The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2011
DOI: 10.1177/0956797611408734
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visual Perception of Thick Transparent Materials

Abstract: Under typical viewing conditions, human observers readily distinguish between materials such as silk, marmalade, or granite, an achievement of the visual system that is poorly understood. Recognizing transparent materials is especially challenging. Previous work on the perception of transparency has focused on objects composed of flat, infinitely thin filters. In the experiments reported here, we considered thick transparent objects, such as ice cubes, which are irregular in shape and can vary in refractive in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
116
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(118 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
(26 reference statements)
2
116
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most of these studies have focused on the visual estimation of the specific properties of materials (Anderson, 2011;Thompson, Fleming, Creem-Regehr, & Stefanucci, 2011;Zaidi, 2011), such as glossiness (Fleming, Dror, & Adelson, 2003;Motoyoshi & Matoba, 2012;Nishida & Shinya, 1998), translucency (Fleming & Bülthoff, 2005 Maloney, 2011;Motoyoshi, 2010), or roughness (Padilla, Drbohlav, Green, Spence, & Chantler, 2008;Pont & Koenderink, 2005;Pont & Koenderink, 2008). Taken together, these findings support the general idea that the human visual system can estimate the properties of materials from relatively low-level vision features.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Most of these studies have focused on the visual estimation of the specific properties of materials (Anderson, 2011;Thompson, Fleming, Creem-Regehr, & Stefanucci, 2011;Zaidi, 2011), such as glossiness (Fleming, Dror, & Adelson, 2003;Motoyoshi & Matoba, 2012;Nishida & Shinya, 1998), translucency (Fleming & Bülthoff, 2005 Maloney, 2011;Motoyoshi, 2010), or roughness (Padilla, Drbohlav, Green, Spence, & Chantler, 2008;Pont & Koenderink, 2005;Pont & Koenderink, 2008). Taken together, these findings support the general idea that the human visual system can estimate the properties of materials from relatively low-level vision features.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…One might however consider this method to be susceptible to the influence of response bias arising from incomplete/inappropriate instructions or prior knowledge of the participants for the stimuli or task. To compensate for this potential problem, in the last experiment, we used the maximum likelihood difference scaling method (MLDS: Maloney & Yang, 2003), which has been used as a rigorous psychophysical scaling method in many recent studies (Charrier et al, 2007;Devinck et al, 2014;Emrith et al, 2010;Fleming, Jäkel, & Maloney, 2011;Obein, Knoblauch, & Viénot, 2004). Here we estimated a psychophysical scale for perceived liquidness as a function of the discrete Laplacians of image motion vectors.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the last decade, the question of how humans perceive materials has received increasing attention (Adelson, 2001;Fleming, 2014;Fleming, Dror, & Adelson, 2003;Fleming, Jäkel, & Maloney, 2011;Kim, Marlow, & Anderson, 2012;Motoyoshi et al, 2007;Nishida & Shinya, 1998;Zaidi, 2011). While previous study of material perception has mainly considered solid materials, many materials around us are in the form of a liquid.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When a transparent layer has a refractive index >1, the background image optically deforms in accordance with the 3D shape of the layer surface. The image deformation due to refraction by itself is considered an ineffective cue to the perception of a transparent layer (5), although the magnitude of the deformation could be a cue to the perception of the thickness of a transparent layer (6). Previous studies have examined the effect of the deformation cue only in static images, however.…”
mentioning
confidence: 91%