ArticleScientific reports2022
Perceptual judgments for the softness of materials under indentation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceiving material qualities from moving contours.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The visual perception of relative mass from object collisions.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- The identification of materials from patterns of fluid flow.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Aging and the visual perception of rigid and nonrigid motion.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- SORI: A softness-rendering interface to unravel the nature of softness perception.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Hand explorations are determined by the characteristics of the perceptual space of real-world materials from silk to sand.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Visual estimation of the force applied by another person.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans can judge the softness of elastic materials through only visual cues. However, factors contributing to the judgment of visual softness are not yet fully understood. We conducted a psychophysical experiment to determine which factors and motion features contribute to the apparent softness of materials. Observers watched video clips in which materials were indented from the top surface to a certain depth, and reported the apparent softness of the materials. The depth and speed of indentation were systematically manipulated. As physical characteristics of materials, compliance was also controlled. It was found that higher indentation speeds resulted in larger softness rating scores and the variation with the indentation speed was successfully explained by the image motion speed. The indentation depth had a powerful effect on the softness rating scores and the variation with the indentation depth was consistently explained by motion features related to overall deformation. Higher material compliance resulted in higher softness rating scores and these variation with the material compliance can be explained also by overall deformation. We conclude that the brain makes visual judgments about the softness of materials under indentation on the basis of the motion speed and deformation magnitude.
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.