ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Human-like monocular depth biases in deep neural networks.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human depth perception from 2D images is systematically distorted, yet the nature of these distortions is not fully understood. By examining error patterns in depth estimation for both humans and deep neural networks (DNNs), which have shown remarkable abilities in monocular depth estimation, we can gain insights into constructing functional models of this human 3D vision and designing artificial models with improved interpretability. Here, we propose a comprehensive human-DNN comparison framework for a monocular depth judgment task. Using a novel human-annotated dataset of natural indoor scenes and a systematic analysis of absolute depth judgments, we investigate error patterns in both humans and DNNs. Employing exponential-affine fitting, we decompose depth estimation errors into depth compression, per-image affine transformations (including scaling, shearing, and translation), and residual errors. Our analysis reveals that human depth judgments exhibit systematic and consistent biases, including depth compression, a vertical bias (perceiving objects in the lower visual field as closer), and consistent per-image affine distortions across participants. Intriguingly, we find that DNNs with higher accuracy partially recapitulate these human biases, demonstrating greater similarity in affine parameters and residual error patterns. This suggests that these seemingly suboptimal human biases may reflect efficient, ecologically adapted strategies for depth inference from inherently ambiguous monocular images. However, while DNNs capture metric-level residual error patterns similar to humans, they fail to reproduce human-level accuracy in ordinal depth perception within the affine-invariant space. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating error patterns beyond raw accuracy, providing new insights into how humans and computational models resolve depth ambiguity. Our dataset and methodology provide a framework for evaluating the alignment between computational models and human perceptual biases, thereby advancing our understanding of visual space representation and guiding the development of models that more faithfully capture human depth perception.
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.