Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Background
General Discussion
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Mathematics

Testing probabilistic models of binocular 3D motion perception

Profile image of Martin LagesMartin Lages

2014

https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.4.2
visibility

…

description

18 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Geometric constraints for the perception of three-dimensional (3D) binocular motion are discussed in a probabilistic framework. Two alternative Bayesian models of binocular integration are put forward to explain perceptual bias under uncertainty. The models exploit biologically plausible constraints of local motion and disparity processing in a binocular viewing geometry. Results from computer simulations and model selection support the idea that disparity processing rather than motion processing introduces perceptual bias in 3D motion. This suggests that the binocular motion system combines motion and disparity constraints relatively late when establishing a 3D motion percept.

Related papers

Systematic misperceptions of 3-D motion explained by Bayesian inference
Jacqueline Fulvio

People make surprising but reliable perceptual errors. Here, we provide a unified explanation for systematic errors in the perception of three-dimensional (3-D) motion. To do so, we characterized the binocular retinal motion signals produced by objects moving through arbitrary locations in 3-D. Next, we developed a Bayesian model, treating 3-D motion perception as optimal inference given sensory noise in the measurement of retinal motion. The model predicts a set of systematic perceptual errors, which depend on stimulus distance, contrast, and eccentricity. We then used a virtual-reality headset as well as a standard 3-D desktop stereoscopic display to test these predictions in a series of perceptual experiments. As predicted, we found evidence that errors in 3-D motion perception depend on the contrast, viewing distance, and eccentricity of a stimulus. These errors include a lateral bias in perceived motion direction and a surprising tendency to misreport approaching motion as receding and vice versa. In sum, we present a Bayesian model that provides a parsimonious account for a range of systematic misperceptions of motion in naturalistic environments.

View PDFchevron_right
Binocular processing of motion: Some unresolved questions
Rob Gray

Spatial vision, 2009

The unresolved questions relating to binocular processing of motion include: Is the perceived speed of the motion in depth (MID) of an approaching object inversely proportional to the time to collision?; What visual information supports judgements of the direction of MID?; What is the relation between binocular and monocular processing in the perception of MID? We review whether the perception of stereomotion in depth of a monocularly visible object is caused entirely by a rate of change of disparity, and conclude that the difference between the horizontal velocities of the object's left and right retinal images makes at most only a small contribution to speed discrimination, but conclusions may be different for detection, perceived speed and directional discrimination. We review laboratory evidence on the relative importance of binocular and monocular information for interceptive action and collision avoidance and conclude that, in addition to the effect of considerable intersubject variability, the relative importance depends on the physical size of the approaching object, its distance and, if nonspherical, its direction of motion and whether it is rotating. We compare attempts to find whether the human visual system contains a mechanism specialized for the speed of cyclopean motion within a frontoparallel plane, and find the question ill-posed.

View PDFchevron_right
A Bayesian model of stereopsis depth and motion direction discrimination
Jenny Read

Biological Cybernetics, 2002

View PDFchevron_right
Visual Psychophysics and Physiological Optics Optimal Combination of the Binocular Cues to 3 D Motion
Yingxin Jia

2015

Citation: Allen B, Haun AM, Hanley T, Green CS, Rokers B. Optimal combination of the binocular cues to 3D motion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56:7589–7596. DOI:10.1167/ iovs.15-17696 PURPOSE. Perception necessarily entails combining separate sensory estimates into a single coherent whole. The perception of three-dimensional (3D) motion, for instance, can rely on two binocular cues: one related to the change in binocular disparity over time (CD) and the other related to interocular velocity differences (IOVD). Although previous work has shown that neither cue is strictly necessary for the perception of 3D motion, observers are able to judge 3D motion in displays in which one or the other cue has been eliminated, it is unclear whether or how the two cues are combined in situations in which both are present. METHODS. We tested the visual performance of a sample of 81 individuals (Mage 1⁄4 20.34, 49 females) in four main conditions that measured, respectively, static stereoacuity, C...

