ArticleJournal of vision2026
Deep neural networks trained for estimating reflectance and illumination achieve lightness constancy differently than human observers.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A deep convolutional neural network trained for lightness constancy is susceptible to lightness illusions.Journal of vision · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lightness constancy, the ability to create perceptual representations that are strongly correlated with surface reflectance despite variations in lighting and context, is a challenging computational problem. Indeed, it has proven difficult to develop image-computable models of how human vision achieves a substantial degree of lightness constancy in complex scenes. Recently, convolutional neural networks have been developed that are proficient at estimating reflectance, but little is known about how they achieve this, or whether they are good models of human vision. We examined this question by training a convolutional neural network to estimate reflectance and illumination in a computer-rendered virtual world, and evaluating both the convolutional neural network and human observers in a lightness matching task. In several conditions, we eliminated cues potentially supporting lightness constancy: local contrast, shading, shadows, and all contextual cues. We found that the network achieved a high degree of lightness constancy, outperforming human observers. However, we also found that eliminating cues affected the convolutional neural network and humans very differently. Humans were most affected when local contrast cues were made uninformative, whereas the convolutional neural network mostly relied on shading and shadows. In a follow-up experiment, we found that the convolutional neural network could learn to exploit noise artifacts typically associated with ray tracing and correlated with illuminance, with potential implications for the many studies relying on ray-traced images. We conclude that convolutional neural networks can learn an effective, global strategy of estimating lightness, which is closer to an optimal strategy for the ensemble of scenes we studied than the computation used by human vision.
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.