ArticleJournal of vision2022
Identifying specular highlights: Insights from deep learning.
Article in Journal of vision, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Material discrimination relies on context-dependent active sensing strategies.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Color and gloss constancy under diverse lighting environments.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Texture statistics involved in specular highlight exclusion for object lightness perception.Journal of vision · 2023Article
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
Specular highlights are the most important image feature for surface gloss perception. Yet, recognizing whether a bright patch in an image is due to specular reflection or some other cause (e.g., texture marking) is challenging, and it remains unclear how the visual system reliably identifies highlights. There is currently no image-computable model that emulates human highlight identification, so here we sought to develop a neural network that reproduces observers' characteristic successes and failures. We rendered 179,085 images of glossy, undulating, textured surfaces. Given such images as input, a feedforward convolutional neural network was trained to output an image containing only the specular reflectance component. Participants viewed such images and reported whether or not specific pixels were highlights. The queried pixels were carefully selected to distinguish between ground truth and a simple thresholding of image intensity. The neural network outperformed the simple thresholding model-and ground truth-at predicting human responses. We then used a genetic algorithm to selectively delete connections within the neural network to identify variants of the network that approximated human judgments even more closely. The best resulting network shared 68% of the variance with human judgments-more than the unpruned network. As a first step toward interpreting the network, we then used representational similarity analysis to compare its inner representations to a wide variety of hand-engineered image features. We find that the network learns representations that are similar not only to directly image-computable predictors but also to more complex predictors such as intrinsic or geometric factors, as well as some indications of photo-geometrical constraints learned by the network. However, our network fails to replicate human response patterns to violations of photo-geometric constraints (rotated highlights) as described by other authors.
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.