ArticlePloS one2026
Three-dimensional shape cues affect human and artificial recognition systems differently.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.