View PDFchevron_right
Sensory uncertainty leads to systematic misperception of the direction of motion in depth
Jacqueline Fulvio, B. Rokers
View PDFchevron_right
Binocular eye movements caused by the perception of three-dimensional structure from motion
Michael Hawken, Dario Ringach

Vision research, 1996

We report that the perception of three-dimensional structure from monocular two-dimensional images changing over time--the kinetic depth effect (KDE)--can evoke binocular eye movements consistent with a three-dimensional percept. We used a monocular KDE stimulus that induced a vivid perception of a rigid three-dimensional sphere rotating in space. The gaze directions of both eyes were measured while observers pursued the motion of a patch on the surface of the perceived sphere as it went through a complete revolution. We found that the eyes converged when the patch was perceived on the front surface of the KDE sphere and diverged when the patch was perceived in the back. The pattern, magnitude and dynamics of binocular eye movements observed in the KDE experiment resembled those obtained when subjects viewed binocularly a light-emitting diode (LED) rotating in space and to the responses obtained with a dynamic stereogram simulating a rotating random dot sphere. Thus, the perception ...

View PDFchevron_right
A unified probabilistic model of the perception of three-dimensional structure from optic flow
Pierre Bessiere

Biological cybernetics, 2007

Human observers can perceive the threedimensional (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 structurefrom-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.

View PDFchevron_right
On the Inverse Problem of Binocular 3D Motion Perception
Martin Lages

PLOS Computational Biology, 2010

It is shown that existing processing schemes of 3D motion perception such as interocular velocity difference, changing disparity over time, as well as joint encoding of motion and disparity, do not offer a general solution to the inverse optics problem of local binocular 3D motion. Instead we suggest that local velocity constraints in combination with binocular disparity and other depth cues provide a more flexible framework for the solution of the inverse problem. In the context of the aperture problem we derive predictions from two plausible default strategies: (1) the vector normal prefers slow motion in 3D whereas (2) the cyclopean average is based on slow motion in 2D. Predicting perceived motion directions for ambiguous line motion provides an opportunity to distinguish between these strategies of 3D motion processing. Our theoretical results suggest that velocity constraints and disparity from feature tracking are needed to solve the inverse problem of 3D motion perception. It seems plausible that motion and disparity input is processed in parallel and integrated late in the visual processing hierarchy.

View PDFchevron_right
Isolation of two binocular mechanisms for motion in depth: A model and psychophysics1
Satoshi Shioiri

Japanese Psychological Research, 2012

Random dot patterns (RDPs) have been used to stimulate in isolation either of two binocular mechanisms for motion in depth: interocular velocity difference (IOVD), and changing disparity over time (CDOT). First, we examined how these stimuli isolate either mechanism using models based on motion/disparity energy detection. In the model, the IOVD mechanism calculates the difference in motion signal between the two eyes, and the CDOT mechanism calculates the difference in disparity signal between sequential stereo images. The simulation revealed that uncorrelated (0% correlation) RDPs are useful to isolate either of the two mechanisms, while the contrast-reversed version (anticorrelation) of RDPs may not. Second, we compared the IOVD model predictions with experimental data from a previous study for motion in depth with various contrasts, displacements and vertical shifts between the two eyes. The simulation showed that the model predicts the general trends of the effects of contrast, displacement and vertical shift shown in the data. This suggests the physiological plausibility of the energy-based model of motion in depth.

View PDFchevron_right
Perspective Cues Make Eye-specific Contributions to 3-D Motion Perception
Byounghoon Kim

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2021

Robust 3-D visual perception is achieved by integrating stereoscopic and perspective cues. The canonical model describing the integration of these cues assumes that perspective signals sensed by the left and right eyes are indiscriminately pooled into a single representation that contributes to perception. Here, we show that this model fails to account for 3-D motion perception. We measured the sensitivity of male macaque monkeys to 3-D motion signaled by left-eye perspective cues, right-eye perspective cues, stereoscopic cues, and all three cues combined. The monkeys exhibited idiosyncratic differences in their biases and sensitivities for each cue, including left- and right-eye perspective cues, suggesting that the signals undergo at least partially separate neural processing. Importantly, sensitivity to combined cue stimuli was greater than predicted by the canonical model, which previous studies found to account for the perception of 3-D orientation in both humans and monkeys. I...

