Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29229812›Full record

Trial reportProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2017

Perception and misperception of surface opacity.

Phillip J Marlow, Juno Kim, Barton L Anderson

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Translucency perception: A review.Journal of vision · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The cospecification of the shape and material properties of light permeable materials.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Phillip J MarlowSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Sydney, Australia; phillip.marlow@sydney.edu.au barton.anderson@sydney.edu.au.
Juno KimSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, NSW 2052, Sydney, Australia.
Barton L AndersonSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Sydney, Australia; phillip.marlow@sydney.edu.au barton.anderson@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 (

Indexed as

Contrast SensitivityFemaleHumansMalePerceptual Masking3D shapematerial perceptionreflectancetranslucencyvisual perception

Identifiers

PMID29229812
PMCPMC5748181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.