The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Material perception: What can you see in a brief glance?
Open accessAbstract
People can recognize natural objects and natural scenes with remarkable speed, even when they have never seen the pictures before (Biederman et al., 1974; Potter, 1975, 1976; Thorpe et al., 1996; Greene & Oliva, 2008). But how quickly can people recognize natural materials? We built an image database containing 1000 images of 9 material categories (e.g., paper, fabric, glass, etc). To prevent subjects from simply doing object recognition, we used cropped images in which overall object shape was not a useful cue. To prevent subjects from simply using color, texture, or other low level cues, we chose images with highly diverse appearances. For example, “plastic” includes close-ups of red trash bags, transparent CD cases, and multi-colored toys. Images were obtained from websites like flickr.com. We found that humans can correctly categorize images with very short durations and in challenging conditions (e.g., 40 msec followed by a noise mask, or presented in the middle of an RSVP stream at 40msec per image). When we degraded the images by simple manipulations like removing color, or blurring, or inverting contrast, performance was reduced but was still surprisingly good. We also measured recognition speed with reaction time. To measure baseline RT, we gave subjects very simple visual tasks (e.g., Is this disc red or blue? Is this diagonal line tilted left or right?). We then asked them to make a 3-way material category judgment (e.g., paper or plastic or fabric?). Material categorization was nearly as fast as baseline. Beyond judgments of material category, observers can judge dimensions of material appearance like matte/glossy, opaque/translucent, rigid/non-rigid, soft/rough, warm/cool reliably even in 40 ms presentations. In conclusion, material perception is fast and flexible, and can have the same rapidity as object recognition and scene perception. NTT Communication Science Laboratories, Japan National Science Foundation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Describing Textures in the Wild
Cimpoi, M., Maji, S., Kokkinos, I., Mohamed, S., & Vedaldi, A. (2014) · 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2014.461 · Cited by 2,438
Material recognition in the wild with the Materials in Context Database
Bell, S., Upchurch, P., Snavely, N., & Bala, K. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298970 · Cited by 516
Rigid-Motion Scattering for Texture Classification
Sifre, L., & Mallat, S. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1403.1687 · Cited by 272
Dimitrov, A., & Golparvar-Fard, M. (2014) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2013.11.002 · Cited by 261
Bell (2013) · doi:10.1145/2461912.2462002 · Cited by 200
Metadata
- Authors
- Sharan, L., Rosenholtz, R., & Adelson, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Vision
- Published
- 2010-09-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 784-784
- ISSN
- 1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059552065
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Material perception: What can you see in a brief glance? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/9.8.784
- The paper
- Sharan, L., Rosenholtz, R., & Adelson, E. (2010). Material perception: What can you see in a brief glance? Journal of Vision. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.8.784
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.