Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

The Society of Digital Policy and Management (한국디지털정책학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A review of event perception: The first step for convergence on robotics

사건지각에 대한 종설: 로봇공학과의 융복합을 위한 첫단계

  • Received : 2015.02.10
  • Accepted : 2015.04.20
  • Published : 2015.04.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

People observe lots of events around the environment and we can easily recognize the nature of an event from the resulting optic flow. The questions are how do people recognize events and what is the information in the optic flow that enables observers to recognize events. Motor theorists claim that human observers exhibit special sensitivity when perceiving events like speech or biological motion, because we both produce and perceive those events. However, direct perception theorists suggested that speech or biological motion is not special from the perception of all other kinds of event. The purpose of this review article is to address this controversy to critique the motor theory and to describe a direct realist approach to event perception. It is important to understand the fundamental information of how human perceive event perception for the convergence on robotics.

사람들은 항상 사건들과 접하고 그것을 지각하며 산다. 우리는 이러한 광학 흐름의 결과로 볼 수 있는 사건들을 어렵지 않게 인지한다. 문제는 사람들이 어떻게 이러한 사건들을 인지하며 광학 흐름 중 어떠한 정보가 우리로 하여금 이러한 사건들을 인지하게 만드는 지이다. 운동이론학자들은 인간은 이러한 사건들을 생산함과 동시에 지각하기 때문에 말소리 지각이나 생물학적 운동과 같은 사건들을 지각하는 것에 특별한 감각을 가지고 있다고 주장해왔다. 하지만, 직접지각 접근법 연구자들은 말소리 지각이나 생물학적 운동은 어떠한 다른 사건들을 지각하는 것과 다르지 않다고 제안했다. 이 논문의 목적은 사건지각에 관한 운동이론과 직접지각 접근법의 관점에 대해 설명하고 운동이론을 비판함으로써 이 두 이론을 비교하는 것이다. 점차 발전하고 있는 로봇공학과의 융합에 있어서 이러한 인간의 기본적인 사건 지각 능력을 먼저 이해하는 것이 중요하다.

