Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34842901›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2021

Scaling depth from shadow offset.

Patrick Cavanagh, Roberto Casati, James H Elder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The art of the float.Journal of vision · 2023
    Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Patrick CavanaghCentre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Roberto CasatiInstitut Jean Nicod, Département d'études cognitives, ENS, EHESS, CNRS, PSL University, Paris, France.
James H ElderCentre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When an object casts a shadow on a background surface, both the offset of the shadow and the blur of its penumbra are potential cues to the distance between the object and the background. However, the shadow offset and blur are also affected by the direction and angular extent of the light source and these are often unknown. This means that the observer must make some assumptions about the illumination, the expected distribution of depth, or the relation between offset and depth in order to use shadows to make distance judgments. Here, we measure human judgments of perceived depth over a range of shadow offsets, blurs, and lighting directions to gain insight into this internal model. We find that distance judgments are relatively unaffected by blur or light direction, whereas the shadow offset has a strong and linear effect. The data are consistent with two models, a generic shadow-to-depth model and a Bayesian model.

Indexed as

Depth PerceptionLightingBayes TheoremCuesHumansPhotic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID34842901
PMCPMC8631054

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.