Auxiliary object knowledge influences visually-guided interception behavior

ABSTRACT

This work investigated how humans integrate visual information with object knowledge for interception behavior. When attempting to intercept a moving object using only monocular visual information, the optimal interception position may be ambiguous-the observer may be viewing a small object that is near or a large object that is far away. Regardless, humans are quite adept at monocular interception so it is likely that additional information is incorporated to disambiguate the visual information. We hypothesize that object size information is integrated to accomplish this disambiguation. This sort of auxiliary information integration is well-defined by a Bayesian model of information propagation. We derived a Bayesian model that represents scene attributes relevant to intercepting an object and relations among these attributes. Our model combines sensory measurements with prior scene knowledge to infer an object's position. To test our model we asked participants to intercept a moving ball in virtual reality. In some trials participants were able to see and touch the ball before intercepting it, in others they were only able to see it. When allowed to touch the ball, participants showed improved interception performance. Effectively, they discounted the variation in image size that was caused by variation in object size to obtain more accurate knowledge of object distance. This discounting is consistent with Bayesian information propagation and confirms our hypothesis that human participants use Bayesian inference to estimate an object's distance for interception.

REFERENCES

• 1: Battaglia, P. W., Jacobs, R. A., and Aslin, R. N. 2003. Bayesian integration of visual and auditory signals for spatial localization. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 20, 7, 1391--1397.
• 2: Caljouw, S. R., Van Der Kamp, J., and Savelsbergh, G. J. P. 2004. Catching optical information for the regulation of timing. Experimental Brain Research 155, 427--438.
• 3: Ernst, M. O., and Banks, M. S. 2002. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415, 6870, 429--33.
• 4: Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., and Yuille, A. 2004. Object perception as bayesian inference. Annual Review of Psychology 55, 271--304.
• 5: Knill, D., and Kersten, D. 1991. Apparent surface curvature affects lightness perception. Nature 351, 228--230.
• 6: David C. Knill , Whitman Richards, Perception as Bayesian inference, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1996
• 7: Knill, D. 1998. Ideal observer perturbation analysis reveals human strategies for inferring surface orientation from texture. Vision Research 38, 17, 2635--2656.
• 8: Körding, K., and Wolpert, D. 2004. Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning. Nature 427, 244--247.
• 9: Lee, D. N., and Reddish, P. E. 1981. Plummeting gannets: a paradigm of ecological optics. Nature 293, 293--294.
• 10: Lee, D. N., and Young, D. S. 1985. Visual timing of interceptive action. In Brain Mechanisms and Spatial Vision, D. Ingle, M. Jeannerod, and D. Lee, Eds. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
• 11: Mamassian, P., and Landy, M. S. 2001. Interaction of visual prior constraints. Vision Research 41, 20, 2653--68.
• 12: Judea Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1988
• 13: Peper, L., Bootsma, R. J., Mestre, D. R., and Bakker, F. C. 1994. Catching balls: how to get the hand to the right place at the right time. Journal of Experimental Psychology 20, 3, 591--612.
• 14: Port Nl, Lee D, D. P., and Ap, G. 1997. Manual interception of moving targets: I. performance and movement initiation. Experimental Brain Research 116, 406--420.
• 15: Schrater, P. R., and Kersten, D. 1999. Statistical structure and task dependence in visual cue integration. In Workshop on Statistical and Computational Theories of Vision -- Modeling, Learning, Computing, and Sampling, S.-C. Zhu, Ed.
• 16: Paul R. Schrater , Daniel Kersten, How Optimal Depth Cue Integration Depends on the Task, International Journal of Computer Vision, v.40 n.1, p.71-89, Oct. 2000 [doi>10.1023/A:1026557704054]
• 17: Servos, P., and Goodale, M. A. 1998. Monocular and binocular control of human interceptive movements. Experimental Brain Research 119, 1, 92--102.
• 18: Weiss, Y., Simoncelli, E. P., and Adelson, E. H. 2002. Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nature Neuroscience 5, 6, 598--604.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.10 Vision and Scene Understanding
            Subjects: Modeling and recovery of physical attributes

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS
      I.3.7 Three-Dimensional Graphics and Realism
          Subjects: Virtual reality
  I.4 IMAGE PROCESSING AND COMPUTER VISION
      I.4.8 Scene Analysis
          Subjects: Sensor fusion

  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
      Subjects: Psychology

Keywords:
bayes, interception, perceptual inference, virtual reality