Abstract
Humans can rapidly identify materials, such as wood or leather, even within a complex visual scene. Given a single image, one can easily identify the underlying "stuff," even though a given material can have highly variable appearance; fabric comes in unlimited variations of shape, pattern, color, and smoothness, yet we have little trouble categorizing it as fabric. What visual cues do we use to determine material identity? Prior research suggests that simple "texture" features of an image, such as the power spectrum, capture information about material properties and identity. Few studies, however, have tested richer and biologically motivated models of texture. We compared baseline material classification performance to performance with synthetic textures generated from the Portilla-Simoncelli model and several common image degradations. The textures retain statistical information but are otherwise random. We found that performance with textures and most degradations was well below baseline, suggesting insufficient information to support foveal material perception. Interestingly, modern research suggests that peripheral vision might use a statistical, texture-like representation. In a second set of experiments, we found that peripheral performance is more closely predicted by texture and other image degradations. These findings delineate the nature of peripheral material classification.