View PDFchevron_right

References (105)

  1. Adelson, E. H., & Movshon J. A. (1982). Phenomenal coherence of moving visual patterns. 3ature, 300, 523-525. doi:10.1038/300523a0
  2. Anzai, A., Ohzawa, I., & Freeman, R. D. (2001). Joint encoding of motion and depth by visual cortical neurons: Neural basis of the Pulfrich effect. 3ature 3euroscience, 4, 513-518. doi:10.1038/87462
  3. Ascher, D., & Grzywacz, N. N. (2000). A Bayesian model for the measurement of visual velocity. Vision Research, 40, 3427-3434. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00176-0
  4. Ban, H., Preston, T. J., Meeson, A., & Welchman, A. E. (2012). The integration of motion and disparity cues to depth in dorsal visual cortex. 3ature 3euroscience, 15, 636-643. doi:10.1038/nn.3046
  5. Berkeley, G. (1975). Philosophical works including the works on vision (M. R. Ayers, Ed.). London, UK: Dent. (Original work published 1709).
  6. Beverley, K. I., & Regan, D. (1973). Evidence for the existence of neural mechanisms selectively sensitive to the direction of movement in space, The Journal of Physiology, 235, 17-29.
  7. Beverley, K. I., Regan, D. (1974). Temporal integration of disparity information in stereoscopic perception. Experimental Brain Research, 19, 228-232. doi:10.1007/BF00238537
  8. Beverley, K. I., Regan, D. (1975). The relation between discrimination and sensitivity in the perception of motion in depth. The Journal of Physiology, 249, 387-398.
  9. Braddick, O. J. (1974). A short-range process in apparent motion. Vision Research, 14, 519-527. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(74)90041-8
  10. Braddick, O. J. (1980). Low-level and high-level processes in apparent motion. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society B, 290, 137-151. doi:10.1098/rstb.1980.0087
  11. Bradley, D. C., Qian, N., & Andersen, R. A. (1995). Integration of motion and stereopsis in middle tempo- ral cortical area of macaques. 3ature, 373, 609-611. doi:10.1038/373609a0
  12. Bradshaw, M. F., & Cumming, B. G. (1997). The direction of retinal motion facilitates binocular stereop- sis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 264, 1421-1427. doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0198
  13. Brooks, K. R. (2002). Interocular velocity difference contributes to stereomotion speed perception. Journal of Vision, 2, 218-231. doi:10.1167/2.3.2
  14. Brooks, K. R. & Stone, L. S. (2004). Stereomotion speed perception: Contributions from both changing disparity and interocular velocity difference over a range of relative disparities. Journal of Vision, 4, 1061-1079. doi:10.1167/4.12.6
  15. Bruhn, A., Weickert, J., & Schnörr, C. (2005). Lucas/Kanade meets Horn/Schunck: Combining local and global optic flow methods. International Journal of Computer Vision, 61, 211-231. doi:10.1023/ B:VISI.0000045324.43199.43
  16. Carceroni, R. L., & Kutulakos, K. N. (2002). Multi-view scene capture by surfel sampling: From video streams to non-rigid 3D motion, shape and reflectance. International Journal of Computer Vision, 49, 175-214. doi:10.1023/A:1020145606604
  17. Carney, T., Paradiso, M. A., & Freeman, R. D. (1989). A physiological correlate of the Pulfrich effect in cortical neurons of the cat. Vision Research, 29, 155-165. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(89)90121-1
  18. Cumming, B. G., & Parker, A. J. (1994). Binocular mechanisms for detecting motion in depth. Vision Re- search, 34, 483-495. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(94)90162-7
  19. DeAngelis, G. C., & Newsome, W. T. (1999). Organization of disparity-selective neurons in macaque area MT. The Journal of 3euroscience, 19, 1398-1415.
  20. DeAngelis, G. C., & Newsome, W. T. (2004). Perceptual "read-out" of conjoined direction and disparity maps in extrastriate area MT. PLoS Biology, 2, e0394. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020077
