ArticleJournal of vision2026
Material fictions: Comparing physically based renderings and generative AI images through material perception.
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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) models unlock new ways to create images, emerging as a new medium alongside paintings, photographs, physically based renderings (PBR), etc. Generative AI images can be perceptually convincing without being physically plausible, allowing to investigate the boundaries of visual perception. This study examines whether generative AI images adhere to a medium-independent perceptual space converged from previous studies. We compared the perceptual similarity of images from three generative AI models against a bidirectional reflectance distribution functions (BRDFs) PBR image dataset, using human similarity judgments. In experiment 1, we used the text descriptions of 32 materials (e.g., blue acrylic) from the Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (MERL) BRDF dataset, prompting two text-to-image models, DALL-E 2 and Midjourney v2, to generate 32 sphere-shaped stimuli per model. Perceptual spaces derived from similarity judgments revealed that both AI models resulted in two-dimensional spaces whereas the MERL space was confined to one dimension, probably owing to a lack of surface texture. These unrelated perceptual spaces suggest the AI models generated unique and different images from identical text prompts. In experiment 2 we used the text-to-image model Stable Diffusion v1.5 with ControlNet for additional depth-map constraints. Using the same 32 descriptions, we generated 3 sets using 3 different depth maps. The three resulting perceptual spaces are all two-dimensional, exhibiting high similarity, indicating a robust and non-random structure. They also show a similar structure to the MERL space and perceptual spaces from other material studies using photographs, PBR, and depictions, suggesting AI-generated imagery may indeed be used as a new medium to explore material 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.