Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42213609›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Three-dimensional shape cues affect human and artificial recognition systems differently.

Mikayla Cutler, Luke Baumel, Joseph Tocco, William Friebel, George K Thiruvathukal, Nicholas Baker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mikayla CutlerDepartment of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago Illinois, United States of America.
Luke BaumelDepartment of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago Illinois, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4031-7611
Joseph ToccoDepartment of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago Illinois, United States of America.
William FriebelDepartment of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago Illinois, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3987-5277
George K ThiruvathukalDepartment of Computer Science, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago Illinois, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0452-5571
Nicholas BakerDepartment of Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago Illinois, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1385-2922

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans and neural networks use shape and texture information differently. While humans weigh shape heavily in their ultimate classification decision, neural networks are more biased towards texture cues. Many tests of shape vs. texture bias have focused on shape recognition from an object's external contour. However, shape information is also conveyed through internal contours, shading, and attached shadows, especially when an object is viewed from noncanonical perspectives. Using models from ShapeNet, we created datasets of 120,000 texture-substituted images of objects from many viewpoints with and without shading and attached shadows. We tested humans' and several neural networks' ability to classify these objects by both their shape and their texture. Humans were much better at classifying texture-substituted objects by their shape than any network, although these differences were greater when shape was defined only by the external contour than when 3D cues were included. Our findings suggest that networks' texture bias is reduced when 3D cues are included in images. We next tested whether the inclusion of 3D cues benefitted humans and neural networks more for images of objects viewed from canonical or noncanonical perspectives. Consistent with earlier research, we found that 3D cues primarily benefitted humans for noncanonical images. For neural networks, the greatest performance gains were for canonical images. These findings suggest fundamental differences in how humans and networks use shading and attached shadows for object recognition. We argue that humans use these cues to infer objects' 3D structures while neural networks use them as another surface-level cue like texture.

Indexed as

CuesForm PerceptionNeural Networks, ComputerPattern Recognition, VisualHumans

Identifiers

PMID42213609
PMCPMC13221034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.