Under typical viewing conditions, we find it easy to distinguish between different materials, such as metal, plastic, and paper. Recognizing materials from their surface reflectance properties (such as lightness and gloss) is a nontrivial accomplishment because of confounding effects of illumination. However, if subjects have tacit knowledge of the statistics of illumination encountered in the real world, then it is possible to reject unlikely image interpretations, and thus to estimate surface reflectance even when the precise illumination is unknown. A surface reflectance matching task was used to measure the accuracy of human surface reflectance estimation. The results of the matching task demonstrate that subjects can match surface reflectance properties reliably and accurately in the absence of context, as long as the illumination is realistic. Matching performance declines when the illumination statistics are not representative of the real world. Together these findings suggest that subjects do use stored assumptions about the statistics of real-world illumination to estimate surface reflectance. Systematic manipulations of pixel and wavelet properties of illuminations reveal that the visual system's assumptions about illumination are of intermediate complexity (e.g., presence of edges and bright light sources), rather than of high complexity (e.g., presence of recognizable objects in the environment).

Many materials, including leaves, water, plastic, and chrome exhibit specular reflections. It seems reasonable that the visual system can somehow exploit specular reflections to recover three-dimensional (3D) shape. Previous studies (e.g., J. T. Todd & E. Mingolla, 1983; J. F. Norman, J. T. Todd, & G. A. Orban, 2004) have shown that specular reflections aid shape estimation, but the relevant image information has not yet been isolated. Here we explain how specular reflections can provide reliable and accurate constraints on 3D shape. We argue that the visual system can treat specularities somewhat like textures, by using the systematic patterns of distortion across the image of a specular surface to recover 3D shape. However, there is a crucial difference between textures and specularities: In the case of textures, the image compressions depend on the first derivative of the surface depth (i.e., surface orientation), whereas in the case of specularities, the image compressions depend on the second derivative (i.e., surfaces curvatures). We suggest that this difference provides a cue that can help the visual system distinguish between textures and specularities, even when present simultaneously. More importantly, we show that the dependency of specular distortions on the second derivative of the surface leads to distinctive fields of image orientation as the reflected world is warped across the surface. We find that these "orientation fields" are (i) diagnostic of 3D shape, (ii) remain surprisingly stable when the world reflected in the surface is changed, and (iii) can be extracted from the image by populations of simple oriented filters. Thus the use of specular reflections for 3D shape perception is both easier and more reliable than previous computational work would suggest.

When light strikes a translucent material (such as wax, milk or fruit flesh), it enters the body of the object, scatters and reemerges from the surface. The diffusion of light through translucent materials gives them a characteristic visual softness and glow. What image properties underlie this distinctive appearance? What cues allow us to tell whether a surface is translucent or opaque? Previous work on the perception of semitransparent materials was based on a very restricted physical model of thin filters [Metelli 1970; 1974a,b]. However, recent advances in computer graphics [Jensen et al. 2001; Jensen and Buhler 2002] allow us to efficiently simulate the complex subsurface light transport effects that occur in real translucent objects. Here we use this model to study the perception of translucency, using a combination of psychophysics and image statistics. We find that many of the cues that were traditionally thought to be important for semitransparent filters (e.g., X-junctions) are not relevant for solid translucent objects. We discuss the role of highlights, color, object size, contrast, blur, and lighting direction in the perception of translucency. We argue that the physics of translucency are too complex for the visual system to estimate intrinsic physical parameters by inverse optics. Instead, we suggest that we identify translucent materials by parsing them into key regions and by gathering image statistics from these regions.

Misidentifying materials-such as mistaking soap for pâté, or vice versa-could lead to some pretty messy mishaps. Fortunately, we rarely suffer such indignities, thanks largely to our outstanding ability to recognize materials-and identify their properties-by sight. In everyday life, we encounter an enormous variety of materials, which we usually distinguish effortlessly and without error. However, despite its subjective ease, material perception poses the visual system with some unique and significant challenges, because a given material can take on many different appearances depending on the lighting, viewpoint and shape. Here, I use observations from recent research on material perception to outline a general theory of material perception, in which I suggest that the visual system does not actually estimate physical parameters of materials and objects. Instead-I argue-the brain is remarkably adept at building 'statistical generative models' that capture the natural degrees of variation in appearance between samples. For example, when determining perceived glossiness, the brain does not estimate parameters of the BRDF. Instead, it uses a constellation of low- and mid-level image measurements to characterize the extent to which the surface manifests specular reflections. I argue that these 'statistical appearance models' are both more expressive and easier to compute than physical parameters, and therefore represent a powerful middle way between a 'bag of tricks' and 'inverse optics'.

Under typical viewing conditions, we can easily group materials into distinct classes (e.g., woods, plastics, textiles). Additionally, we can also make many other judgments about material properties (e.g., hardness, rigidity, colorfulness). Although these two types of judgment (classification and inferring material properties) have different requirements, they likely facilitate one another. We conducted two experiments to investigate the interactions between material classification and judgments of material qualities in both the visual and semantic domains. In Experiment 1, nine students viewed 130 images of materials from 10 different classes. For each image, they rated nine subjective properties (glossiness, transparency, colorfulness, roughness, hardness, coldness, fragility, naturalness, prettiness). In Experiment 2, 65 subjects were given the verbal names of six material classes, which they rated in terms of 42 adjectives describing material qualities. In both experiments, there was notable agreement between subjects, and a relatively small number of factors (weighted combinations of different qualities) were substantially independent of one another. Despite the difficulty of classifying materials from images (Liu, Sharan, Adelson, & Rosenholtz, 2010), the different classes were well clustered in the feature space defined by the subjective ratings. K-means clustering could correctly identify class membership for over 90% of the samples, based on the average ratings across subjects. We also found a high degree of consistency between the two tasks, suggesting subjects access similar information about materials whether judging their qualities visually or from memory. Together, these findings show that perceptual qualities are well defined, distinct, and systematically related to material class membership.