  21. DeAngelis, G. C., Ohzawa, I., & Freeman, R. D. (1993). Spatiotemporal organization of simple-cell recep- tive fields in the cat's striate cortex. I. General characteristics and postnatal development. Journal of 3europhysiology, 69, 1091-1117.
  22. Edwards, M., & Schor, C. M. (1999). Depth aliasing by the transient stereo-system. Vision Research, 39, 4333-4340. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00149-2
  23. Fernandez, J. M., & Farell, B. (2005). Seeing motion-in-depth using inter-ocular velocity differences. Vi- sion Research, 45, 2786-2798. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.05.021
  24. Graf, E. W., Adams, W. J., & Lages, M. (2004). Prior monocular information can bias motion perception. Journal of Vision, 4, 427-433. doi:10.1167/4.6.2
  25. Gregory, R. L. (1980). Perceptions as hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society B, 290, 181-197. doi:10.1098/rstb.1980.0090
  26. Harris, J. M. (2006). The interaction of eye movements and retinal signals during the perception of 3-D motion direction. Journal of Vision, 6, 777-790.
  27. Harris, J. M., & Dean, P. J. A. (2003). Accuracy and precision of binocular 3-D motion perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 869-881. doi:10.1037/ 0096- 1523.29.5.869
  28. Harris, J. M., & Drga, V. F. (2005). Using visual direction in three-dimensional motion perception. 3ature 3euroscience, 8, 229-233. doi:10.1038/nn1389
  29. Harris, J. M., Nefs, H. T., & Grafton, C. E. (2008). Binocular vision and motion-in-depth. Spatial Vision, 21, 531-547. doi:10.1163/156856808786451462
  30. Harris, J. M., & Rushton, S. K. (2003). Poor visibility of motion-in-depth is due to early motion averaging. Vision Research, 43, 385-392. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00570-9
  31. Heron, S., & Lages, M. (2012). Screening and sampling in studies of binocular vision. Vision Research, 62, 228-234. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.04.012
  32. Hildreth, E. C. (1984). The computation of the velocity field. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 221, 189-220. doi:10.1098/rspb.1984.0030
  33. Hinkle, D. A., & Connor, C. E. (2002). Three-dimensional orientation tuning in macaque area V4. 3ature 3euroscience, 5, 665-670. doi:10.1038/nn875
  34. Hogervorst, M. A., & Eagle, R. A. (1998). Biases in three-dimensional structure-from-motion arise from noise in the early visual system. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 265, 1587- 1593. doi:10.1098/rspb.1998.0476
  35. Horn, B. K. P., & Schunck, B. G. (1981). Determining optical flow. Artificial Intelligence, 17, 185-203. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(81)90024-2
  36. Howard, I. P., & Rogers, B. J. (2002). Seeing in depth (Vol. 2). Depth Perception. Ontario, Canada: I. Porteous.
  37. Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. The Journal of Physiology, 160, 106-154.
  38. Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1968). Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cor- tex. The Journal of Physiology, 195, 215-243.
  39. Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1970). Stereoscopic vision in macaque monkey. Cells sensitive to binocular depth in area 18 of the macaque monkey cortex. 3ature, 225, 41-42. doi:10.1038/225041a0
  40. Hürlimann, F., Kiper, D. C., & Carandini, M. (2002). Testing the Bayesian model of perceived speed. Vi- sion Research, 42, 2253-2257. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00119-0
  41. Ji, H., & Fermüller, C. (2006). Noise causes slant underestimation in stereo and motion. Vision Research, 46, 3105-3120. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.010
  42. Johnston, A., McOwan, P. W., & Benton, C. (1999). Robust velocity computation from a biologically mo- tivated model of motion perception. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 509-518. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0666
