman, D., Nicola, J., &Prakash, C. (1989). Structure from two orthographic views of rigid motion.Journal of the optical Society of America A,6, 1052–1069.
Bennett, B., Hoffman, D., &Prakash, C.(1989).Observer mechanics: Aformal theory of perception. New York: Academic Press.
Bobick, A. (1986). A hybrid approach to structure from motion. In N. I. Badler & J. K. Tsotsos (Eds.),Motion: Representation and perception (pp. 91–109). New York: North-Holland.
Braunstein, M. L. (1962). Depth perception in rotating dot patterns: Effects of numerosity and perspective.Journal of Experimental Psychology,64, 415–420.
Braunstein, M. L. (1983, June).How flexible is the rigidity assumption? Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Event Perception and Action, Nashville, TN.
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.
Chasles, M. (1855). Question No. 296.Nouvelles Anna/es de Mathematiques,14, 50.
Doner, J., Lappin, J. S., &Perfetto, G. (1984). Detection of three dimensional structure in moving optical patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 1–11.
Faugeras, O., & Maybank, S. (1989). Motion from point matches: Multiplicity of solutions. InProceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Visual Motion (pp. 248-255).
Gibson, J., &Gibson, E. (1957). Continuous perspective transformations and the perception of rigid motion,Journal of Experimental Psychology,54, 129–138.
Green, B. F., Jr. (1961). Figure coherence in the kinetic depth effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology,62, 272–282.
Green, D. M., &Swets, J. A. (1966).Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Grzywacz, N., &Hildreth, E. (1987). Incremental rigidity scheme for recovering structure from motion: Position-based versus velocity-based formulations.Journal of the Optical Society of America,A4, 503–518.
Hay, C. (1966). Optical motions and space perception: An extension of Gibson’s analysis.Psychological Review,73, 550–565.
Hoffman, D. (1982). Inferring local surface orientation from motion fields.Journal of the Optical Society of America,72, 888–892.
Hoffman, D., &Bennett, B. (1985). Inferring the relative 3-D positions of two moving points.Journal of the Optical Society of America,A2, 350–533.
Hoffman, D., &Bennett, B. (1986). The computation of structure from fixed-axis motion: Rigid structures.Biological Cybernetics,54, 71–83.
Hoffman, D., &Bennett, B. (1988). Perceptual representations: Meaning and truth conditions. In S. Schiffer & S. Steele (Eds.),Cognition and representation (pp. 87–128). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hoffman, D., &Flinchbaugh, B. (1982). The interpretation of biological motion.Biological Cybernetics,42, 195–204.
Huang T., &Lee C. (1989). Motion and structure from orthographic projections.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence,11, 536–540.
Johansson, G. (1975). Visual motion perception.Scientific American,232(6), 76–88.
Koenderink, J., &van Doorn, A. (1975). Invariant properties of the motion parallax field due to the movement of rigid bodies relative to an observer.Optica Acta,22, 773–791.
Koenderink, J. J., &van Doorn, A. J. (1976). Local structure of movement parallax of the plane.Journal of the Optical Society of America,66, 717–723.
Koenderink, J.,&van Doorn, A. (1981). Exterospecific component of the motion parallax field.Journal of the Optical Society of America,71, 953–957.
Koenderink, J., &van Doorn, A. (1986). Depth and shape from differential perspective in the presence of bending deformations.Journal of the Optical Society of America,A3, 242–249.
Kruppa, E. (1913). Zur Ermittlung eines Objektes aus zwei Perspektiven mit innerer Orientierung.Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien: Mathematisch-narurwissenschaftliche Klasse Sitzungsberichte,122, 1939–1948.
Lappin, J. S., Doner, J. F., &Kottas, B. (1980). Minimal conditions for the visual detection of structure and motion in three dimensions.Science,209, 717–719.
Longuet-Higgins, H. C. (1982). The role of the vertical dimension in stereoscopic vision.Perception,11, 377–386.
Longuet-Higgins, H. C., &Prazdny, K. (1980). The interpretation of moving retinal images.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,208B, 385–397.
Marascuilo, L. A. (1970). Extensions of the significance test for one-parameter signal detection hypotheses.Psychometrika,35, 237–243.
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.
Pugh, A. (1976).Polyhedra: A visual approach. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ramachandran, V. S., Cobb, S., &Rogers-Ramachandran, D. (1988). Perception of 3-D structure from motion: The role of velocity gradients and segmentation boundaries.Perception & Psychophysics,44, 390–393.
Todd, J. T. (1988, November).Minimal conditions for the perception of structure from motion. Paper presented at the Twenty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago, IL.
Todd, J. T., Akerstrom, R. A., Reichel, F. D., &Hayes, W. (1988). Apparent rotation in three-dimensional space: Effects of temporal, spatial, and structural factors.Perception & Psychophysics,43, 179–188.
Ullman, S. (1977).The interpretation of visual motion. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ullman, S. (1979).The interpretation of visual motion, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ullman, S. (1984). Maximizing rigidity: The incremental recovery of 3-D structure from rigid and nonrigid motion.Perception,13, 255–274.
Wallach, H., &O’Connell, D. N. (1953). The kinetic depth effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology,45, 205–217.
Waxman, A., &Wohn, K. (1987). Contour evolution, neighborhood deformation, and image flow: Textured surfaces in motion. In W. Richards & S. Ullman (Eds.),Image understanding 1985–86 (pp. 72–98). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Webb, J. A., &Aggarwal, J. K. (1981). Visually interpreting the motion of objects in space.Computer,14(8), 40–46.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Office of Naval Research Contract N00014-88-K-0354, National Science Foundation Grants BNS-8819565 and IRI-8700924, and DOD Grant N00014-87-G-0135.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Braunstein, M.L., Hoffman, D.D. & Pollick, F.E. Discriminating rigid from nonrigid motion: Minimum points and views. Perception & Psychophysics 47, 205–214 (1990). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204996
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204996