Color improves edge classification in human vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the complexity of the visual world, humans rarely confuse variations in illumination, for example shadows, from variations in material properties, such as paint or stain. This ability to distinguish illumination from material edges is crucial for determining the spatial layout of objects and surfaces in natural scenes. In this study, we explore the role that color (chromatic) cues play in edge classification. We conducted a psychophysical experiment that required subjects to classify edges into illumination and material, in patches taken from images of natural scenes that either contained or did not contain color information. The edge images were of various sizes and were pre-classified into illumination and material, based on inspection of the edge in the context of the whole image from which the edge was extracted. Edge classification performance was found to be superior for the color compared to grayscale images, in keeping with color acting as a cue for edge classification. We defined machine observers sensitive to simple image properties and found that they too classified the edges better with color information, although they failed to capture the effect of image size observed in the psychophysical experiment. Our findings are consistent with previous work suggesting that color information facilitates the identification of material properties, transparency, shadows and the perception of shape-from-shading.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".