ArticleNature communications2025
Computational models reveal that intuitive physics underlies visual processing of soft objects.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. 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.
- Reconstructing mental representations of block towers: A new bias for physical stability in visual working memory.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Bottom-up and generative computations uniquely explain neural responses across the social brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Computational models reveal that intuitive physics underlies visual processing of soft objects.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational explorations of human cognition have been especially successful when applied to visual perception. Existing models have primarily focused on rigid objects, emphasizing shape-preserving invariance to changes in viewpoint, lighting, object size, and scene context. Yet many objects in our everyday environments, such as cloths, are soft. This poses both quantitatively greater and qualitatively different challenges for models of perception, due to soft objects' dynamic and high-dimensional internal structure, as in the changing folds and wrinkles of a cloth waving in the wind. Soft object perception is also correspondingly rich, involving distinct properties such as stiffness. Here we explore the ability of different kinds of computational models to capture visual perception of the physical properties of cloths (e.g., their degrees of stiffness) undergoing different naturalistic transformations (e.g., falling vs. waving in the wind). Across visual matching tasks, both the successes and failures of human performance are well explained by Woven: a new model that incorporates physics-based simulations to infer probabilistic representations of cloths. Woven outperforms powerful, performance-equated alternatives, including its ablations and a deep neural network, and suggests that humanlike machine vision may also require representations that transcend image statistics, and involve intuitive physics.
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.