ArticleScientific reports2022
Empirical evaluation of computational models of lightness perception.
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 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.
- Deep neural networks trained for estimating reflectance and illumination achieve lightness constancy differently than human observers.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Relationships among lightness illusions uncovered by analyses of individual differences.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Simple Assumptions to Improve Markov Illuminance and Reflectance.Frontiers in psychology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lightness of a surface depends not only on its physical characteristics, but also on the properties of the surrounding context. As a result, varying the context can significantly alter surface lightness, an effect exploited in many lightness illusions. Computational models can produce outcomes similar to human illusory percepts, allowing for demonstrable assessment of the applied mechanisms and principles. We tested 8 computational models on 13 typical displays used in lightness research (11 Illusions and 2 Mondrians), and compared them with results from human participants (N = 85). Results show that HighPass and MIR models predict empirical results for simultaneous lightness contrast (SLC) and its close variations. ODOG and its newer variants (ODOG-2 and L-ODOG) in addition to SLC displays were able to predict effect of White's illusion. RETINEX was able to predict effects of both SLC displays and Dungeon illusion. Dynamic decorrelation model was able to predict obtained effects for all tested stimuli except two SLC variations. Finally, FL-ODOG model was best at simulating human data, as it was able to predict empirical results for all displays, bar the Reversed contrast illusion. Finally, most models underperform on the Mondrian displays that represent most natural stimuli for the human visual system.
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.