The spatial luminance relationship between shading patterns and specular highlight is suggested to be a cue for perceptual translucency (Motoyoshi, 2010). Although local image features are also important for translucency perception (Fleming & Bulthoff, 2005), they have rarely been investigated. Here, we aimed to extract spatial regions related to translucency perception from computer graphics (CG) images of objects using a psychophysical reverse-correlation method. From many trials in which the observer compared the perceptual translucency of two CG images, we obtained translucency-related patterns showing which image regions were related to perceptual translucency judgments. An analysis of the luminance statistics calculated within these image regions showed that (1) the global rms contrast within an entire CG image was not related to perceptual translucency and (2) the local mean luminance of specific image regions within the CG images correlated well with perceptual translucency. However, the image regions contributing to perceptual translucency differed greatly between observers. These results suggest that perceptual translucency does not rely on global luminance statistics such as global rms contrast, but rather depends on local image features within specific image regions. There may be some “hot spots” effective for perceptual translucency, although which of many hot spots are used in judging translucency may be observer dependent.
AhumadaA. J.Jr. (1996). Perceptual classification images from Vernier acuity masked by noise. Perception, 25, ECVP Abstract Supplement. doi:10.1068/v96l0501
2.
AndersonB. L.KimJ. (2009). Image statistics do not explain the perception of gloss and lightness. Journal of Vision, 9(11), 10 (1–17). doi:10.1167/9.11.10
3.
BoivinS.GagalowiczA. (2001). Image-based rendering of diffuse, specular and glossy surfaces from a single image. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 107–116. doi:10.1145/383259.383270
4.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433–436. doi:10.1163/156856897x00357
5.
DebevecP. E. (1998). Rendering synthetic objects into real scenes: Bridging traditional and image-based graphics with global illumination and high dynamic range photography. Proceedings of SIGGRAPH98, 189–198. doi:10.1145/280814.280864
6.
DoerschnerK.BoyaciH.MaloneyL. T. (2010). Estimating the glossiness transfer function induced by illumination change and testing its transitivity. Journal of Vision, 10(4), 8 (1–9). doi:10.1167/10.4.8
7.
FlemingR. W.BulthoffH. H. (2005). Low-level image cues in the perception of translucent materials. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 2(3), 346–382. doi:10.1145/1077399.1077409
8.
FlemingR. W.DrorR. O.AdelsonE. H. (2003). Real-world illumination and the perception of surface reflectance properties. Journal of Vision, 3(5), 347–368. doi:10:1167l3.5.3
9.
FosterD. H. (2011). Color constancy. Vision Research, 51(7), 674–700. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.09.006
10.
GoldJ. M.MurrayR. F.BennettP. J.SekulerA. B. (2000). Deriving behavioural receptive fields for visually completed contours. Current Biology, 10(11), 663–666. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00523-6
11.
HershlerO.HochsteinS. (2005). At first sight: A high-level pop out effect for faces. Vision Research, 45(13), 1707–1724. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.07.009
12.
HwangG. T. (2004). Hollywood's master of light. Technology Review, 107, 70–73
13.
JensenH. W.BuhlerJ. (2002). A rapid hierarchical rendering technique for translucent materials. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 21(3), 576–581. doi:10.1145/566654.566619
14.
KimJ.MarlowP.AndersonB. L. (2011). The perception of gloss depends on highlight congruence with surface shading. Journal of Vision, 11(9), 4 (1–19). doi:10.1167/11.9.16
15.
ManginiM. C.BiedermanI. (2004). Making the ineffable explicit: Estimating the information employed for face classifications. Cognitive Science, 28(2), 209–226. doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.11.004
16.
MarlowP. J.KimJ.AndersonB. L. (2012). The perception and misperception of specular surface reflectance. Current Biology, 22(20), 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.009
17.
MetelliF. (1974). The perception of transparency. Scientific American, 230(4), 90–98. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0474-90
18.
MotoyoshiI. (2010). Highlight-shading relationship as a cue for the perception of translucent and transparent materials. Journal of Vision, 10(9), 6 (1–11). doi:10.1167/10.9.6
19.
MotoyoshiI.NishidaS.SharanL.AdelsonE. H. (2007). Image statistics and the perception of surface qualities. Nature, 447(7141), 206–209. doi:10.1038/nature05724
20.
MurrayR. F. (2011). Classification images: A review. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 2 (1–25). doi:10.1167/11.5.2
21.
NestorA.TarrM. J. (2008). Gender recognition of human faces using color. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1242–1246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02232.x
22.
OlkkonenM.BrainardD. H. (2011). Joint effects of illumination geometry and object shape in the perception of surface reflectance. i-Perception, 2, 1014–1034. doi:10.1068/i0480
23.
RamamoorthiR.HanrahanP. (2001). A signal-processing framework for inverse rendering. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 117–128. doi:10.1145/383259.383271
24.
SharanL.LiY. Z.MotoyoshiI.NishidaS.AdelsonE. H. (2008). Image statistics for surface reflectance perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America, A, 25(4), 846–865. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.25.000846
25.
SinghM.AndersonB. L. (2002). Toward a perceptual theory of transparency. Psychological Review, 109(3), 492–519. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.492
26.
VanRullenR. (2006). On second glance: Still no high-level pop-out effect for faces. Vision Research, 46(18), 3017–3027. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.07.009
