Advertisement

Visual Encoding of Tilt from Optic Flow: Psychophysics and Computational Modelling

  • Huiying Zhong
  • Valérie Cornilleau-Pérès
  • Loong-Fah Cheong
  • Jacques Droulez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1843)

Abstract

Many computational models indicate ambiguities in the recovery of plane orientation from optic flow. Here we questioned whether psychophysical responses agree with these models. We measured the perceived tilt of a plane rotating in depth with two-view stimuli for 9 human observers. Response accuracy was higher under wide-field perspective projection (60°) than in small field (8°). Also, it decreased when the tilt and frontal translation were orthogonal rather than parallel. This effect was stronger in small field than in large field. Different computational models focusing on the recovery of plane orientation from optic flow can account for our results when associated with a hypothesis of minimal translation in depth. However, the twofold ambiguity predicted by these models is usually not found. Rather, most responses show a shift of the reported tilts toward the spurious solution with concomitant increase in response variability. Such findings point to the need for further simulations of the computational models.

Keywords

Optic Flow Large Field Small Field Perspective Projection Orthographic Projection 
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.

Reference

  1. 1.
    Adiv, G.: Inherent ambiguities in recovering 3-D motion and structure from a noisy flow field. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 11. (1989) 477–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baratoff, G.: Ordinal and metric structure of smooth surfaces form parallax. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (1996) 275–279, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheong, L.F., Fermüller, C., & Aloimonos, Y.: Effects of errors in the viewing geometry on shape estimation. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, Vol. 71 (1998). 5, 356–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cornilleau-Pérès, V., Wexler, M., Marin, E, Droulez, J.: The perception of surface orientation from motion in small and wide-field. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 40(4): B781. Abstract 3923. (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daniilidis, K. & Nagel, H.-H.: The coupling of rotation and translation in motion estimation of planar surfaces. IEEE Conf. On Computer Vision and Pattern Recoginition (1993) 188–193, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Domini, F & Caudek, C.: Perceiving surface slant from deformation of Optic flow. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 25, (1999) 426–444.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Droulez, J. & Cornilleau-Pérès, V.: Visual perception of surface curvature. The Spin variation and its physiological implications. Biological Cybernetics, Vol. 62. (1990) 211–224.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garding, J., Porrill, J., Mayhew, J.E.W. & Frisby, J.P.: Stereopsis, vertical disparity and relief transformations. Vision Research, Vol. 5. (1995) 703–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoffman, D. D.: Inferring local surface orientation from motion fields. Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. A72, (1982) 888–892.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koenderink, J.J. & Doorn, A.J.: Local structure of movement parallax of the plane. Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 66. (1976) 717–723MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koenderink, J.J. & Doorn, A.J.: Affine structure from motion. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A., 8, No. 2. (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koenderink, J.J. & Doorn, A.J.: Relief: Pictorial and otherwise. Image and Vision Computing, Vol. 5. (1995) 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Longuet-Higgins, H.C. & Prazdny, K.: The interpretation of a moving retinal image. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 208, (1980) 385–397.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Longuet-Higgins, H.C.: The visual ambiguity of a moving plane. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 223, (1984) 165–175.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers, B., & Graham, M.: Motion parallax as an independent cue for depth perception. Perception, Vol. 8. (1979) 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Subbarao, M.: Interpretation of Visual Motion: A computational Study. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Todd,T. & Bressan, P.: The perception of 3-dimensional affine structures from minimal motion sequences. Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 48. (1991) 419–430.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsai, R.Y. & Huang, T.S.: Uniqueness and estimation of three-dimensional motion parameters of rigid objects with curved surfaces. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 6. (1984) 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wallach, H., & O’Connell, D.N.: The kinetic depth effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 45, (1953) 205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huiying Zhong
    • 1
  • Valérie Cornilleau-Pérès
    • 2
  • Loong-Fah Cheong
    • 1
  • Jacques Droulez
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringThe National University of SingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Singapore Eye Research InstituteSingapore
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Physiologie de la Perception et de l’ActionCNRS-Collège de FranceParisFrance

Personalised recommendations