Articlei-Perception
Factors Influencing the Detection of Spatially-Varying Surface Gloss.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gloss discrimination: Toward an image-based perceptual model.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Perceiving gloss through transparency.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.