The Whorf hypothesis holds that differences between languages induce differences in perception and/or cognition in their speakers. Much of the experimental work pursuing this idea has focused on the domain of color and has centered on the issue of whether linguistically coded color categories influence color discrimination. A new perspective has been cast on the debate by recent results that suggest that language influences color discrimination strongly in the right visual field but not in the left visual field (LVF). This asymmetry is likely related to the contralateral projection of visual fields to cerebral hemispheres and the specialization of the left hemisphere for language. The current study presents three independent experiments that replicate and extend these earlier results by using different tasks and testing across different color category boundaries. Our results differ in one respect: although we find that Whorfian effects on color are stronger for stimuli in the right visual field than in the LVF, we find that there are significant category effects in the LVF as well. The origin of the significant category effect in the LVF is considered, and two factors that might account for the pattern of results are proposed.color categories ͉ hemispheric lateralization ͉ linguistic relativity ͉ visual search T he Whorf hypothesis holds that semantic differences between languages induce differences in perception and/or cognition in their speakers (1). Much of the experimental work pursuing this idea has focused on the domain of color and has centered on the issue of whether linguistically coded color categories influence color discrimination (2-13). A new perspective has been cast on the debate by recent results of Gilbert et al. (14), which suggest that language influences color discrimination strongly in the right visual field (RVF) and less so or not at all in the left visual field (LVF). This asymmetry likely is related to the contralateral projection of visual fields to cerebral hemispheres and the specialization of the left hemisphere (LH) for language. It suggests that, within an individual, the Whorf hypothesis may be relevant for processing within one hemisphere and not the other. In consequence, under normal conditions, perceivers may view the world at once filtered through the lens of their language and not so filtered.In the Gilbert et al. study (14), subjects were given a visual search task that required detection of a single target color among 11 identical distractors. The target differed from the distractors in hue, and it was either of a different named category from the distractors (e.g., a blue among greens) or it was from the same category as the distractors (one blue among examples of another blue). The target-distractor perceptual differences for betweencategory (also known as across-category) discriminations were no greater on average than for within-category discriminations, yet between-category discriminations were significantly faster, but only when the target occurred in the RVF. Beca...

Both adults and infants are faster at discriminating between two colors from different categories than two colors from the same category, even when between-and within-category chromatic separation sizes are equated. For adults, this categorical perception (CP) is lateralized; the category effect is stronger for the right visual field (RVF)-left hemisphere (LH) than the left visual field (LVF)-right hemisphere (RH). Converging evidence suggests that the LH bias in color CP in adults is caused by the influence of lexical color codes in the LH. The current study investigates whether prelinguistic color CP is also lateralized to the LH by testing 4-to 6-month-old infants. A colored target was shown on a differently colored background, and time to initiate an eye movement to the target was measured. Target background pairs were either from the same or different categories, but with equal target-background chromatic separations. Infants were faster at initiating an eye movement to targets on different-category than same-category backgrounds, but only for targets in the LVF-RH. In contrast, adults showed a greater category effect when targets were presented to the RVF-LH. These results suggest that whereas color CP is stronger in the LH than RH in adults, prelinguistic CP in infants is lateralized to the RH. The findings suggest that language-driven CP in adults may not build on prelinguistic CP, but that language instead imposes its categories on a LH that is not categorically prepartitioned.language and thought ͉ nature/nurture ͉ lateralization ͉ perceptual development C ategorical perception (CP) of color is shown when two colors that belong to different color categories (between-category judgments) are discriminated faster, or more accurately, than two colors belonging to the same color category (within-category judgments), even when between-and within-category chromatic separation sizes are equated (1). ʈ This effect is found in adults (2-5), children and toddlers (6, 7), and infants (8-10). The role of language in the effect has been extensively debated (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14). For example, some have advanced the hypothesis that the on-line use of language is the origin of the effect: comparing stimulus labels aids discrimination for between-category pairs and/or hinders discrimination for within-category pairs. In support of this hypothesis, for adult participants, CP is found only if the category boundary is marked in the participant's language (3, 12, 13), and verbal interference eliminates CP, but visual interference does not (4,5,13,14). It has, however, been found that color CP occurs prelinguistically in toddlers and infants, who have no color language (6,(8)(9)(10).A recent set of studies looking at hemispheric asymmetries in color CP has added a new perspective on the debate. Gilbert et al. (14), using a visual search task, found that the time to detect a colored target among differently colored distractors was faster when target and distractors were from different categories (e.g., bl...