  43. Knill, D. C., Kersten, D., & Yuille, A. L. (1996). Introduction: A Bayesian formulation of visual percep- tion. In D. C. Knill & W. Richards (Eds.), Perception as Bayesian Inference (pp. 1-21). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Knill, D. C., & Richards, W. (1996). Perception as Bayesian inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
  45. Koenderink, J. J., & van Doorn, A. J. (1991). Affine structure from motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 8, 377-385. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.8.000377
  46. Lages, M. (2006). Bayesian models of binocular 3-D motion perception. Journal of Vision, 6, 508-522. doi:10.1167/6.4.14
  47. Lages, M. (2013). Straight or curved? From deterministic to probabilistic models of binocular 3D motion perception. Frontiers in Behavioral 3euroscience, 7, 1-3. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00079
  48. Lages, M, Dolia, A., & Graf, E. W. (2007). Dichoptic motion perception limited to depth of fixation? Vi- sion Research, 47, 244-252. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.10.001
  49. Lages, M., & Heron, S. (2008). Motion and disparity processing informs Bayesian 3D motion estimation. Proceedings of the 3ational Academy of Science of the United States of America, 105, E117. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809829105
  50. Lages, M., & Heron, S. (2010). On the inverse problem of local binocular 3D motion perception. PLoS Computational Biology, 6, e1000999. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000999
  51. Lages, M., Jenkins, R., & Hillis, J. M. (2008). Anticipation of gravity alters perception of average speed [Abstract]. Perception, 37(Suppl.), 28.
  52. Lages, M., Mamassian, P., & Graf, E. W. (2003). Spatial and temporal tuning of motion in depth. Vision Research, 43, 2861-2873. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2003.08.006
  53. Ledgeway, T., & Smith, A. T. (1994). Evidence for separate motion-detecting mechanisms for first-order and 2nd-order motion in human vision. Vision Research, 34, 2727-2740. doi:10.1016/0042-6989 (94)90229-1
  54. Likova, L. T., & Tyler, C. W. (2007). Stereomotion processing in the human occipital cortex. 3euroimage, 38, 293-305. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.06.039
  55. Lu, Z.-L., & Sperling, G. (1995). The functional architecture of human visual motion perception. Vision Research, 35, 2697-2722. doi:10.1016/0042-6989 (95)00025-U
  56. Lu, Z.-L., & Sperling, G. (2001). Three systems theory of human visual motion perception: Review and update. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 18, 2331-2370. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.19.002142
  57. Lucas, B. D., & Kanade, T. (1981). An iterative image registration technique with an application to stereo vision. In P. J. Hayes (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial In- telligence (pp. 674-679). Vancouver, BC, Canada: William Kaufmann Inc.
  58. Majaj, N., Carandini, M., & Movshon, J. A. (2007). Motion integration by neurons in macaque MT is local not global. The Journal of 3euroscience, 27, 366-370. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3183-06.2007
  59. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Co.
  60. Masson, G. S., & Castet, E. (2002). Parallel motion processing for the initiation of short-latency ocular fol- lowing in humans. The Journal of 3euroscience, 22, 5149-5163.
  61. Maunsell, J. H., & van Essen, D. C. (1983). Functional properties of neurons in middle temporal visual area of the macaque monkey: I. Selectivity for stimulus direction, speed, and orientation. Journal of 3europhysiology, 49, 1127-1147.
  62. Mayhew, J. E. W., & Longuet-Higgins, H. C. (1982). A computational model of binocular depth percep- tion. 3ature, 297, 376-378. doi:10.1038/297376a0
  63. Miles, F. A. (1998). The neural processing of 3-D visual information: Evidence from eye movements. European Journal of 3euroscience, 10, 811-822. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.1998.00112.x
