If an identification task with colour constancy as its objective is carried out under drastically changing illumination, do people rely mainly on colour information or do they rely on other sources of information? This question suggested two hypotheses for testing: (i) context hypothesis: people rely mainly on colour information (spectral reflectance or illumination chromaticity) to achieve colour constancy; (ii) representation hypothesis: people rely mainly on all other clues associated with colour to achieve colour constancy, including form information (any shape elements) and space information (spatial coordinates or spatial correlation). Experiment 1 showed that form information was readily associated with colour information to produce implicit representation. This gave the best colour-constancy performance (95.72%) and the fastest processing speed, so it probably used a top-down process. However, it was also prone to error owing to assumptions. Space information was not readily associated with colour information so colour-constancy performance was halved (48.73%) and processing time doubled. When the subject was deprived of both information sources and only given colour information, this resulted in the longest reaction times and the worst colour-constancy performance (41.38%). These results clearly support the representation hypothesis rather than the context hypothesis. When all three clues were available at the same time, the order of preference was: symbol, location, then colour. Experiment 2 showed that when form information was the main clue, colour-constancy performance was conceptually driven and processed more quickly; this supports the representation hypothesis. However, when form information was not used, colour constancy was data-driven, processed more slowly, and achieved an inferior identification rate overall; this supports the context hypothesis.
In the laboratory, the performance of color constancy has always been unstable. The variables posed by the subjects themselves tend to be neglected. In this study, a simple color-mixing test was used to sort subjects into three groups. They were also provided with hue and brightness in a fixed color order as guidance during experimental tasks in an attempt to observe any changes in cognitive skills among subjects of varying color-mixing abilities under changed illuminations. Three hypotheses were proposed: (1) Matching hypothesis: people remember and apply the spatial locations of color surrounds to the target color to achieve color constancy; (2) Comparing hypothesis: people identify the relative difference between color surrounds to achieve color constancy; and (3) Reasoning hypothesis: people compare the color surrounds and refer to color knowledge accumulated in the past to achieve color constancy through reasoning. The experimental results were as follows if the Comparing hypothesis is taken into account, (a) when hue guidance is hidden the subjects' identification rate (IR) performance supported the Reasoning hypothesis; (b) when hue guidance was shown, the IR performance of subjects in all three groups supported the Matching hypothesis. Based on these results, this study offers two recommendations: (a) color surrounds with a fixed relative location should be avoided because spatial location memory leading to people using matching skills and (b) subjects should be screened based on their color-mixing ability because significant differences in color constancy performance exist between people with varying levels of color-mixing ability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.