Keywords

References

  1. B. Nery, and R. Ventura, A dynamical systems approach to online event segmentation in cognitive robotics, Paladyn, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 18-24, 2011.
  2. C. A. Kurby, and J. M. Zacks, Segmentation in the perception and memory of events, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 72-79, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.004
  3. J. M. Zacks, N. K. Speer, K. M. Swallow, T. S. Braver, and J. R. Reynolds, Event perception: A mind-brain perspective, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 133, No. 2, pp. 273-293, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.273
  4. N. Stepp, and M. T. Turvey, On strong anticipation, Cognitive Systems Research, Vol. 11, pp. 148-164, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2009.03.003
  5. G. P. Bingham, Dynamics and the problem of visual event recognition. In R. Port, & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as Motion: Dynamics, Behavior and Cognition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press., pp. 403-448, 1995.
  6. S. Runeson, On the visual perception of dynamic events. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala, 1977.
  7. S. Runeson, and G. Frykholm, Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. J. of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 112, pp. 585-615, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.112.4.585
  8. R. M. Alexander, The Human Machine. NY: Columbia University Press, 1992
  9. C. A. Fowler, An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. J. of Phonetics, Vol. 14, pp. 3-28, 1986.
  10. C. A. Fowler, Real objects of speech perception: A commentary on Diehl and Kluender. Ecological Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 145-160, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0102_3
  11. W. H. Warren, and R. E. Shaw, "Events and encounters as units of analysis for ecological psychology", In W. H. Warren & R. E. Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and Change, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 1-27, 1985.
  12. G. Johansson, Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 14, pp. 201-211. 1973. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212378
  13. W. M. Mace, Johansson's approach to visual event perception - Gibson's perspective. In W. H. Warren & R. E. Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and Change, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 55-65, 1985.
  14. G. Johansson, On theories for visual space perception. A letter to Gibson. Scandinavian Journal of Psychophysics, Vol. 11, pp. 67-74. 1970. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1970.tb00719.x
  15. J. J. Gibson, On theories for visual space perception. A letter to Johansson. Scandinavian Journal of Psychophysics, Vol. 11, pp. 75-79. 1970. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1970.tb00720.x
  16. J. J. Gibson, The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1979.
  17. G. Johansson, About visual event perception. In W. H. Warren & R. E. Shaw (Eds.), Persistence and Change. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 29-54, 1985.
  18. J. J. Gibson, A theory of direct visual perception. In J. Royce & W. Rozeboom (Eds.), The Psychology of Knowing, New York and London: Gordonand Breach. pp. 215-227, 1972.
  19. A. M. Liberman and I. G. Mattingly, The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, Vol. 21, pp. 1-36. 1985. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90021-6
  20. P. Eimas, E. R. Siqueland, P. Jusczyk, and J. Vigorito, Speech perception in infants. Science, Vol. 171, pp. 303-306. 1971. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3968.303
  21. R. L. Diehl, and M. A. Walsh, An auditory basis for the stimulus-length effect in the perception of stops and glides. J. of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 85, pp. 2154-2164, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.397864
  22. A. M. Liberman, K. S. Harris, J. Kinney, and H. Lane, The discrimination of relative onset-time of the components of certain speech and nonspeech patterns. J. of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 379-388, 1961. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0049038
  23. D. B. Pisoni, T. D. Carrell, and S. J. Gans, Perception of the duration of rapid spectrum changes in speech and nonspeech signals. Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 34, pp. 314-322. 1983. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203043
  24. C. A. Fowler, Sound-producing sources as object s of perception: Rate normalization and nonspeech perception. J. of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 88, pp. 1236-1249, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.399701
  25. C. A. Fowler, and B. Galantucci, The relation of speech perception and speech production. In D. B. Pisoni & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The Handbook of Speech Perception, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 633-652, 2005.
  26. P. Viviani, and N. Stucchi, Motor-perceptual interactions. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in Motor Behavior II, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 229-248, 1992.
  27. T. Beardworth, and T. Bukner, The ability to recognize one self from a video recording of one's movement without seeing one's body. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, Vol. 18, pp. 19-22, 1981. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333558
  28. J. E. Cutting, Coding theory adapted to gait perception. J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 7, pp. 71-87, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.7.1.71
  29. A. Jacobs, and J. Pinto, Experience, context, and the visual perception of human movement. J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 30, pp. 822-835, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.822
  30. A. Jacobs, and M. Shiffrar, Walking perception by walking observers. J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 31, pp. 157-169, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.157
  31. F. Loula, S. Prasad, K. Harber, and M. Shiffrar, Recognizing people from their movement. J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 31, pp. 210-220, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.210
  32. G. Johansson, Studies on visual perception of locomotion. Perception, Vol. 6, pp. 365-376, 1977. https://doi.org/10.1068/p060365
  33. J. A. Stevens, P. Fonlupt, M. Shiffrar, and J. Decety, New aspects of motion perception: selective neural encoding of apparent human movements. NeuroReport, Vol. 11, pp. 109-115, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200001170-00022
  34. G. P. Bingham, and E. A. Wickelgren, Events and actions as dynamically molded spatiotemporal objects: A critique of the motor theory of biological motion perception. In T. F., Shipley & J. M. Zacks (Eds.), Understanding events: From perception to action, . Oxford University Press, Inc., pp. 255-286, 2008.
  35. W. H. Warren, E. E. Kim, and R. Husney, The way the ball bounces: visual and auditory perception of elasticity and control of the bounce pass. Perception, Vol. 16, pp. 309-336, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1068/p160309
  36. M. Latash, Control of Human Movement. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press., 1993.
  37. G. Knoblich, and W. Prinz, Recognition of self-generated actions from kinematic displays of drawing. J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 27, pp. 456-465, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.456
  38. J. T. Todd, Perception of gait. J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 9, pp. 31-42, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.9.1.31
  39. G. P. Bingham, Dynamical systems and event perception: A working paper, Part II. Perceiving Acting Workshop Review, Vol. 2, pp. 4-7, 1987.
  40. G. P. Bingham, L. D. Rosenblum, and R. C. Schmidt, Dynamics and the orientation of kinematic forms in visual event recognition. J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 21, pp. 1473-1493, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.6.1473
  41. M. M. Muchisky, and G. P. Bingham, Trajectory forms as a source of information about events. Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 64, pp. 15-31, 2002. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194554
  42. C. R. Twardy, and G. P. Bingham,. Causation, causal perception, and conservation laws. Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 64, pp. 956-968, 2002. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196799
  43. D. Jokisch, and N. F. Troje, Biological motion as a cue for the perception of size. Journal of Vision, Vol. 3, pp. 252-264, 2003.
  44. D. S. McConnell, M. M. Muchisky, and G. P. Bingham, The use of time and trajectory forms as visual information about spatial scale in events. Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 670, pp. 1175-1187, 1998.
  45. E. A. Wickelgren, and G. P. Bingham, Infant sensitivity to trajectory forms. J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 27, pp. 942-952, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.942