Literature DB >> 29229812

Perception and misperception of surface opacity.

Phillip J Marlow1, Juno Kim2, Barton L Anderson1.   

Abstract

A fundamental problem in extracting scene structure is distinguishing different physical sources of image structure. Light reflected by an opaque surface covaries with local surface orientation, whereas light transported through the body of a translucent material does not. This suggests the possibility that the visual system may use the covariation of local surface orientation and intensity as a cue to the opacity of surfaces. We tested this hypothesis by manipulating the contrast of luminance gradients and the surface geometries to which they belonged and assessed how these manipulations affected the perception of surface opacity/translucency. We show that (i) identical luminance gradients can appear either translucent or opaque depending on the relationship between luminance and perceived 3D surface orientation, (ii) illusory percepts of translucency can be induced by embedding opaque surfaces in diffuse light fields that eliminate the covariation between surface orientation and intensity, and (iii) illusory percepts of opacity can be generated when transparent materials are embedded in a light field that generates images where surface orientation and intensity covary. Our results provide insight into how the visual system distinguishes opaque surfaces and light-permeable materials and why discrepancies arise between the perception and physics of opacity and translucency. These results suggest that the most significant information used to compute the perceived opacity and translucency of surfaces arise at a level of representation where 3D shape is made explicit.

Keywords:  3D shape; material perception; reflectance; translucency; visual perception

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29229812      PMCID: PMC5748181          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1711416115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  22 in total

1.  Perception of three-dimensional shape influences colour perception through mutual illumination.

Authors:  M G Bloj; D Kersten; A C Hurlbert
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999 Dec 23-30       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Illusory gloss on Lambertian surfaces.

Authors:  Maarten W A Wijntjes; Sylvia C Pont
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-11-24       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Disparity, motion, and color information improve gloss constancy performance.

Authors:  Gunnar Wendt; Franz Faul; Vebjørn Ekroll; Rainer Mausfeld
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  The darker-is-deeper heuristic for the perception of 3D shape from shading: Is it perceptually or ecologically valid?

Authors:  James T Todd; Eric J L Egan; Christopher S Kallie
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Conjoint measurement of gloss and surface texture.

Authors:  Yun-Xian Ho; Michael S Landy; Laurence T Maloney
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-02

6.  The perception and misperception of specular surface reflectance.

Authors:  Phillip J Marlow; Juno Kim; Barton L Anderson
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2012-09-06       Impact factor: 10.834

7.  How shape from contours affects shape from shading.

Authors:  Dejan Todorović
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Looking against the light: how perception of translucency depends on lighting direction.

Authors:  Bei Xiao; Bruce Walter; Ioannis Gkioulekas; Todd Zickler; Edward Adelson; Kavita Bala
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Perceived lightness depends on perceived spatial arrangement.

Authors:  A L Gilchrist
Journal:  Science       Date:  1977-01-14       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Is the perception of 3D shape from shading based on assumed reflectance and illumination?

Authors:  James T Todd; Eric J L Egan; Flip Phillips
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2014-09-18
View more
  8 in total

1.  The cospecification of the shape and material properties of light permeable materials.

Authors:  Phillip J Marlow; Barton L Anderson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Soft like velvet and shiny like satin: Perceptual material signatures of fabrics depicted in 17th century paintings.

Authors:  Francesca Di Cicco; Mitchell J P van Zuijlen; Maarten W A Wijntjes; Sylvia C Pont
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Effect of geometric sharpness on translucent material perception.

Authors:  Bei Xiao; Shuang Zhao; Ioannis Gkioulekas; Wenyan Bi; Kavita Bala
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  If painters give you lemons, squeeze the knowledge out of them. A study on the visual perception of the translucent and juicy appearance of citrus fruits in paintings.

Authors:  Francesca Di Cicco; Maarten W A Wijntjes; Sylvia C Pont
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Crystal or jelly? Effect of color on the perception of translucent materials with photographs of real-world objects.

Authors:  Chenxi Liao; Masataka Sawayama; Bei Xiao
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Visual Features in the Perception of Liquids.

Authors:  Jan Jaap R van Assen; Pascal Barla; Roland W Fleming
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2018-01-27       Impact factor: 10.834

7.  Effects of illumination on the categorization of shiny materials.

Authors:  J Farley Norman; James T Todd; Flip Phillips
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Cytocompatibility and Suitability of Protein-Based Biomaterials as Potential Candidates for Corneal Tissue Engineering.

Authors:  Cristina Romo-Valera; Pedro Guerrero; Jon Arluzea; Jaime Etxebarria; Koro de la Caba; Noelia Andollo
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 5.923

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.