Literature DB >> 19271907

Search for gross illumination discrepancies in images of natural objects.

P George Lovell1, Iain D Gilchrist, David J Tolhurst, Tom Troscianko.   

Abstract

Shadows may be "discounted" in human visual perception because they do not provide stable, lighting-invariant, information about the properties of objects in the environment. Using visual search, R. A. Rensink and P. Cavanagh (2004) found that search for an upright discrepant shadow was less efficient than for an inverted one. Here we replicate and extend this work using photographs of real objects (pebbles) and their shadows. The orientation of the target shadows was varied between 30 and 180 degrees. Stimuli were presented upright (light from above, the usual situation in the world) or inverted (light from below, unnatural lighting). RTs for upright images were slower for shadows angled at 30 degrees, exactly as found by Rensink and Cavanagh. However, for all other shadow angles tested, the RTs were faster for upright images. This suggests, for small discrepancies in shadow orientation, a switch of processing from a relatively coarse-scaled shadow system to other general-purpose visual routines. Manipulations of the visual heterogeneity of the pebbles that cast the shadows differentially influenced performance. For inverted images, heterogeneity had the expected influence: reducing search efficiency and increasing overall search time. This effect was greatly reduced when images were presented upright, presumably when the distractors were processed as shadows. We suggest that shadows may be processed in a functionally separate, spatially coarse, mechanism. The pattern of results suggests that human vision does not use a shadow-suppressing system in search tasks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19271907     DOI: 10.1167/9.1.37

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  6 in total

1.  Reduced sensitivity for visual textures affects judgments of shape-from-shading and step-climbing behaviour in older adults.

Authors:  Andrew J Schofield; Benjamin Curzon-Jones; Mark A Hollands
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-11-05       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Perception of shadows in children with autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Cristina Becchio; Morena Mari; Umberto Castiello
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Shadows remain segmented as selectable regions in object-based attention paradigms.

Authors:  Lee de-Wit; David Milner; Robert Kentridge
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2012-03-05

4.  Dealing with illumination in visual scenes: effects of ageing and Alzheimer's disease.

Authors:  Gillian Porter; Ute Leonards; Tom Troscianko; Judy Haworth; Antony Bayer; Andrea Tales
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  The multisensory body revealed through its cast shadows.

Authors:  Francesco Pavani; Giovanni Galfano
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-19

6.  Can people detect errors in shadows and reflections?

Authors:  Sophie J Nightingale; Kimberley A Wade; Hany Farid; Derrick G Watson
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 2.199

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.