4.5 Article

Modeling heading and path perception from optic flow in the case of independently moving objects

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00023

关键词

optic flow; self-motion; independently moving object; 3D motion models; kinetic contours

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research [ONR N00014-11-1-0535, ONR MURI N00014-10-1-0936]
  2. CELEST, a National Science Foundation Science of Learning Center [NSF OMA-0835976]
  3. Transregional Collaborative Research Centre A Companion Technology for Cognitive Technical Systems
  4. German Research Foundation (DFG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 IMO sand, thus, make humans 'heading and path perception robust in the presence of such IMOs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据