ArticleJournal of vision2020
A model of lightness perception guided by probabilistic assumptions about lighting and reflectance.
Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A deep convolutional neural network trained for lightness constancy is susceptible to lightness illusions.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Deep neural networks trained for estimating reflectance and illumination achieve lightness constancy differently than human observers.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Relationships among lightness illusions uncovered by analyses of individual differences.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Melanopsin-mediated image statistics from natural and human-made environments.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- What Fechner could not do: Separating perceptual encoding and decoding with difference scaling.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Texture statistics involved in specular highlight exclusion for object lightness perception.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- The effects of distractors on brightness perception based on a spiking network.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Empirical evaluation of computational models of lightness perception.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Equivalent noise characterization of human lightness constancy.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Simple Assumptions to Improve Markov Illuminance and Reflectance.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lightness perception is the ability to perceive black, white, and gray surface colors in a wide range of lighting conditions and contexts. This ability is fundamental for any biological or artificial visual system, but it poses a difficult computational problem, and how the human visual system computes lightness is not well understood. Here I show that several key phenomena in lightness perception can be explained by a probabilistic graphical model that makes a few simple assumptions about local patterns of lighting and reflectance, and infers globally optimal interpretations of stimulus images. Like human observers, the model exhibits partial lightness constancy, codetermination, contrast, glow, and articulation effects. It also arrives at human-like interpretations of strong lightness illusions that have challenged previous models. The model's assumptions are reasonable and generic, including, for example, that lighting intensity spans a much wider range than surface reflectance and that shadow boundaries tend to be straighter than reflectance edges. Thus, a probabilistic model based on simple assumptions about lighting and reflectance gives a good computational account of lightness perception over a wide range of conditions. This work also shows how graphical models can be extended to develop more powerful models of constancy that incorporate features such color and depth.
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.