ArticleJournal of vision2026
Local cues enable classification of image patches as surfaces, object boundaries, or illumination changes.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To correctly parse the visual scene, one must detect edges and determine their underlying cause. Previous work has demonstrated that neural networks trained to differentiate shadow and occlusion edges exhibit sensitivity to boundary sharpness and texture differences. Here, we investigate whether human observers are also sensitive to these cues using synthetic edge stimuli formed by quilting together two natural textures, allowing us to parametrically manipulate boundary sharpness, texture modulation, and luminance modulation. Observers classified five sets of synthetic boundary images as shadows, occlusions, or textures generated by varying these three cues in all possible combinations. These three cues exhibited strong interactions to determine categorization. For sharp edges, increasing luminance modulation made it less likely the patch would be classified as a texture and more likely it would be classified as an occlusion, whereas for blurred edges, increasing luminance modulation made it more likely the patch would be classified as a shadow. Boundary sharpness had a profound effect, so that in the presence of luminance modulation, increasing sharpness decreased the likelihood of classification as a shadow and increased the likelihood of classification as an occlusion. Texture modulation had little effect, except for a sharp boundary with zero luminance modulation. Results were consistent across all five stimulus sets, and human performance was well explained by a multinomial logistic regression model. Our results demonstrate that human observers make use of the same cues as previous machine learning models when detecting and determining the cause of an edge.
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.