ArticleNature human behaviour2026
Human gloss perception reproduced by tiny neural networks.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of "temporal preparation" on neural processing of physical and affective material attributes.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Human gloss perception reproduced by tiny neural networks.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Material discrimination relies on context-dependent active sensing strategies.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A key goal of visual neuroscience is to explain how our brains infer object properties such as colour, curvature or gloss. Here we used machine learning to identify computations underlying human gloss judgements-traditionally considered a challenging inference. We rendered thousands of objects with varied shapes using a Ward reflectance model across lighting and viewpoints, then obtained gloss ratings for each image. Observers' judgements were consistent with one another, yet systematically deviated from reality. We compared these ratings with neural networks trained either to estimate physical reflectance ('ground-truth networks') or to reproduce human judgements ('human-like networks'). While estimating physical reflectance required deep networks, shallow networks accurately replicated human judgements. Remarkably, even a single-filter network could predict human judgements better than the best ground-truth network and generalized to known gloss illusions. These results suggest that gloss perception relies on simple general-purpose computations, and demonstrate the power of interpretable 'tiny' networks in understanding cognition.
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.