Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36103558›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Distinguishing shadows from surface boundaries using local achromatic cues.

Christopher DiMattina, Josiah J Burnham, Betul N Guner, Haley B Yerxa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 57% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher DiMattinaComputational Perception Laboratory, FGCU Computational Facility, & Department of Psychology, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1568-1390
Josiah J BurnhamComputational Perception Laboratory & Department of Software Engineering, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida, United States of America.
Betul N GunerComputational Perception Laboratory & Department of Psychology, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9738-1115
Haley B YerxaComputational Perception Laboratory & Department of Software Engineering, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2918-9332
Florida Gulf Coast University · US

Funding

Perceptual integration of luminance, texture and color cues for visual boundary segmentationR15EY032732 · NEI · FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY · PI DIMATTINA, CHRISTOPHER · 2021 to 2021
$374k
NEI NIH HHS R15 EY032732
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to accurately parse the visual scene into distinct surfaces, it is essential to determine whether a local luminance edge is caused by a boundary between two surfaces or a shadow cast across a single surface. Previous studies have demonstrated that local chromatic cues may help to distinguish edges caused by shadows from those caused by surface boundaries, but the information potentially available in local achromatic cues like contrast, texture, and penumbral blur remains poorly understood. In this study, we develop and analyze a large database of hand-labeled achromatic shadow edges to better understand what image properties distinguish them from occlusion edges. We find that both the highest contrast as well as the lowest contrast edges are more likely to be occlusions than shadows, extending previous observations based on a more limited image set. We also find that contrast cues alone can reliably distinguish the two edge categories with nearly 70% accuracy at 40x40 resolution. Logistic regression on a Gabor Filter bank (GFB) modeling a population of V1 simple cells separates the categories with nearly 80% accuracy, and furthermore exhibits tuning to penumbral blur. A Filter-Rectify Filter (FRF) style neural network extending the GFB model performed at better than 80% accuracy, and exhibited blur tuning and greater sensitivity to texture differences. We compare human performance on our edge classification task to that of the FRF and GFB models, finding the best human observers attaining the same performance as the machine classifiers. Several analyses demonstrate both classifiers exhibit significant positive correlation with human behavior, although we find a slightly better agreement on an image-by-image basis between human performance and the FRF model than the GFB model, suggesting an important role for texture.

Indexed as

CuesNeural Networks, ComputerContrast SensitivityHumansPhotic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36103558
PMCPMC9512248
OpenAlexW4295706228

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.