Many studies have focused on the factors related to attribution of meaning to motion. In the majority of these studies, two or more moving objects were used, often on a nonhomogeneous background. In the present paper the literature on the perception of animacy of a single object moving on a homogeneous background is reviewed. A pilot study was performed to study the influence on perception of animacy of the shape of the trajectory, the presence of a reference point on the screen, introduction of a sudden stop or of a pause in the motion of a single object, and influence of one or more sudden accelerations or decelerations. Although research shows that the context may favour the perception of animacy, the present analysis shows that it is possible to distinguish between animate and inanimate motion of a single object on the basis only of the kinetic conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BinghamG. P.RosenblumL. D.SchmidtR. C. (1995) Dynamics and the orientation of forms in visual event recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1473–1493.
2.
BlackmoreS. J.BoyerP.Pachot-ClouardM.MeltzoffA. N.SegebarthC.DecetyJ. (in press) The detection of contingency and animacy in the human brain.
3.
BlackmoreS. J.FonluptP.Pachot-ClouardM.DarmonC.BoyerP.MeltzoffA. N.SegebarthC.DecetyJ. (2001) How the brain perceives causality: an event-related fMRI study. NeuroReport, 12, 3741–3746.
4.
BloomP.VeresC. (1999) The perceived intentionality of groups. Cognition, 71, B1–B9.
5.
BozziP. (1978) L'interosservazione come metodo per la fenomenologia sperimentale [Interobservation as a method for experimental phenomenology]. In BozziP. (Ed.), Fenomenologia sperimentale. Bologna: Il Mulino. Chap. 7.
6.
DittrichW. H.LeaS. E. G. (1994) Visual perception of intentional motion. Perception, 23, 253–268.
7.
Flores d'ArcaisG. B.GyulaiE. (1985) La percezione dell'intenzionalità nella frenata di un oggetto in movimento [The perception of intentionality in the braking of a moving object]. In GerbinoW. (Ed.), Festschrift in onore di G. Kanizsa [Festscrift in honor of G. Kanizsa]. Bologna: Il Mulino. Pp. 179–196.
8.
GelmanR.DurginF.KaufmanL. (1995) Distinguishing between animates and inanimates: not by motion alone. In SperberS.PremackD.PremackA. J. (Eds.), Causal cognition: a multi-disciplinary debate. Cambridge, UK: Oxford Univer. Press. Pp. 150–184.
9.
GelmanR.SpelkeE. (1981) The development of thoughts about animate and inanimate objects: implications for research on social cognition. In FlavellJ. H.RossL. (Eds.), Social cognitive development: frontiers and possible futures. Cambridge, UK: Oxford Univer. Press. Pp. 43–46.
10.
GyulaiE. (1981) L'influenza delle condizioni cinetiche sui caratteri espressivi di oggetti in movimento [Influence of kinetic conditions on the expressivity of moving objects]. (Report No. 33) Padua, Italy: Padua Univer., Institute of Psychology.
11.
GyulaiE. (1996) The jump effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 707–714.
12.
GyulaiE. (1997) The “jump” and “release” effects: some observations on the perception of causality. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 547–554.
13.
GyulaiE.Flores d'ArcaisG. B.GlazenborgG.SchreuderR. (1980) The perception of braking in the movement of simple objects. Leiden, The Netherlands: Univer. of Leiden. (Research Report of the Department of Psychology)
14.
HeiderF.SimmelM. (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243–249.
15.
JohanssonG. (1973) Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 201–211.
16.
KanizsaG.MetelliF. (1961) Researches expérimentales sur la Perception visuelle d'attraction [Experimental researches on the perception of visual attraction]. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique, 4, 383–420.
17.
KanizsaG.VicarioG. B. (1970) La perception de la réaction intentionelle [The perception of intentional reaction]. Bulletin de Psychologie, 17, 1010–1039.
18.
KellmanP. J.BanksM. S. (1998) Infant visual perception. In KuhnD.SieglerR. S. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. II. New York: Wiley. Pp. 103–146.
19.
LasseterJ. (1987) Principles of traditional animation applied to 3d Computer animation. Computer Graphics, 21, 35–44.
20.
LeslieA. M. (1982) The perception of causality in infants. Perception, 11, 173–186.
21.
LethbridgeT.WareC. (1990) Animation using behavior functions. In IchikawaT.JungertE.KorfhageR. (Eds.), Visual languages and applications. New York: Plenum. Pp. 237–252.
22.
LeveltW. J. M. (1962) Motion braking and the perception of causality. In MichotteA. (Ed.), Causalité, permanence et réalité phénoménales. (2nd ed.) Louvain, Fr.: Louvain Publ. Universitaires. Pp. 244–258.
23.
MichotteA. (1946) La perception de la causalité [The perception of causality]. Louvain, Fr.: Editions Universitaires de Louvain.
24.
MichotteA. (1950) The emotions regarded as functional connections. In ReymertM. (Ed.), Feelings and emotions. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 114–125. [Reprinted, 1991, in ThinésG.CostallA.ButterworthG. (Eds.), Michotte's Experimental phenomenology of perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 103–116.
25.
MinguzziG. F. (1961) Caratteri espressivi ed intenzionali dei movimenti: la percezione dell' attesta [Intentional and expressive features of movements: the perception of waiting]. Rivista di Psicologia, 55, 157–174.
26.
MinguzziG. F. (1968) Sulla validità della distinzione tra percezione di nessi causali e percezione di dipendenze funzionali [On the validity of the distinction between the perception of causal connections and the perception of functional dependencies]. In KanízsaG.VicarioG. B. (Eds.), Ricerche sperimentali sulla percezione. Trieste: Istituto di psicologia. Pp. 161–196.
27.
OpferJ. E. (2002) Identifying living and sentient kinds from dynamic information: the case of goal-directed versus aimless autonomous movement in conceptual change. Cognition, 86, 97–122.
28.
PremackD. (1990) The infant's theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition, 36, 1–16.
29.
PremackD. (1995) Cause-induced motion: intention-spontaneous motion. In ChangeuxJ. P.ChavaillonJ. (Eds.), Origins of the human brain. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer. Press. Pp. 286–309.
30.
PremackD.PremackA. J. (1997) Infants attribute value to the goal-directed actions of self-propelled objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 848–856.
31.
SchollB. J.TremouletP. D. (2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 299–309.
32.
StewartJ. A. (1982) Perception of animacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
33.
StewartJ. A. (1984) Object motion and the perception of animacy. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Antonio, TX.
34.
TagiuriR. (1960) Movement as a cue to person perception. In DavidH. P.BrengelmannJ. C. (Eds.), Perspectives in personality research. New York: Springer. Pp. 175–198.
35.
TraversM. D. (2000) Programing with agents: new metaphors for thinking about computation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Arts.
36.
TremouletP. D.FeldmanJ. (2000) Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception, 29, 943–951.
37.
VaughamG. (1997) Understanding movement. In Proceedings of ACM SIGHI 1997. Pp. 548–549.
38.
VicarioG. B. (2001) Psicologia generale. I fondamenti [General psychology: fundamental principles]. Roma: Laterza ED.
39.
WilliamE. M. (2000) Causal reasoning by children and adults about the trajectory, context and animacy of a moving object. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer. of California, Los Angeles.
