Structure from Stereo and Motion

Stereopsis and motion parallax are two methods for recovering three dimensional shape. Theoretical analyses of each method show that neither alone can recover rigid 3D shapes correctly unless other information, such as perspective, is included. The solutions for recovering rigid structure from motion have a reflection ambiguity; the depth scale of the stereoscopic solution will not be known unless the fixation distance is specified in units of interpupil separation. (Hence the configuration will appear distorted.) However, the correct configuration and the disposition of a rigid 3D shape can be recovered if stereopsis and motion are integrated, for then a unique solution follows from a set of linear equations. The correct interpretation requires only three points and two stereo views.

Laminar Cortical Dynamics of Visual Form and Motion Interactions During Coherent Object Motion Perception

How do visual form and motion processes cooperate to compute object motion when each process separately is insufficient? A 3D FORMOTION model specifies how 3D boundary representations, which separate figures from backgrounds within cortical area V2, capture motion signals at the appropriate depths in MT; how motion signals in MT disambiguate boundaries in V2 via MT-to-Vl-to-V2 feedback; how sparse feature tracking signals are amplified; and how a spatially anisotropic motion grouping process propagates across perceptual space via MT-MST feedback to integrate feature-tracking and ambiguous motion signals to determine a global object motion percept. Simulated data include: the degree of motion coherence of rotating shapes observed through apertures, the coherent vs. element motion percepts separated in depth during the chopsticks illusion, and the rigid vs. non-rigid appearance of rotating ellipses.

Laminar Cortical Dynamics of Visual Form and Motion Interactions During Coherent Object Motion Perception

How do visual form and motion processes cooperate to compute object motion when each process separately is insufficient? Consider, for example, a deer moving behind a bush. Here the partially occluded fragments of motion signals available to an observer must be coherently grouped into the motion of a single object. A 3D FORMOTION model comprises five important functional interactions involving the brain’s form and motion systems that address such situations. Because the model’s stages are analogous to areas of the primate visual system, we refer to the stages by corresponding anatomical names. In one of these functional interactions, 3D boundary representations, in which figures are separated from their backgrounds, are formed in cortical area V2. These depth-selective V2 boundaries select motion signals at the appropriate depths in MT via V2-to-MT signals. In another, motion signals in MT disambiguate locally incomplete or ambiguous boundary signals in V2 via MT-to-V1-to-V2 feedback. The third functional property concerns resolution of the aperture problem along straight moving contours by propagating the influence of unambiguous motion signals generated at contour terminators or corners. Here, sparse “feature tracking signals” from, e.g., line ends, are amplified to overwhelm numerically superior ambiguous motion signals along line segment interiors. In the fourth, a spatially anisotropic motion grouping process takes place across perceptual space via MT-MST feedback to integrate veridical feature-tracking and ambiguous motion signals to determine a global object motion percept. The fifth property uses the MT-MST feedback loop to convey an attentional priming signal from higher brain areas back to V1 and V2. The model's use of mechanisms such as divisive normalization, endstopping, cross-orientation inhibition, and longrange cooperation is described. Simulated data include: the degree of motion coherence of rotating shapes observed through apertures, the coherent vs. element motion percepts separated in depth during the chopsticks illusion, and the rigid vs. non-rigid appearance of rotating ellipses.

Possible futures for social work with children and families in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States

There has been considerable interest in recent years in comparing the operation of social work services to children and families internationally, particularly between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Reviewing the respective policy environments and drawing on recent research experience in these three nations the author speculates as to how such services may be placed to respond to a converging agenda to tackle the high social and economic costs of social exclusion. It is argued that a conspiracy of circumstances have led child and family social work away from its more general child welfare objectives of the past and created consolidation of functions in relation to child protection work. This has left services ill prepared to play a central role within a new and resurgent child welfare agenda.