Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41055416›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

Relationships among lightness illusions uncovered by analyses of individual differences.

Yuki Kobayashi, Arthur G Shapiro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Yuki KobayashiDepartment of Computer Science, American University, Washington DC, USA.
Arthur G ShapiroDepartment of Computer Science, American University, Washington DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Contrast SensitivityIllusionsIndividualityOptical IllusionsAdultFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41055416
PMCPMC12517106

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.