Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30372728›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2018

Beyond scattering and absorption: Perceptual unmixing of translucent liquids.

Alice C Chadwick, George Cox, Hannah E Smithson, Robert W Kentridge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Translucency perception: A review.Journal of vision · 2021
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Alice C ChadwickDepartment of Psychology, University of Durham, Durham University Science Site, Durham, UK.
George CoxDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Hannah E SmithsonDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Robert W KentridgeDepartment of Psychology, University of Durham, Durham University Science Site, Durham, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Is perception of translucence based on estimations of scattering and absorption of light or on statistical pseudocues associated with familiar materials? We compared perceptual performance with real and computer-generated stimuli. Real stimuli were glasses of milky tea. Milk predominantly scatters light and tea absorbs it, but since the tea absorbs less as the milk concentration increases, the effects of milkiness and strength on scattering and absorption are not independent. Conversely, computer-generated stimuli were glasses of "milky tea" in which absorption and scattering were independently manipulated. Observers judged tea concentrations regardless of milk concentrations, or vice versa. Maximum-likelihood conjoint measurement was used to estimate the contributions of each physical component-concentrations of milk and tea, or amounts of scattering and absorption-to perceived milkiness or tea strength. Separability of the two physical dimensions was better for real than for computer-generated teas, suggesting that interactions between scattering and absorption were correctly accounted for in perceptual unmixing, but unmixing was always imperfect. Since the real and rendered stimuli represent different physical processes and therefore differ in their image statistics, perceptual judgments with these stimuli allowed us to identify particular pseudocues (presumably learned with real stimuli) that explain judgments with both stimulus sets.

Indexed as

Scattering, RadiationAbsorption, RadiationAnimalsHumansLightMilkPerceptual MaskingPhysical PhenomenaTeaTea

Identifiers

PMID30372728
PMCPMC6205562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.