PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11281095

Use of interreflection and shadow for surface contact.

Abstract

The interaction of light with surfaces results in a number of lighting effects that may serve as valuable visual cues. Previous research on shadows has shown them to be effective in determining the three-dimensional (3-D) layout of a scene, but interreflections have been ignored as cues for spatial layout. Interreflections as well as shadows may help to disambiguate the 3-D layout of objects by providing information about an object's contact with a surface. We generated computer images of a box on an extended textured ground plane that was either in contact with the ground or was slightly above the ground. Images were rendered for four conditions: (1) no shadow + no interreflection, (2) shadow only, (3) interreflection only, and (4) shadow + interreflection. A photometrically incorrect condition was also included. The participants rated the degree of contact for each image on a scale, which was used to generate receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and a measure of sensitivity. In the images with no shadows or interreflections, the participants performed at chance levels. Interreflections, shadows, and a combination of interreflections and shadows all resulted in high sensitivity for judging object contact. More important, information from shadows and interreflections can be combined, resulting in near-perfect judgment of surface contact. Interreflections and shadows can be effective cues for object contact.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Madison, W Thompson, D Kersten, P Shirley, B Smits. 2001. Use of interreflection and shadow for surface contact.. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194461

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A low glycaemic index breakfast cereal preferentially prevents children's cognitive performance from declining throughout the morning.

This study investigated whether the glycaemic index (GI) of breakfast cereal differentially affects children's attention and memory. Using a balanced cross-over design, on two consecutive mornings 64 children aged 6-11 years were given a high GI cereal and a low GI cereal in a counterbalanced order. They performed a series of computerised tests of attention and memory, once prior to breakfast and three times following breakfast at hourly intervals. The results indicate that children's performance declines throughout the morning and that this decline can be significantly reduced following the intake of a low GI cereal as compared with a high GI cereal on measures of accuracy of attention (M=-6.742 and -13.510, respectively, p<0.05) and secondary memory (M=-30.675 and -47.183, respectively, p<0.05).

Attention↗

Inhibitory control test is a simple method to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare inhibitory control test (ICT), a simple/rapid test of attention, to a standard psychometric battery (SPT) to diagnose minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) and predict development of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Fifty nonalcoholic cirrhotics and 50 age/educational-status-matched controls were given ICT and SPT in the same sitting. Performance impaired beyond two standard deviations of controls was considered MHE in cirrhotics. ICT results (lure/target response and lures/person) were compared between controls and cirrhotics and within cirrhotics with/without MHE. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was used to study ICT for MHE diagnosis. Twenty subjects were administered SPT and ICT twice to assess test-retest reliability. All cirrhotics were followed routinely for the development of OHE. RESULTS: Cirrhotics performed worse than controls on SPT and ICT. Using SPT, 39 cirrhotics had MHE. ICT was administered faster than SPT (15 vs 37 min). Cirrhotics with MHE had significantly higher lure (28%vs 3%) and lower target response (91%vs 96%) compared with those without MHE. Lure/person >5 had 90% sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis. AUC for receiver-operating characteristic for lures alone was 95.8%. Lure and target responses were highly correlated (r= 0.9) between sessions showing high test-retest reliability. Five (10%) patients developed OHE on f/u of 26 +/- 10 months; all five had been diagnosed with MHE using ICT and SPT. None of the five patients with discordant results on SPT and ICT developed OHE. CONCLUSIONS: ICT has good sensitivity/specificity for MHE diagnosis, is reliable and is equivalent to SPT for predicting OHE development.

Attention↗