  64. Min, D., & Sohn, K. (2006). Edge-preserving simultaneous joint motion-disparity estimation. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2006), 2, 74-77. doi:10.1109/ICPR.2006.470
  65. Morgan, M. J., & Fahle, M. (2000). Motion-stereo mechanisms sensitive to interocular phase. Vision Re- search, 40, 1667-1675. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00016-X
  66. Ohzawa, I., DeAngelis, G. C., & Freeman, R. D. (1990). Stereoscopic depth discrimination in the visual cortex: Neurons ideally suited as disparity detectors. Science, 249, 1037-1041. doi:10.1126/ scien- ce.2396096
  67. Orban, G. A. (2008). Higher order visual processing in macaque extrastriate cortex. Physiological Review, 88, 59-89. doi:10.1152/physrev.00008.2007
  68. Pack, C. C., Born, R. T., & Livingstone, M. S. (2003). Two-dimensional substructure of stereo and motion interactions in macaque visual cortex. 3euron, 37, 525-535. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(02)01187-X Peng, Q., & Shi, B. E. (2010). The changing disparity energy model. Vision Research, 50, 181-192. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.012
  69. Pizlo, Z. (2001). Perception viewed as an inverse problem. Vision Research, 41, 3145-3161. doi:10.1016/ S0042-6989(01)00173-0
  70. Poggio, T., Torre, V., & Koch, C. (1985). Computational vision and regularization theory. 3ature, 317, 314-319. doi:10.1038/317314a0
  71. Ponce, C. R., Lomber, S. G., & Born, R. T. (2008). Integrating motion and depth via parallel pathways. 3a- ture 3euroscience, 11, 216-223. doi:10.1038/nn2039
  72. Portfors-Yeomans, C. V., & Regan, D. (1996). Cyclopean discrimination thresholds for the direction and speed of motion in depth. Vision Research, 36, 3265-3279. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(96)00065-X Qian, N. (1994). Computing stereo disparity and motion with known binocular cell properties. 3eural Com- putation, 6, 390-404. doi:10.1162/neco.1994.6.3.390
  73. Qian, N., & Andersen, R. A. (1997). A physiological model for motion-stereo integration and a unified ex- planation of Pulfrich-like phenomena. Vision Research, 37, 1683-1698. doi:10.1016/S0042- 6989(96)00164-2
  74. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Baysian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163.
  75. Rashbass, C., & Westheimer, G. (1961). Disjunctive eye movements. The Journal of Physiology, 159, 339-360.
  76. Read, J. C. A. (2002a). A Bayesian approach to the stereo correspondence problem. 3eural Computation, 14, 1371-1392. doi:10.1162/089976602753712981
  77. Read, J. C. A. (2002b). A Bayesian model of stereopsis depth and motion direction discrimination. Bio- logical Cybernetics, 86, 117-136. doi:10.1007/s004220100280
  78. Read, J. C. A., & Cumming, B. G. (2005a). Effect of interocular delay on disparity-selective V1 neurons: Relationship to stereoacuity and the Pulfrich effect. Journal of 3europhysiology, 94, 1541-1553. doi:10.1152/jn.01177.2004
  79. Read, J. C. A., & Cumming, B. G. (2005b). The stroboscopic Pulfrich effect is not evidence for the joint encoding of motion and depth. Journal of Vision, 5, 417-434. doi:10.1167/5.5.3
  80. Regan, D., & Beverley, K. I. (1973). Some dynamic features of depth perception, Vision Research, 13, 2369-2379. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(73)90236-8
  81. Regan, D., Beverley, K. I., Cynader, M., & Lennie, P. (1979). Stereoscopic subsystems for position in depth and for motion in depth. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 42, 485-501. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0042
  82. Regan, D., & Gray, R. (2009). Binocular processing of motion; some unresolved problems. Spatial Vision, 22, 1-43.
  83. Rokers, B., Cormack, L. K., & Huk, A. C. (2008). Strong percepts of motion through depth without strong percepts of position in depth. Journal of Vision, 8, 1-10. doi:10.1167/8.4.6
  84. Rokers, B., Cormack, L. K., & Huk, A. C. (2009). Disparity-and velocity-based signals for three-dimensional motion perception in human MT+. 3ature 3euroscience, 12, 1050-1055. doi:10.1038/nn.2343
