Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38222319›Full record

Articlei-Perception

General lighting can overcome accidental viewing.

Isabelle Bülthoff, Martin Breidt, Heinrich H Bülthoff, Daniel Kersten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Isabelle BülthoffMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8731-1263
Martin BreidtMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.
Heinrich H BülthoffMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.
Daniel KerstenPsychology Department, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

accidental viewpointilluminationobject recognitionperceptionscene recognitionshadow

Identifiers

PMID38222319
PMCPMC10784866

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.