Articlei-Perception2014
The visual light field in real scenes.
Article in i-Perception, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of light map orientation and shape on the visual perception of canonical materials.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- Illumination discrimination in the absence of a fixed surface-reflectance layout.Journal of vision · 2018Article
- Illumination discrimination in real and simulated scenes.Journal of vision · 2016Article
- Article
- Visual Light Zones.i-PerceptionArticle
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
Human observers' ability to infer the light field in empty space is known as the "visual light field." While most relevant studies were performed using images on computer screens, we investigate the visual light field in a real scene by using a novel experimental setup. A "probe" and a scene were mixed optically using a semitransparent mirror. Twenty participants were asked to judge whether the probe fitted the scene with regard to the illumination intensity, direction, and diffuseness. Both smooth and rough probes were used to test whether observers use the additional cues for the illumination direction and diffuseness provided by the 3D texture over the rough probe. The results confirmed that observers are sensitive to the intensity, direction, and diffuseness of the illumination also in real scenes. For some lighting combinations on scene and probe, the awareness of a mismatch between the probe and scene was found to depend on which lighting condition was on the scene and which on the probe, which we called the "swap effect." For these cases, the observers judged the fit to be better if the average luminance of the visible parts of the probe was closer to the average luminance of the visible parts of the scene objects. The use of a rough instead of smooth probe was found to significantly improve observers' abilities to detect mismatches in lighting diffuseness and directions.
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.