skip to main content
research-article

Evaluating the distinctiveness and attractiveness of human motions on realistic virtual bodies

Published:01 November 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Recent advances in rendering and data-driven animation have enabled the creation of compelling characters with impressive levels of realism. While data-driven techniques can produce animations that are extremely faithful to the original motion, many challenging problems remain because of the high complexity of human motion. A better understanding of the factors that make human motion recognizable and appealing would be of great value in industries where creating a variety of appealing virtual characters with realistic motion is required. To investigate these issues, we captured thirty actors walking, jogging and dancing, and applied their motions to the same virtual character (one each for the males and females). We then conducted a series of perceptual experiments to explore the distinctiveness and attractiveness of these human motions, and whether characteristic motion features transfer across an individual's different gaits. Average faces are perceived to be less distinctive but more attractive, so we explored whether this was also true for body motion. We found that dancing motions were most easily recognized and that distinctiveness in one gait does not predict how recognizable the same actor is when performing a different motion. As hypothesized, average motions were always amongst the least distinctive and most attractive. Furthermore, as 50% of participants in the experiment were Caucasian European and 50% were Asian Korean, we found that the latter were as good as or better at recognizing the motions of the Caucasian actors than their European counterparts, in particular for dancing males, whom they also rated more highly for attractiveness.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Arikan, O., and Forsyth, D. A. 2002. Interactive motion generation from examples. ACM Trans. Graph. 21, 3, 483--490. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Beardsworth, T., and Buckner, T. 1981. The ability to recognize oneself from a video recording of ones movements without seeing ones body. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 18, 1, 19--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Blais, C., Jack, R. E., Scheepers, C., Fiset, D., and Caldara, R. 2008. Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS One 3, 8, e3022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Borkowska, B., and Pawlowski, B. 2011. Female voice frequency in the context of dominance and attractiveness perception. Animal Behaviour 82, 1, 55--59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Brand, M., and Hertzmann, A. 2000. Style machines. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH 2000, 183--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Brown, W., Cronk, L., Grochow, K., Jacobson, A., Liu, K., Popovic, Z., and Trivers, R. 2005. Dance reveals symmetry especially in young men. Nature 438, 7071, 1148--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunningham, M. R. 1986. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50, 5, 925--935.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Cutting, J. E., and Kozlowski, L. T. 1977. Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 9, 5, 353--356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Fugard, A., Pfeifer, N., Mayerhofer, B., and Kleiter, G. 2011. How people interpret conditionals: shifts toward the conditional event. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 37, 3, 635--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Grammer, K., Keki, V., Striebel, B., Atzmüller, M., and Fink, B. 2003. Bodies in motion: A window to the soul. In Evolutionary Aesthetics. 295--323.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Grochow, K., Martin, S. L., Hertzmann, A., and Popović, Z. 2004. Style-based inverse kinematics. ACM Trans. Graph. 23, 3, 522--531. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hecker, C., Raabe, B., Enslow, R. W., DeWeese, J., Maynard, J., and van Prooijen, K. 2008. Real-time motion retargeting to highly varied user-created morphologies. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 3, 27:1--27:11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Johansson, G. 1973. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics 14, 201--211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Johnson, K. L., and Tassinary, L. G. 2005. Perceiving sex directly and indirectly: Meaning in motion and morphology. Psychological Science 16, 11, 890--897.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Johnson, K. L., and Tassinary, L. G. 2007. Compatibility of basic social perceptions determines perceived attractiveness. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 12, 5246--5251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Kovar, L., Gleicher, M., and Pighin, F. 2002. Motion graphs. ACM Trans. Graph. 21, 3, 473--482. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kovar, L., Schreiner, J., and Gleicher, M. 2002. Footskate cleanup for motion capture editing. In Proc. of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA), 97--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Krumhansl, C. L., and Schenck, D. L. 1997. Can dance reflect the structural and expressive qualities of music? a perceptual experiment on balanchine's choreography of mozart's divertimento no. 15. Musicae Scientiae 1, 1, 63--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Kulpa, R., Multon, F., and Arnaldi, B. 2005. Morphology-independent representation of motions for interactive human-like animation. Computer Graphics Forum 24, 3, 343--352.