title: Modeling heading and path perception from optic flow in the case of independently moving objects.
abstract: Humans are usually accurate when estimating heading or path from optic flow, even in the presence of independently moving objects (IMOs) in an otherwise rigid scene. To invoke significant biases in perceived heading, IMOs have to be large and obscure the focus of expansion (FOE) in the image plane, which is the point of approach. For the estimation of path during curvilinear self-motion no significant biases were found in the presence of IMOs. What makes humans robust in their estimation of heading or path using optic flow? We derive analytical models of optic flow for linear and curvilinear self-motion using geometric scene models. Heading biases of a linear least squares method, which builds upon these analytical models, are large, larger than those reported for humans. This motivated us to study segmentation cues that are available from optic flow. We derive models of accretion/deletion, expansion/contraction, acceleration/deceleration, local spatial curvature, and local temporal curvature, to be used as cues to segment an IMO from the background. Integrating these segmentation cues into our method of estimating heading or path now explains human psychophysical data and extends, as well as unifies, previous investigations. Our analysis suggests that various cues available from optic flow help to segment IMOs and, thus, make humans' heading and path perception robust in the presence of such IMOs.
authors.affiliation: Center for Computational Neuroscience and Neural Technology, Boston University Boston, MA, USA ; Center of Excellence for Learning in Education, Science, and Technology, Boston University Boston, MA, USA.
authors.forename: Florian
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Raudies
authors.forename: Heiko
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Neumann
keywords: 3D motion models; independently moving object; kinetic contours; optic flow; self-motion
references.citation: J Neurosci. 1993 Apr;13(4):1403-17
references.pmid: 8463828
references.citation: J Vis. 2012 Oct 11;12(11):8
references.pmid: 23064244
references.citation: IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1985 Apr;7(4):384-401
references.pmid: 21869277
references.citation: Vision Res. 2000;40(28):3873-94
references.pmid: 11090678
references.citation: Vision Res. 1994 Dec;34(23):3197-214
references.pmid: 7975351
references.citation: Vision Res. 2002 Dec;42(28):3043-58
references.pmid: 12480074
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2004 Sep 1;24(35):7690-8
references.pmid: 15342736
references.citation: J Comput Neurosci. 2012 Dec;33(3):421-34
references.pmid: 22528025
references.citation: J Vis. 2010 Aug 18;10(10):18
references.pmid: 20884483
references.citation: Vision Res. 2012 Apr 15;59:17-24
references.pmid: 22406544
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Oct;28(5):1100-19
references.pmid: 12421058
references.citation: Perception. 1995;24(3):315-31
references.pmid: 7617432
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Oct;35(5):1501-31
references.pmid: 19803653
references.citation: J Opt Soc Am A. 1990 Jan;7(1):160-9
references.pmid: 2299447
references.citation: Vision Res. 2009 May;49(11):1406-19
references.pmid: 19480063
references.citation: Perception. 2004;33(6):689-715
references.pmid: 15330365
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2003 Feb;13(2):189-202
references.pmid: 12507950
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38446
references.pmid: 22719889
references.citation: Nature. 1992 Dec 10;360(6404):583-5
references.pmid: 1461280
references.citation: Biol Cybern. 1982;44(3):167-75
references.pmid: 7115794
references.citation: Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1980 Jul 17;208(1173):385-97
references.pmid: 6106198
references.citation: Vision Res. 2004;44(16):1879-89
references.pmid: 15145682
references.citation: Vision Res. 1992 Jun;32(6):1177-92
references.pmid: 1509710
references.citation: Am J Psychol. 1955 Sep;68(3):372-85
references.pmid: 13248971
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1993 Mar;53(3):325-37
references.pmid: 8483696
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Apr 1;89(7):2595-9
references.pmid: 1557363
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1998 Jul;80(1):282-96
references.pmid: 9658050
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2009 Dec;59(4):320-56
references.pmid: 19716125
references.citation: Trends Neurosci. 1993 Jul;16(7):263-8
references.pmid: 7689769
references.citation: J Vis. 2011 Jan 26;11(1):
references.pmid: 21270114
references.citation: Physiol Rev. 2008 Jan;88(1):59-89
references.pmid: 18195083
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1996 Aug;58(6):836-56
references.pmid: 8768180
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Apr;29(2):343-62
references.pmid: 12760620
references.citation: J Vis. 2012 Jan 24;12(1):
references.pmid: 22275469
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1991 Feb;17(1):28-43
references.pmid: 1826318
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2009 Sep 29;19(18):1555-60
references.pmid: 19699091
references.citation: J Opt Soc Am A. 1985 Feb;2(2):354-60
references.pmid: 3973767
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1992 May;51(5):443-54
references.pmid: 1594434
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2008 Mar;18(3):705-17
references.pmid: 17615246