Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37585183›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2023

The art of the float.

Emily A Cooper, Roberto Casati, Hany Farid, Patrick Cavanagh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Emily A CooperUniversity of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Roberto CasatiInstitut Jean Nicod, ENS, EHESS, CNRS, PSL University, Paris, France.
Hany FaridUniversity of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Patrick CavanaghGlendon College and CVR, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For more than 2000 years, artists have exploited cast shadows to influence how objects appear to be positioned in a scene. A contact cast shadow can anchor an object to the ground and a detached cast shadow can make an object appear to float. However, there is a period of approximately 1000 years when there were virtually no cast shadows in art. How were states of contact versus floating depicted by artists without cast shadows? Here, we survey various techniques used by artists to anchor relative position with and without cast shadows. We then conduct experimental tests of the hypothesized surface attraction principles that underlie these techniques. In the absence of cast shadows, an object (a wooden box) was often seen as resting on a surface as long as that surface offered information about ground orientation and support (a tiled floor). When the ground surface was ambiguous and cloud-like (1/f noise), the box was more likely to be seen to float. The presence of cast shadows made the box appear to contact the ground whether it was well-defined or ambiguous. Both shadows and surface support also increased the accuracy with which participants detected when the box was tilted up from the ground. These results indicate that artists long ago discovered the important power of support relationships to anchor objects to surfaces in the absence of shadows.

Indexed as

TriazolesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTriazoles

Identifiers

PMID37585183
PMCPMC10434713

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.