English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Reply to Lages and Heron: Binocular 3D motion estimation

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons231330

Lam,  JM
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons83839

Bülthoff,  HH
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Welchman, A., Lam, J., & Bülthoff, H. (2008). Reply to Lages and Heron: Binocular 3D motion estimation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(51), E118-E118. doi:10.1073/pnas.0810330105.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-C625-3
Abstract
In examining 3D motion estimation (1), we start by considering the computation of two entirely plausible quantities—changes in disparity (δ) and azimuth (φ). Because these depend on the difference and mean of retinal signals, respectively, we expect φ to be more reliable. The impact of this differential reliability on motion estimation is best illustrated for pure motion in depth (Vz) and pure lateral motion (Vx). Vz depends only on the higher-variance δ signal, whereas Vx depends almost solely on φ for small movements. Thus we measure performance along these dimensions to illustrate the limitations imposed by the underlying computations.

Lages and Heron (2) query whether it is biologically plausible for the brain to estimate Vx and Vz separately. As we have shown elsewhere (3), formulating the estimation problem in terms Vx and Vz does not imply that the brain estimates the components separately (although performance can clearly be measured along these dimensions as we have shown). Rather, trajectory angles could be calculated directly based on δ and φ (4). The Bayesian model we use (in ref. ,1, see figure 1C) selects the estimator from the two-dimensional (Vx, Vz) space rather than relying on independent estimation.

Lages's previous work (5) suggested that a model based on static disparity (δ) provides the best account for 3D motion estimation. Although this is a formulation we have used previously (,3), we suggest that, within the context of judging moving objects, it is more plausible that estimation be based on motion rather than a disparity snapshot.