No abstract

Categorical perception (CP) of color is the faster and more accurate discrimination of two colors from different categories than two colors from the same category, even when same-and differentcategory chromatic separations are equated. In adults, color CP is lateralized to the left hemisphere (LH), whereas in infants, it is lateralized to the right hemisphere (RH). There is evidence that the LH bias in color CP in adults is due to the influence of color terms in the LH. Here we show that the RH to LH switch in color CP occurs when the words that distinguish the relevant category boundary are learned. A colored target was shown in either the left-or right-visual field on either the same-or different-category background, with equal hue separation for both conditions. The time to initiate an eye movement toward the target from central fixation at target onset was recorded. Color naming and comprehension was assessed. Toddlers were faster at detecting targets on different-than same-category backgrounds and the extent of CP did not vary with level of color term knowledge. However, for toddlers who knew the relevant color terms, the category effect was found only for targets in the RVF (LH), whereas for toddlers learning the color terms, the category effect was found only for targets in the LVF (RH). The findings suggest that lateralization of color CP changes with color term acquisition, and provide evidence for the influence of language on the functional organization of the brain.visual field ͉ color perception T he influence of color language on color perception and cognition has been debated for many decades (1, 2). One argument is that the color lexicon, in dividing the spectrum of color into discrete categories, changes perceptual differences among colors so that colors from the same linguistic category appear more similar than colors from different categories (3). There is converging support for this ''Whorfian'' hypothesis that language affects color perception. For example, categorical perception (CP) of color-faster or more accurate discrimination between two colors from different categories than two colors from the same category of an equivalent chromatic separation (4)-is only found in adult speakers if their color lexicon marks the categorical difference (3, 5, 6). Moreover, color CP is lateralized to the ''language dominant'' left hemisphere (LH) in adults (7-11) and LH CP is eliminated by verbal but not visual interference (7), both of which imply linguistic involvement in CP.Despite the overwhelming evidence that color CP in adults depends on language, there is also evidence that color CP can be language independent. This comes from a series of developmental studies that find that infants as young as 4 months respond categorically to color on a range of tasks and across a range of color category boundaries (9,(12)(13)(14)(15)(16). However, this prelinguistic CP, in contrast to the LH-lateralized color CP in adults, appears to be lateralized to the right hemisphere (RH) (9). One interpretation of this f...

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.pdffactory.com 2 Abstract Claims of universality pervade color preference research. It has been argued that there are universal preferences for some colors over others (e.g., Eysenck, 1941), universal sex differences (e.g., Hurlbert & Ling, 2007), and universal mechanisms or dimensions that govern these preferences (e.g., Palmer & Schloss, 2010a). However, there have been surprisingly few cross-cultural investigations of color preference, and none from nonindustrialised societies that are relatively free from the common influence of global consumer culture. Here, we compare the color preferences of British adults to those of Himba adults who belong to a non-industrialised culture in rural Namibia. British and Himba color preferences are found to share few characteristics, and Himba color preferences display none of the so-called 'universal' patterns or sex differences. Several significant predictors of color preference are identified such as cone-contrast between stimulus and background (Hurlbert & Ling, 2007), the valence of color-associated objects (Palmer & Schloss, 2010a), and the colorfulness of the color. However, the relationship of these predictors to color preference was strikingly different for the two cultures. No one model of color preference is able to account for both British and Himba color preferences. We suggest that not only do patterns of color preference vary across individuals and groups, but that the underlying mechanisms and dimensions of color preference vary as well. The findings have implications for broader debate on the extent to which our perception and experience of color is culturally relative or universally constrained.PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.pdffactory.com 3 Color preferences are not universal Ever since Fechner's (1801-1887) demonstration that abstract forms are pleasing to the human senses (e.g., see Fancher, 1996), scientists have strived to establish the extent to which human preferences for basic sensory stimuli are systematic and universal. The first scientific study of color preferences came soon after Fechner's discovery (Cohn, 1894; cited in Ball, 1965), and a number of large scale investigations of color preference were conducted over the next century (e.g., Eysenck, 1941;Guilford & Smith, 1959;Hogg, 1969). These studies claimed to reveal systematic patterns of color preference, and a universal order of color preference (blue, red, green, purple, orange and yellow) was proposed (Eysenck, 1941).Recent studies of color preference have provided general support for the idea that some colors (e.g., blue) are more likely to be liked than others (e.g., yellow). Although some cultural variation has been acknowledged on the basis of studies that compare the color preferences of two or more cultures