ArticleJournal of vision2025
Relationships among lightness illusions uncovered by analyses of individual differences.
Article in Journal of vision, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computational models that explain lightness/brightness illusions have been proposed. These models have been assessed using a simplistic criterion: the number of illusions each model can correctly predict from the test set. This simple method of evaluation assumes that each illusion is independent; however, because the independence and similarity among lightness illusions have not been well established, potential interdependencies among the illusions in the test set could distort the evaluation of models. Moreover, evaluating models with a single value obscures where the model's strengths and weaknesses lie. We collected the magnitudes of various lightness illusions through two online experiments and applied exploratory factor analyses. Both experiments identified some underlying factors in these illusions, suggesting that they can be classified into a few distinct groups. Experiment 1 identified three common factors; assimilation, contrast, and White's effect. Experiment 2, with a different illusion set, identified two factors-assimilation and contrast. We then examined three well-known models that are based on early visual processes, using the outcomes of the experiments. The examination of these models revealed biases in the models toward specific factors or sets of illusions, which suggested their limitations. This study clarified that correlations of illusion magnitudes provide valuable insights into both illusions and models and highlighted the need to assess models based on their ability to account for underlying factors rather than individual illusions.
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.