The speed and accuracy of material recognition in natural images

Abstract

We studied the time course of material categorization in natural images relative to superordinate and basiclevel object categorization, using a backward-masking paradigm. We manipulated several low-level features of the images-including luminance, contrast, and color-to assess their potential contributions. The results showed that the speed of material categorization was roughly comparable to the speed of basic-level object categorization, but slower than that of superordinate object categorization. The performance seemed to be crucially mediated by lowlevel factors, with color leading to a solid increase in performance for material categorization. At longer presentation durations, material categorization was less accurate than both types of object categorization. Taken together, our results show that material categorization can be as fast as basic-level object categorization, but is less accurate.

Accuracy and speed of material categorization in real-world images

“…Since we first presented these findings (Sharan, Rosenholtz, & Adelson, 2009), others have validated our results and gone on to demonstrate that while material categorization is fast and accurate, it is less accurate than basic-level object categorization (Wiebel, Valsecchi, & Gegenfurtner, 2013) and that visual search for material categories is inefficient (Wolfe & Myers, 2010). It has been shown that correlations exist between material categories and perceived material qualities such as glossiness, transparency, roughness, hardness, coldness, etc.…”

“…We have also examined the relative speeds of object and material categorization in subsequent work (Xiao, Sharan, Rosenholtz, & Adelson, 2011). However, unlike Wiebel et al (2013), we used the same set of images for the object and material tasks, which ensured that low-level image properties stayed the same in both conditions. We found that object categorization (glove vs. handbag) was faster for close-up views and material categorization (leather vs. fabric) was faster for regular views.…”

“…Wiebel et al (2013) compared the time course of material categorization directly to that of object categorization. They found that material categorization can be as fast as basic-level object Figure 9.…”

Statistical correlates of perceived gloss in natural images

“…84 images were taken from the material samples used in the visuo-haptic studies of Gegenfurtner (2013, 2015), all of which were photographed under standardized laboratory lighting. 320 images were used in Wiebel, Valsecchi, and Gegenfurtner (2013) and were taken using a Nikon D70 camera (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) under various indoor and outdoor illumination conditions. In addition, we used the 500 close-up images from the Flickr material database established by Sharan et al (2009) and the 588 images collected from various internet sources for the fMRI study by Jacobs, Baumgartner, and Gegenfurtner (2014).…”

“…Human observers are remarkably good at perceiving the material qualities of objects (for review, see Adelson, 2001;Anderson, 2011;Fleming, 2014) and at making fast and accurate judgments of material categories (Sharan, 2009;Sharan, Rosenholtz, & Adelson, 2009, 2014Wiebel, Valsecchi, & Gegenfurtner, 2013). This is true even though the underlying physical processes, including ray optics and differential geometry, can be quite complex (Blake & Bülthoff, 1990).…”