Prototypes of Biological Movements in Brains and Machines

  • Martin A. Giese
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2525)


Biological movements and actions are important visual stimuli. Their recognition is a highly relevant problem for biological as well as for technical systems. In the domain of stationary object recognition the concept of a prototype-based representation of object shape has been quite inspiring for research in computer vision as well as in neuroscience. The paper presents an overview of some recent work aiming at a generalization of such concepts for the domain of complex movements. First, a technical method is presented that allows to represent classes of complex movements by linear combinations of learned example trajectories. Applications of this method in computer vision and computer graphics are briefly discussed. The relevance of prototype-based representations for the recognition of complex movements in the visual cortex is discussed in the second part of the paper. By devising a simple neurophysiologically plausible model it is demonstrated that many experimental findings on the visual recognition of “biological motion” can be accounted for by a neural representation of learned prototypical motion patterns.


Complex Movement Biological Movement Superior Temporal Sulcus Form Pathway Trajectory Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D Beymer and T Poggio. Image representations for visual learning. Science, 272:1905–1909, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    V Blanz and T Vetter. Morphable model for the synthesis of 3d faces. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 99, Los Angeles, pages 187–194, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M Brand. Style machines. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2000, New Orleans, Lousiana, USA, pages 23–28, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A Bruderlin and L Williams. Motion signal processing. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 95, Los Angeles, pages 97–104, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H H Bülthoff and S Edelman. Psychophysical support for a 2D-view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 89:60–64, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J E Cutting and L T Kozlowski. Recognising friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9:353–356, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S Edelman. Representation and Recognition in Vision. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D M Gavrila. The visual analysis of human movement: A survey. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 73:82–98, 1999.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M A Giese. Dynamit neural model for the recognition of biological motion. In H Neumann and G Barato., editors, Dynamische Perzeption 9, pages 829–835. In.x, Sankt Augustin, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M A Giese and M Lappe. Measuring generalization fields of biological motion. Vision Research, 42:1847–1858, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M A Giese and T Poggio. Morphable models for the analysis and Synthesis of complex motion Pattern. International Journal of Computer Vision, 38:59–73, 2000.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M A Giese and T Poggio. Neural mechanisms for the recognition of biological movements and actions. Nature Neuroscience, (submitted), 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M A Giese and L M Vaina. Pathways in the analysis of biological motion: computational model and fMRI results. Perception, 30 (Suppl.):ll6, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G Johansson. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 14:201–211, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M J Jones and T Poggio. Multidimensional morphable models: A framework for representing and matching object classes. International Journal of Computer Vision, 29:107–131, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J Lee and S Y Shin. A hierarchical approach to interactive motion editing for human-like figures. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 99, Los Angeles, pages 39–48, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N K Logothetis, J Pauls, and T Poggio. Shape representation in the inferior temporal cortex of monkeys. Current Biology, 5:552–563, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S E Palmer. Vision Science. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D I Perrett, P A J Smith, A J Mistlin, A J Chitty, A S Head, D D Potter, Broennimann R, A D Milner, and M A Jeeves. Visual analysis of body movements by neurons in the temporal cortex of the macaque monkey: a preliminary report. Behavioral Brain Research, 16:153–170, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    T Poggio and S Edelman. A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343:263–266, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    M K Riesenhuber and T Poggio. A hierarchical model for visual object recognition. Nature Neuroscience, 11:1019–1025, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S Ullman and R Basri. Recognition by linear combination of models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Recognition and Machine Intelligence, 13:992–1006, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    T Valentine. A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion and rate in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A:161–204, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T Vetter and T Poggio. Linear object classes and image synthesis from a single example. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Recognition and Machine Intelligence, 19(7):733–742, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    X Xie and M A Giese. Nonlinear dynamics of direction-selective recurrent neural media. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys, 65 (5 Pt 1):051904, 2002.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Y Yacoob and M J Black. Parameterized modeling and recognition of activities. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, (in press), 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin A. Giese
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Action Representation and Learning, Dept. of Cognitive NeurologyUniversity ClinicTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations