ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024
Computational account for the naturalness perception of others' jumping motion based on a vertical projectile motion model.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Computational account for the naturalness perception of others' jumping motion based on a vertical projectile motion model.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The visual naturalness of a rendered character's motion is an important factor in computer graphics work, and the rendering of jumping motions is no exception to this. However, the computational mechanism that underlies the observer's judgement of the naturalness of a jumping motion has not yet been fully elucidated. We hypothesized that observers would perceive a jumping motion as more natural when the jump trajectory was consistent with the trajectory of a vertical projectile motion based on Earth's gravity. We asked human participants to evaluate the naturalness of point-light jumping motions whose height and duration were modulated. The results showed that the observers' naturalness rating varied with the modulation ratios of the jump height and duration. Interestingly, the ratings were high even when the height and duration differed from the actual jump. To explain this tendency, we constructed computational models that predicted the theoretical trajectory of a jump based on the projectile motion formula and calculated the errors between the theoretical and observed trajectories. The pattern of the errors correlated closely with the participants' ratings. Our results suggest that observers judge the naturalness of observed jumping motion based on the error between observed and predicted jump trajectories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.