Articlei-Perception
General lighting can overcome accidental viewing.
Article in i-Perception. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When seeing an object in a scene, the presumption of seeing that object from a general viewpoint (as opposed to an accidental viewpoint) is a useful heuristic to decide which of many interpretations of this object is correct. Similar heuristic assumptions on illumination quality might also be used for scene interpretation. Here we tested that assumption and asked if illumination information helps determine object properties when seen from an accidental viewpoint. Test objects were placed on a flat surface and illumination was varied while keeping the objects' images constant. Observers judged the shape or rigidity of static or moving simple objects presented in accidental view. They also chose which of two seemingly very similar faces was familiar. We found: (1) Objects might appear flat without shadow information but were perceived to be volumetric objects or non-planar in the presence of cast shadows. (2) Apparently non-rigid objects became rigid with shadow information. (3) Shading and shadows helped to infer which of two face was the familiar one. Previous results had shown that cast shadows help determine spatial layout of objects. Our study shows that other properties of objects like rigidity or 3D-shape can be disambiguated by shadow information.
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.