Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31523415›Full record

Articlei-Perception

Factors Influencing the Detection of Spatially-Varying Surface Gloss.

Gunnar Wendt, Franz Faul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in i-Perception. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Gunnar WendtChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Psychologie, Kiel, Germany.
Franz FaulChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Psychologie, Kiel, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7158-2920

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we investigate the ability of human observers to detect spatial inhomogeneities in the glossiness of a surface and how the performance in this task depends on several context factors. We used computer-generated stimuli showing a single object in three-dimensional space whose surface was split into two spatial areas with different microscale smoothness. The context factors were the kind of illumination, the object's shape, the availability of motion information, the degree of edge blurring, the spatial proportions between the two areas of different smoothness, and the general smoothness level. Detection thresholds were determined using a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) task implemented in a double random staircase procedure, where the subjects had to indicate for each stimulus whether or not the surface appears to have a spatially uniform material. We found evidence that two different cues are used for this task: luminance differences and differences in highlight properties between areas of different microscale smoothness. While the visual system seems to be highly sensitive in detecting gloss differences based on luminance contrast information, detection thresholds were considerably higher when the judgment was mainly based on differences in highlight features, such as their size, intensity, and sharpness.

Indexed as

3D perceptiongloss perceptionobject recognitionsurfaces/materials

Identifiers

PMID31523415
PMCPMC6732868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.