PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12854642

Comparing solid-body with point-light animations.

Abstract

The movement of faces provides useful information for a variety of tasks and is now an active area of research. We compare here two ways of presenting face motion in experiments: as solid-body animations and as point-light displays. In the first experiment solid-body and point-light animations, based on the same motion-captured marker data, produced similar levels of performance on a sex-judgment task. The trend was for an advantage for the point-light displays, probably in part because of residual spatial cues available in such stimuli. In the second experiment we compared spatially normalised point-light displays of marker data with solid-body animations and pseudorandom point-light animations. Performance with solid-body animations and normalised point-light displays was similar and above chance, while performance with the pseudorandom point-light stimuli was not above chance. We conclude that both relatively few well-placed points and solid-body animations provide useful information about facial motion, but that a greater number of randomly placed points does not support above-chance performance. Solid-body animations have the methodological advantages of reducing the importance of marker placement and are more effective in isolating motion information, even if they are subsequently rendered as point-light displays.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Harold Hill, Yuri Jinno, Alan Johnston. 2003. Comparing solid-body with point-light animations.. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3435

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Similar effects of a motion-in-depth illusion on manual tracking and perceptual judgements.

We previously demonstrated that changing the apparent extent of a target's apparent motion-in-depth, by manipulating pictorial depth cues in the surrounding, affected perceptual judgements and manual pursuit to the same extent. Here, we investigated whether a different manipulation of the extent of motion (expanding and contracting the object itself) also has the same effect on both tasks. Objects were presented that changed in size as they moved on an elliptical path. The size was related to the object's position in the sagittal plane, suggesting additional motion in depth; therefore the illusion was expected to affect sagittal measures for both perception and action. We measured manual tracking and perceptual judgements of the lateral and sagittal extents of the object's elliptical trajectories. A significant correlation was found across subjects between the effect of the illusion on the perceptual and the motor task. As expected, the illusion only had a significant influence on the sagittal dimension. The size of this illusory effect was equal for perception and action.

Cues↗

Changing perspective within and across environments.

Perspective change within a single environment is a slow and effortful process. However, little research has addressed perspective change across multiple environments. Using a task-set switching paradigm, subjects judged spatial relationships between target locations from differing perspectives. Response times were longer when successive trials probed different perspectives. However, this cost was greater when perspective was changed within a single environment compared to when it was changed across two environments. This result indicates that the processing of perspective change, and perhaps general spatial reasoning, differs in these two cases. Implications for theories of perspective change and environmental knowledge are discussed.

Cues↗

An evidential support accumulation model of subjective probability.

A model of cue-based probability judgment is developed within the framework of support theory. Cue diagnosticity is evaluated from experience as represented by error-free frequency counts. When presented with a pattern of cues, the diagnostic implications of each cue are assessed independently and then summed to arrive at an assessment of the support for a hypothesis, with greater weight placed on present than on absent cues. The model can also accommodate adjustment of support in light of the baserate or prior probability of a hypothesis. Support for alternatives packed together in a "residual" hypothesis is discounted; fewer cues are consulted in assessing support for alternatives as support for the focal hypothesis increases. Results of fitting this and several alternative models to data from four new multiple-cue probability learning experiments are reported.

Cues↗