ArticleJournal of vision2026
A deep convolutional neural network trained for lightness constancy is susceptible to lightness illusions.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human viewers are able to perform tasks that depend on accurate estimates of surface reflectance, even across large changes in illumination and context. This is a remarkable ability, and successful image-computable models of how the visual system achieves this have remained elusive. Recently, deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been developed that are adept at estimating surface reflectance. Here we evaluated one such network as a starting point for a new model of human lightness perception by testing whether it was susceptible to a range of classic lightness illusions. We implemented a CNN and trained it via supervised learning to estimate surface reflectance at each pixel in grayscale, rendered images of geometric objects. We examined the network's output on several illusions, including the argyle, Koffka, snake, simultaneous contrast, White's, and checkerboard illusions, as well as control figures. We included variants where low-luminance regions important to the illusions were generated either by low reflectance or by cast shadows. For comparison, we carried out a lightness matching experiment with human observers using the same stimuli, and also examined the outputs of three classic lightness and brightness models. The CNN largely removed lighting effects such as shading and shadows, and produced good reflectance estimates on a test set. It also qualitatively predicted the illusions perceived by humans in most cases, the exceptions being White's and checkerboard illusions. The CNN outperformed classical models, both at estimating reflectance and at tracking human lightness matches. These findings support a normative view of lightness perception and highlight the promise of deep learning models in this area.
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.