ArticleScientific reports2018
Dynamic Visual Cues for Differentiating Mirror and Glass.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Material discrimination relies on context-dependent active sensing strategies.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Interaction of optical parameters in the perception of transparency/translucency and their neural representation in the visual cortex.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Development of detection sensitivity to material properties in school-age children.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Optical material properties affect detection of deformation of non-rigid rotating objects, but only slightly.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Material category of visual objects computed from specular image structure.Nature human behaviour · 2023Article
- Distinguishing mirror from glass: A "big data" approach to material perception.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Crystal or jelly? Effect of color on the perception of translucent materials with photographs of real-world objects.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Low level visual features support robust material perception in the judgement of metallicity.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Translucency perception: A review.Journal of vision · 2021Review
- The Rotating Glass Illusion: Material Appearance Is Bound to Perceived Shape and Motion.i-PerceptionArticle
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mirror materials (perfect specular surfaces such as polished metal) and glass materials (transparent and refraction media) are quite commonly encountered in everyday life. The human visual system can discriminate these complex distorted images formed by reflection or transmission of the surrounding environment even though they do not intrinsically possess surface colour. In this study, we determined the cues that aid mirror and glass discrimination. From video analysis, we found that glass objects have more opposite motion components relative to the direction of object rotation. Then, we hypothesised a model developed using motion transparency because motion information is not only present on the front side, but also on the rear side of the object surface in the glass material object. In materials judging experiments, we found that human performance with rotating video stimuli is higher than that with static stimuli (simple images). Subsequently, we compared the developed model derived from motion coherency to human rating performance for transparency and specular reflection. The model sufficiently identified the different materials using dynamic information. These results suggest that the visual system relies on dynamic cues that indicate the difference between mirror and glass.
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.