Visually categorizing and comparing materials is crucial for everyday behavior, but what organizational principles underlie our mental representation of materials? Here, we used a large-scale data-driven approach to uncover core latent dimensions of material representations from behavior. First, we created an image dataset of 200 systematically sampled materials and 600 photographs (STUFF dataset, https://osf.io/myutc/ ). Using these images, we next collected 1.87 million triplet similarity judgments and used a computational model to derive a set of sparse, positive dimensions underlying these judgments. The resulting multidimensional embedding space predicted independent material similarity judgments and the similarity matrix of all images close to the human intersubject consistency. We found that representations of individual images were captured by a combination of 36 material dimensions that were highly reproducible and interpretable, comprising perceptual (e.g., grainy, blue) as well as conceptual (e.g., mineral, viscous) dimensions. These results provide the foundation for a comprehensive understanding of how humans make sense of materials.

One of the main functions of vision is to represent object shape. Most theories of shape perception focus exclusively on geometrical computations (e.g., curvatures, symmetries, axis structure). Here, however, we find that shape representations are also profoundly influenced by an object’s causal origins: the processes in its past that formed it. Observers placed dots on objects to report their perceived symmetry axes. When objects appeared ‘complete’—created entirely by a single generative process—responses closely approximated the object’s geometrical axes. However, when objects appeared ‘bitten’—as if parts had been removed by a distinct causal process—the responses deviated significantly from the geometrical axes, as if the bitten regions were suppressed from the computation of symmetry. This suppression of bitten regions was also found when observers were not asked about symmetry axes but about the perceived front and back of objects. The findings suggest that visual shape representations are more sophisticated than previously appreciated. Objects are not only parsed according to what features they have, but also to how or why they have those features.

Shape is a defining feature of objects, and human observers can effortlessly compare shapes to determine how similar they are. Yet, to date, no image-computable model can predict how visually similar or different shapes appear. Such a model would be an invaluable tool for neuroscientists and could provide insights into computations underlying human shape perception. To address this need, we developed a model (‘ShapeComp’), based on over 100 shape features (e.g., area, compactness, Fourier descriptors). When trained to capture the variance in a database of >25,000 animal silhouettes, ShapeComp accurately predicts human shape similarity judgments between pairs of shapes without fitting any parameters to human data. To test the model, we created carefully selected arrays of complex novel shapes using a Generative Adversarial Network trained on the animal silhouettes, which we presented to observers in a wide range of tasks. Our findings show that incorporating multiple ShapeComp dimensions facilitates the prediction of human shape similarity across a small number of shapes, and also captures much of the variance in the multiple arrangements of many shapes. ShapeComp outperforms both conventional pixel-based metrics and state-of-the-art convolutional neural networks, and can also be used to generate perceptually uniform stimulus sets, making it a powerful tool for investigating shape and object representations in the human brain.