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Le Callennec, B., and Boulic, R. 2006. Robust kinematic constraint detection for motion data. In Proc. of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA), 281--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Lee, J., Chai, J., Reitsma, P. S. A., Hodgins, J. K., and Pollard, N. S. 2002. Interactive control of avatars animated with human motion data. ACM Trans. Graph. 21, 3, 491--500. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ma, W., Xia, S., Hodgins, J. K., Yang, X., Li, C., and Wang, Z. 2010. Modeling style and variation in human motion. In Proc. of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA), 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Mather, G., Pavan, A., Bellacosa Marotti, R., Campana, G., and Casco, C. 2013. Interactions between motion and form processing in the human visual system. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 7, 65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. McDonnell, R., Larkin, M., Dobbyn, S., Collins, S., and O'Sullivan, C. 2008. Clone attack! perception of crowd variety. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 3, 26:1--26:8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. McDonnell, R., Larkin, M., Hernández, B., Rudomin, I., and O'Sullivan, C. 2009. Eye-catching crowds: saliency based selective variation. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 3, 55:1--55:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Meissner, C. A., and Brigham, J. C. 2001. Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law 7, 1, 3--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Mondloch, C. J., Elms, N., Maurer, D., Rhodes, G., Hayward, W. G., Tanaka, J. W., and G., Z. 2010. Processes underlying the cross-race effect: an investigation of holistic, featural, and relational processing of own-race versus other-race faces. Perception 39, 8, 1065--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Perrett, D., May, K., and Yoshikawa, S. 1994. Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature 368, 239--242.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Peskin, M., and Newell, F. N. 2004. Familiarity breeds attraction: Effects of exposure on the attractiveness of typical and distinctive faces. Perception 33, 2, 147--158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Pica, P., Jackson, S., Blake, R., and Troje, N. 2011. Comparing biological motion perception in two distinct human societies. PLoS ONE 6, 12, e28391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Pollick, F., Kay, J., Heim, K., and Stringer, R. 2005. Gender recognition from point-light walkers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31, 6, 1247--65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Pražák, M., and O'Sullivan, C. 2011. Perceiving human motion variety. In Proc. of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization (APGV), 87--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Pražák, M., McDonnell, R., and O'Sullivan, C. 2010. Perceptual evaluation of human animation timewarping. In ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2010 Sketches, 30:1--30:2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Pullen, K., and Bregler, C. 2002. Motion capture assisted animation: texturing and synthesis. ACM Trans. Graph. 21, 3, 501--508. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Reich, E. S. 2013. Symmetry study deemed a fraud. Nature 497, 170--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Rhodes, G. 2006. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology 57, 199--226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Ryall, K., Hoyet, L., Hodgins, J. K., and O'Sullivan, C. 2012. Exploring sensitivity to time-warped biological motion. Perception (ECVP Abstract Supplement) 41, 149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Troje, N. F. 2002. Decomposing biological motion: A framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. Journal of Vision 2, 5, 371--87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Troje, N. F. 2008. Retrieving information from human movement patterns. In Understanding Events: How Humans See, Represent and Act on Events, T. Shipley and J. Zacks, Eds., 308--334.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang, J., and Bodenheimer, B. 2003. An evaluation of a cost metric for selecting transitions between motion segments. In Proc. of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA), 232--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Wang, J., and Bodenheimer, B. 2004. Computing the duration of motion transitions: an empirical approach. In Proc. of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA), 335--344. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating the distinctiveness and attractiveness of human motions on realistic virtual bodies

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
      ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 32, Issue 6
      November 2013
      671 pages
      ISSN:0730-0301
      EISSN:1557-7368
      DOI:10.1145/2508363
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 November 2013
      Published in tog Volume 32, Issue 6

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader