Literature DB >> 26756175

Motion and texture shape cues modulate perceived material properties.

Phillip J Marlow, Barton L Anderson.   

Abstract

Specular and matte surfaces can project identical images if the surface geometry and light field are appropriately configured. Our previous work has shown that the visual system can exploit stereopsis and contour cues to 3D shape to disambiguate different surface reflectance interpretations. Here, we test whether material perception depends on information about surface geometry provided by structure from motion and shape from texture. Different surface textures were superimposed on a fixed pattern of luminance gradients to generate two different 3D shape interpretations. Each shape interpretation of the luminance gradients promoted a different experience of surface reflectance and illumination direction, which varied from a specular surface in frontal illumination to a comparatively matte surface in grazing illumination. The shape that appeared most specular exhibited the steepest derivatives of luminance with respect to surface orientation, consistent with physical differences between specular and diffuse reflectance. The effect of apparent shape on perceived reflectance occurred for a variety of surface textures that provided either structure from motion, shape from texture, or both optical sources of shape information. In conjunction with previous findings (Marlow, Todorović, & Anderson, 2015; Marlow & Anderson, 2015), these results suggest that any cue that provides sufficient information about 3D shape can also be used to derive material properties from the rate that luminance varies as a function of surface curvature.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26756175     DOI: 10.1167/16.1.5

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


  9 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.  Perception and misperception of surface opacity.

Authors:  Phillip J Marlow; Juno Kim; Barton L Anderson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  The Certainty of Ambiguity in Visual Neural Representations.

Authors:  Jan W Brascamp; Steven K Shevell
Journal:  Annu Rev Vis Sci       Date:  2021-09-15       Impact factor: 7.745

4.  Motion of glossy objects does not promote separation of lighting and surface colour.

Authors:  Robert J Lee; Hannah E Smithson
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 2.963

5.  Increasing the Complexity of the Illumination May Reduce Gloss Constancy.

Authors:  Gunnar Wendt; Franz Faul
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2017-12-09

6.  Turbine Blade Illusion.

Authors:  George Mather; Rob Lee
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2017-05-25

7.  Dynamic Visual Cues for Differentiating Mirror and Glass.

Authors:  Hideki Tamura; Hiroshi Higashi; Shigeki Nakauchi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Expectations affect the perception of material properties.

Authors:  Lorilei M Alley; Alexandra C Schmid; Katja Doerschner
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Unsupervised learning predicts human perception and misperception of gloss.

Authors:  Katherine R Storrs; Barton L Anderson; Roland W Fleming
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-05-06
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.