  85. Rushton, S. K., & Duke, P. A. (2007). The use of direction and distance information in the perception of approach trajectory. Vision Research, 47, 899-912. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.11.019
  86. Rushton, S. K., & Warren, P. A. (2005). Moving observers, relative retinal motion, and the detection of ob- ject movement. Current Biology, 15, R542. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.07.020
  87. Scharr, H., & Küsters, R. (2002). A linear model for simultaneous estimation of 3D motion and depth. Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing (pp. 220-225). Orlando, FL: IEEE. doi:10.1109/MOTION. 2002.1182240
  88. Shioiri, S., Saisho, H., & Yaguchi, H. (2000). Motion in depth based on inter-ocular velocity differences. Vision Research, 40, 2565-2572. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00130-9
  89. Spies, H., Jähne, B. J., & Barron, J. L. (2002). Range flow estimation. Computer Vision Image Under- standing, 85, 209-231. doi:10.1006/cviu.2002.0970
  90. Stocker, A. A., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2006). Noise characteristics and prior expectations in human visual speed perception. 3ature 3euroscience, 9, 578-585. doi:10.1038/nn1669
  91. Thomas, O. M., Cumming, B. G., & Parker A. J. (2002). A specialization for relative disparity in V2. 3a- ture 3euroscience, 5, 472-478. doi:10.1038/nn837
  92. Tyler, C. W. (1971). Stereoscopic depth movement: Two eyes less sensitive than one. Science, 174, 958- 961. doi:10.1126/science.174.4012.958
  93. Ullman, S., & Yuille, A. (1989). Rigidity and smoothness of motion. In S. Ullman & W. Richards (Eds.), Image understanding (pp.163-183). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  94. van Ee, R., & Anderson, B. L. (2001). Motion direction, speed and orientation in binocular matching. 3a- ture, 410, 690-694. doi:10.1038/35070569
  95. Vedula, S., Baker, S., Rander, P., Collins, R., & Kanade, T. (2005). Three-dimensional scene-flow. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 27, 475-480. doi:10.1109/TPAMI. 2005.63
  96. von Helmholtz, H. (1962). Treatise on physiological optics. In J. P. Southall (Ed. & Trans.), Helmholtz's Treatise on physiological optics (Vol. 1, pp. 312-313). New York, NY: Dover. (Original work pub- lished 1910).
  97. Wang, H., Heron, S., Moreland, J., & Lages, M. (2012). A Bayesian approach to the aperture problem of 3D motion perception. Proceedings of the International Conference on 3D Imaging (IC3D) (pp. 1-
  98. Liege, Belgium. doi:10.1109/IC3D.2012.6615116
  99. Wang, H., & Lages, M. (2011, May). A biologically-inspired Bayesian model of 3D velocity estimation. Paper presented at the AVA Meeting, Cardiff, UK.
  100. Watt, S. J., Akeley, K., Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2005). Focus cues affect perceived depth. Journal of Vision, 5, 834-862. doi:10.1167/5.10.7
  101. Weiss, Y., & Fleet, D. J. (2001). Velocity likelihoods in biological and machine vision. In R. P. N. Rao, B. Olshausen, & M. S. Lewicki (Eds.), Probabilistic models of the brain: Perception and neural func- tion (pp. 81-100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  102. Weiss, Y., Simoncelli, E. P. & Adelson, E. H. (2002). Motion illusions as optimal percepts. 3ature 3euro- science, 5, 598-604. doi:10.1038/nn858
  103. Welchman, A. E., Lam, J. M., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2008). Bayesian motion estimation accounts for a sur- prising bias in 3D vision. Proceedings of the 3ational Academy of Science of the United States of America, 105, 12087-12092.
  104. Welchman, A. E., Tuck, V. L., & Harris, J. M. (2004). Human observers are biased in judging the angular approach of a projectile. Vision Research, 44, 2027-2042. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2004.03.014
  105. Yo, C., & Wilson, H. R. (1992). Perceived direction of moving two-dimensional patterns depends on dura- tion, contrast and eccentricity. Vision Research, 32, 135-147.

