ArticleVision research2022
Luminance texture boundaries and luminance step boundaries are segmented using different mechanisms.
Article in Vision research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of density-based and feature-based texture boundary segmentation.Vision research · 2025Article
- Distinguishing shadows from surface boundaries using local achromatic cues.PLoS computational biology · 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
Abstract
In natural scenes, two adjacent surfaces may differ in mean luminance without any sharp change in luminance at their boundary, but rather due to different relative proportions of light and dark regions within each surface. We refer to such boundaries as luminance texture boundaries (LTBs), and in this study we investigate whether LTBs are segmented using different mechanisms than luminance step boundaries (LSBs). We develop a novel method to generate luminance texture boundaries from natural uniform textures, and using these natural LTB stimuli in a boundary segmentation task, we find that observers are much more sensitive to identical luminance differences which are defined by textures (LTBs) than by uniform luminance steps (LSBs), consistent with the possibility of different mechanisms. In a second and third set of experiments, we characterize observer performance segmenting natural LTBs in the presence of masking LSBs which observers are instructed to ignore. We show that there is very little effect of masking LSBs on LTB segmentation performance. Furthermore, any masking effects we find are far less than those observed in a control experiment where both the masker and target are LSBs, and far less than those predicted by a model assuming identical mechanisms. Finally, we perform a fourth set of boundary segmentation experiments using artificial LTB stimuli comprised of differing proportions of white and black dots on opposite sides of the boundary. We find that these stimuli are also highly robust to masking by supra-threshold LSBs, consistent with our results using natural stimuli, and with our earlier studies using similar stimuli. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that the visual system contains mechanisms well suited to detecting surface boundaries that are robust to interference from luminance differences arising from luminance steps like those formed by cast shadows.
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.