Literature DB >> 23291649

Highlights, disparity, and perceived gloss with convex and concave surfaces.

Iona S Kerrigan1, Wendy J Adams.   

Abstract

Glossy and matte objects can be differentiated using specular highlights: bright patches in the retinal image produced when light rays are reflected regularly from smooth surfaces. However, bright patches also occur on matte objects, due to local illumination or reflectance changes. Binocular vision provides information that could distinguish specular highlights from other luminance discontinuities; unlike surface markings, specular highlights lie not at the surface depth, but "float" in front of concave surfaces and behind convex ones. We ask whether observers implicitly understand and exploit the peculiarities of specular geometry for gloss and shape perception. Our participants judged the glossiness and shape of curved surfaces that included specular highlights at various depths. Observers demonstrated substantial deviations from a full geometric model of specular reflection. Concave surfaces appeared glossy both when highlights lay in front of and (incorrectly) behind the surface. Failings in the interpretation of monocular highlights were also apparent. Highlight disparity had no effect on shape perception. However, the perceived gloss of convex surfaces did follow geometric constraints: only highlights at appropriate depths produced high gloss ratings. We suggest, in contrast with previous work, that the visual system invokes simple heuristics as gloss indicators to accommodate complex reflections and inter-reflections that occur particularly inside concavities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23291649     DOI: 10.1167/13.1.9

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


  10 in total

1.  Naturally glossy: Gloss perception, illumination statistics, and tone mapping.

Authors:  Wendy J Adams; Gizem Kucukoglu; Michael S Landy; Rafal K Mantiuk
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Key characteristics of specular stereo.

Authors:  Alexander A Muryy; Roland W Fleming; Andrew E Welchman
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Accuracy and speed of material categorization in real-world images.

Authors:  Lavanya Sharan; Ruth Rosenholtz; Edward H Adelson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Low levels of specularity support operational color constancy, particularly when surface and illumination geometry can be inferred.

Authors:  Robert J Lee; Hannah E Smithson
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.129

5.  'Proto-rivalry': how the binocular brain identifies gloss.

Authors:  Alexander A Muryy; Roland W Fleming; Andrew E Welchman
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Differential processing of binocular and monocular gloss cues in human visual cortex.

Authors:  Hua-Chun Sun; Massimiliano Di Luca; Hiroshi Ban; Alexander Muryy; Roland W Fleming; Andrew E Welchman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Touch influences perceived gloss.

Authors:  Wendy J Adams; Iona S Kerrigan; Erich W Graf
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Quantification of Visual Texture and Presentation of Intermediate Visual Texture by Spatial Mixing.

Authors:  Yuta Yoshimizu; Hiroki Yasuga; Eiji Iwase
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 2.891

9.  fMRI evidence for areas that process surface gloss in the human visual cortex.

Authors:  Hua-Chun Sun; Hiroshi Ban; Massimiliano Di Luca; Andrew E Welchman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Effects of specular highlights on perceived surface convexity.

Authors:  Wendy J Adams; James H Elder
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 4.475

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.