The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The visual ambiguity of a moving plane
Abstract
It is shown that the optic flow field arising from motion relative to a visually textured plane may be characterized by eight parameters that depend on the observer’s linear and angular velocity and the coordinate vector of the plane. These three vectors are not, however, uniquely determined by the values of the eight parameters. First, the optic flow field does not supply independent values for the observer’s speed and distance from the plane; it only gives the ratio of these two quantities. But more unexpectedly, the equations relating the observer’s linear velocity and the plane’s coordinate vector to the eight parameters are still satisfied if the two vectors are interchanged or reversed in direction, or both. So in addition to the veridical interpretation of the optic flow field there exist three spurious interpretations to be considered and if possible excluded. This purpose is served by the condition that an interpretation can be seriously entertained only if it attributes every image element to a light source in the observer’s field of view. This condition immediately eliminates one of the spurious interpretations, and exhibits the other two as mutually inconsistent: one of them is tenable only if all the visible sources lie on the forward half of the plane (relative to the observer’s linear velocity); the other only if they all lie on the backward half-plane. If the sources are distributed over both halves of the plane, only the veridical interpretation survives. Its computation involves solving a 3 x 3 eigenvalue problem derived from the flow field. If the upper two eigenvalues coincide, the observer must be moving directly towards the plane; if the lower two eigenvalues coincide, his motion must be directly away from it; in both cases the spurious interpretation merges with the veridical one. If all three eigenvalues are equal, it may be inferred that either the observer’s linear velocity vanishes or the plane is infinitely distant.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Epipolar-plane image analysis: An approach to determining structure from motion
Bolles, R. C., Baker, H. H., & Marimont, D. H. (1987) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/bf00128525 · Cited by 892
Critical Configurations for Radial Distortion Self-Calibration
Wu, C. (2014) · 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2014.11 · Cited by 59
3-D object modeling from 2-D occluding contour correspondences by opti-acoustic stereo imaging
Babaee, M., & Negahdaripour, S. (2015) · Computer Vision and Image Understanding · doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2014.10.007 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Longuet-Higgins, H. C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1984-12-22
- Volume
- 223
- Issue
- 1231
- Pages
- 165-175
- ISSN
- 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
- 2053-9193
- OpenAlex
- W2130631517
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The visual ambiguity of a moving plane. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspb.1984.0088
- The paper
- Longuet-Higgins, H. C. (1984). The visual ambiguity of a moving plane. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1984.0088
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.