4.7 Article

Scale ambiguities in material recognition

Journal

ISCIENCE
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.103970

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. H2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (H2020-MSCA-ITN-2017) 'DyViTo: Dynamics in Vision and Touch'-project [765121]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [222641018-SFB/TRR 135]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [ERC-CoG-2015-682859]
  4. Excellence Program of the Hessian Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Art (HMWK)-project 'The Adaptive Mind'
  5. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [765121] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that based on different assumed scales, identical images can be assigned to completely different material categories, indicating that material categorization is susceptible to simple manipulations of apparent distance under challenging conditions.
Many natural materials have complex, multi-scale structures. Consequently, the inferred identity of a surface can vary with the assumed spatial scale of the scene: a plowed field seen from afar can resemble corduroy seen up close. We investigated this 'material-scale ambiguity' using 87 photographs of diverse materials (e. g., water, sand, stone, metal, and wood). Across two experiments, separate groups of participants (N = 72 adults) provided judgements of the material category depicted in each image, either with or without manipulations of apparent distance (by verbal instructions, or adding objects of familiar size). Our results demonstrate that these manipulations can cause identical images to be assigned to completely different material categories, depending on the assumed scale. Under challenging conditions, therefore, the categorization of materials is susceptible to simple manipulations of apparent distance, revealing a striking example of top-down effects in the interpretation of image features.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available