Related papers

Bayesian models of binocular 3-D motion perception
Martin Lages

Journal of Vision, 2006

Psychophysical studies on three-dimensional (3-D) motion perception have shown that perceived trajectory angles of a small target traveling in depth are systematically biased. Here, predictions from Bayesian models, which extend existing models of motion-first and stereo-first processing, are investigated. These statistical models are based on stochastic representations of monocular velocity and binocular disparity input in a binocular viewing geometry. The assumption of noise in these inputs together with a plausible prior for 3-D motion leads to testable predictions of perceived trajectory angle and velocity. Results from two experiments are reported, suggesting that disparity rather than motion processing introduces perceptual bias.

View PDFchevron_right
Straight or curved? From deterministic to probabilistic models of 3D motion perception
Martin Lages

A commentary on Detection of 3D curved trajectories: the role of binocular disparity

View PDFchevron_right
On the Aperture Problem of Binocular 3D Motion Perception
Martin Lages

Vision

Like many predators, humans have forward-facing eyes that are set a short distance apart so that an extensive region of the visual field is seen from two different points of view. The human visual system can establish a three-dimensional (3D) percept from the projection of images into the left and right eye. How the visual system integrates local motion and binocular depth in order to accomplish 3D motion perception is still under investigation. Here, we propose a geometric-statistical model that combines noisy velocity constraints with a spherical motion prior to solve the aperture problem in 3D. In two psychophysical experiments, it is shown that instantiations of this model can explain how human observers disambiguate 3D line motion direction behind a circular aperture. We discuss the implications of our results for the processing of motion and dynamic depth in the visual system.

View PDFchevron_right
A Bayesian approach to the aperture problem of 3D motion perception
Martin Lages

2012 International Conference on 3D Imaging (IC3D), 2012

We suggest a geometric-statistical approach that can be applied to the 3D aperture problem of motion perception. In simulations and psychophysical experiments we study perceived 3D motion direction in a binocular viewing geometry by systematically varying 3D orientation of a line stimulus moving behind a circular aperture. Although motion direction is inherently ambiguous perceived directions show systematic trends and a Bayesian model with a prior for small depth followed by slow motion in 3D gives reasonable fits to individual data. We conclude that the visual system tries to minimize velocity in 3D but that earlier disparity processing strongly influences perceived 3D motion direction. We discuss implications for the integration of disparity and motion cues in the human visual system.

View PDFchevron_right
Binocular Mechanisms of 3D Motion Processing
Lawrence K. Cormack

Annual Review of Vision Science, 2017

The visual system must recover important properties of the external environment if its host is to survive. Because the retinae are effectively two-dimensional but the world is three-dimensional (3D), the patterns of stimulation both within and across the eyes must be used to infer the distal stimulus—the environment—in all three dimensions. Moreover, animals and elements in the environment move, which means the input contains rich temporal information. Here, in addition to reviewing the literature, we discuss how and why prior work has focused on purported isolated systems (e.g., stereopsis) or cues (e.g., horizontal disparity) that do not necessarily map elegantly on to the computations and complex patterns of stimulation that arise when visual systems operate within the real world. We thus also introduce the binoptic flow field (BFF) as a description of the 3D motion information available in realistic environments, which can foster the use of ecologically valid yet well-controlled...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Mathematics
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved