Perception of speed in biological motion

more resistant to interference?

Authors

  • Sandra MOUTA Universidade do Porto, Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores.
  • Jorge de Almeida SANTOS Universidade do Minho, Centro de Computação Gráfica, Departamento de Psicologia Básica & Centro Algoritmi.

Keywords:

Contrast Effects, Visual perception, Motion

Abstract

The human visual system is often referred to as being highly prepared to extract meaningful information from biological motion patterns. In the present study, the contrast effect on speed perception was analysed. Participants performed a test of speed judgment in which two simultaneous point-light walkers were animated at different translational speeds and contrasts in relation to the background. Standard translational biological motion was compared to rigid translational motion in Experiment 1 and to inverted biological motion in Experiment 2. Higher error rates, reaction times and greater vulnerability to contrast effects on speed perception were found for translational biological motion when compared to rigid motion. No significant differences were found, however, between standard and inverted stimuli. Experiment 3 was implemented in order to control the role of positional cues in speed judgment. The start and finish points of the trajectory were varied so that the faster and slower point-light walkers could finish the trial at a relatively more advanced or more withdrawn position. In spite of the variation of the start and finish points of the trajectories, the pattern of results was still consistent with the findings of Experiments 1 and 2. Participants seemed to perform factual speed judgments instead of using spatial cues as a form of reference or positional matching. Since the perception of biological patterns was more sensitive to contrast effects and not affected by familiarity, it is suggested that perception of biological and rigid motion may follow the same computational rules, at least for tasks involving translational patterns and speed judgment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anstis, S. (2001). Footsteps and inchworms: illusions show that contrast affects apparent speed. Perception, 30, 785-794.

Anstis, S. (2003). Moving objects appear to slow down at low contrasts. Neural Networks, 16, 933-938.

Atkinson, A. P., Dittrich, W. H., Gemmell, A. J., & Young, A. W. (2004). Emotion perception from dynamic and static body expressions in point-light and full-light displays. Perception, 33, 717-46.

Beardsworth, T., & Buckner, T. (1981). The ability to recognize oneself from a video recording of one’s movements without seeing one’s body. Bulletin of the Psychonomi Society, 18, 19-22.

Bertenthal, B. I., & Pinto, J. (1994). Global processing of biological motions. Psychological Science, 5, 221-225. Cutting, J. E., Moore, C., & Morrison, R. (1988). Masking the motions of human gait. Perception & Psychophysics, 44 (4), 339-347.

Dekeyser, M., Verfaillie, K., & Vanrie, J. (2002). Creating stimuli for the study of biological-motion perception. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computer, 34 (3), 375-382.

Dittrich, W. H. (1993). Actions categories and the perception of biological motion. Perception, 22, 15-22.

Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 201-211.

Neri, P., Morrone, M. C., & Burr, D. C. (1998). Seeing biological motion. Nature, 395, 894-896.

Norman, J. F., Payton, S. M., Long, J. R., & Hawkes, L. M. (2004). Aging and perception of biological motion. Psychological Aging, 19, 219-225.

Pavlova, M., & Sokolov, A. (2000). Orientation specificity in biological motion perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 62 (5), 889-899.

Peli, E. (1990). Contrast in Complex Images. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 7 (10), 2032-2040.

Pollick, F. E., Paterson, H. M., Bruderlin, A., & Sanford, A. J. (2001). Perceiving affect from arm movement. Cognition, 82, B51-B61.

Pollick, F. E., Kay, J. W., Heim, K., & Stringer, R. (2005). Gender recognition from point-light walkers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1247-1265.

Shipley, T. F. (2003). The effect of object and event orientation on perception of biological motion. Psychological Science, 14 (4), 377-380.

Stone, L. S., & Thompson, P. (1992). Human speed perception is contrast dependent. Vision Research, 32 (8), 1535-1549.

Sumi, S. (1984). Upside-down presentation of the Johansson moving light-spot pattern. Perception, 13 (3), 283-286.

Thompson, B., Hansen, B. C., Hess, R. F., & Troje, N. F. (2007). Peripheral vision: good for biological motion, bad for signal noise segregation? Journal of Vision, 7 (10), 1-7.

Thornton, I., Pinto, J., & Shiffrar, M. (1998). The visual perception of human locomotion across space and time. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 15, 535-552.

Troje, N. F. (2003). Reference frames for orientation anisotropies in face recognition and biological-motion perception. Perception, 32 (2), 201-10.

Troje, N. F., Sadr, J., Geyer, H., & Nakayama, K. (2006). Adaptation aftereffects in the perception of gender from biological motion. Journal of Vision, 6 (8), 850-857.

Westhoff, C., & Troje, N. F. (2007). Kinematic cues for person identification from biological motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 241-253.

Published

2011-12-31

How to Cite

MOUTA, S., & SANTOS, J. de A. (2011). Perception of speed in biological motion: more resistant to interference?. Psychological Studies, 28(4). Retrieved from https://periodicos.puc-campinas.edu.br/estpsi/article/view/9014