Achromatic color matching as a function of apparent target orientation, target and background luminance, and lightness or brightness instructions

Redding, Gordon M.; Lester, Charles

doi:10.3758/bf03198685

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A 2 (brightness vs. whiteness) 3 5 (S) 3 6 (B) analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the effect of brightness versus whiteness and the related interactions were not significant [F(1,47) = 0.01, F(4,188) = 1.8, F(5,235) = 1.9, and F(20,940) = 1.2, respectively], confirming that brightness matches whiteness in surfaces presented in a dark field (Redding & Lester, 1980). The effects of S [F(4,188) = 1,282] and of B [F(5,235) = 614] and the interaction of these factors [F(20,940) = 12] were significant at the .001 level, confirming that the brightness of the surface varied with S and B (Beck, 1974;Kozaki, 1973).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the determinants of surface brightness

Masin

2003

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, the luminance determinants of surface brightness were explored. The findings that uniform surfaces vanish when their retinal contour is stabilized and that on-center and off-center visual neurons signal the luminance step at the border of surfaces support the current view that this luminance step determines surface brightness (Arend, Buehler, & Lockhead, 1971;Fiorentini, Baumgartner, Magnussen, Schiller, & Thomas, 1990;Grossberg & Todorović, 1988;Krauskopf, 1963;Land & McCann, 1971;Ross & Pessoa, 2000). However, here it is shown that a reanalysis of the experimental results reported by Beck (1974) and Kozaki (1973) reveals that absolute luminances determine surface brightness independently of the luminance step at the border of surfaces. EXPERIMENT 1Experiment 1 was designed to replicate the results of Beck (1974) and Kozaki (1973) using a broader range of stimulus parameters.Surfaces presented in a dark field were used. Since, in these surfaces, whiteness matches brightness (Redding & Lester, 1980) and is complementary to blackness (Quinn, Wooten, & Ludman, 1985), the effects of absolute luminances on each of these attributes were tested. 1 MethodParticipants. Forty-eight students of the University of Padua with normal or corrected-to-normal vision participated to fulfill a course requirement.Stimuli. In a dark room, each stimulus appeared on the frontal parallel 33 3 25 cm screen of an Apple monitor controlled by a Macintosh 7200 computer. The viewing distance was about 80 cm.The stimulus was a 4.5 3 4.5 cm achromatic square in the middle of an achromatic background covering the entire screen. Let S and B denote the luminance of the square and that of the background, respectively. There were 30 stimuli, one for each different pair of S and B, in which S was 10, 20, 40, 60, or 80 cd/m 2 and B was 1, 15, 30, 50, 70, or 110 cd/m 2 . The stimuli remained on the screen until the experimenter typed the participant's response. The intertrial interval was 3 sec.Procedure. The experiment was divided into three sessions. During presentation of the instructions for each session, a horizontal row of eight equidistant 2.2 3 2.2 cm achromatic squares with luminances of 0. 05, 5, 10, 20, 40, 70, 100, and 140 cd /m 2 , increasing from left to right, was displayed on a background with B = 15 cd/m 2 . In the first session, the participants rated the perceived amount of light coming from the square of each stimulus using integers from 0 to 100, with 0 representing the brightness of the leftmost square and 100 that of the rightmost square in the row of eight squares. In the remaining two sessions, the participants rated the perceived amount either of whiteness or of blackness in the square of each stimulus using integers from 0 to 100, with 0 representing the absence of white or of black and 100 representing the presence only of white or only of black. Half of the participants rated whiteness in the second session and blackness in the third. For the other half, the order was reversed. In each session, the se...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Since, in these surfaces, whiteness matches brightness (Redding & Lester, 1980) and is complementary to blackness (Quinn, Wooten, & Ludman, 1985), the effects of absolute luminances on each of these attributes were tested. 1…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the determinants of surface brightness

Masin

2003

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shadows and highlights may also directly contribute to lightness judgments (Emerson, 1983;Flock & Nusinowitz, 1984;Redding & Lester, 1980). A number of procedural details might also have influenced the magnitude of our results.…”

Section: Phenomenological Observationsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Perceived lightness, but not brightness, of achromatic surfaces depends on perceived depth information

Schirillo

Reeves

Arend

1990

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments wereconducted in an attempt to replicate and clarify Gilchrist's ( ,1980 experiments on the effects of depth information on judgments of achromatic surface color. Gilchrist found that coplanarity, and not retinal adjacency, was the dominant factor in determining achromatic color matches. Because such matches can be made on the basis of either brightness or lightness, we obtained judgments of both qualities. Stereopsis was added to enhance the perceived depth effect of Gilchrist's display, which was otherwise simulated closely on a highresolution CRT. The results for lightness followed the same pattern as those of Gilchrist, but were smaller in magnitude. This discrepancy may reflect reduced extraneous lighting effects in our displays. Our results therefore agree with related studies in suggesting that lightness matches are based on relationships among coplanar surfaces. Brightness matches, however, were not influenced by perceived depth.Achromatic surface perception is modifiable by information specifying depth relations between adjacent surfaces (Gilchrist, , 1980Wist, 1974). Here we report a replication of Gilchrist's impressive demonstrations that large shifts in perceived lightness can be obtained by using depth information to indicate which surfaces are coplanar and which are not. argued that "perceived lightness might be determined primarily by ratios within perceived planes rather than by all retinal ratios regardless of perceived depth" (p. 186). We have also found this to be the case for lightness judgments, but not for brightness judgments.Usage of the terms "lightness" and "brightness" has varied over the years. We will use them here as they have been used in other recent work on surface-color perception (Arend & Goldstein, 1987, in press). Lightness will be used to refer to apparent reflectance, perceptions ranging from blacks through grays to whites. This agrees closely with Evans's (1974) usage. Brightness will be used to refer to perceived luminance, the "overall effective intensity of the stimuli or stimulus" (Evans, 1974, p. 192). These are two distinct, simultaneously available dimensions of experience rather than mutually exclusive " modes" of perception.

show abstract

“…The orientation of the test patch with respect to the collimated source was varied, and the question of interest was whether observers would compensate for test patch orientation, partially or fully. Previous work had found little or no compensation (Hochberg and Beck, 1954;Epstein, 1961;Flock and Freedberg, 1970;Redding and Lester, 1980;see Boyaci et al, 2003 for details).…”

Section: The Light Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface color perception and light field estimation in 3D scenes

Maloney¹,

Gerhard

Boyacı

et al. 2011

Vision in 3D Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research on surface color perception has typically used Mondrian stimuli consisting of a small number of matte surface patches in a plane perpendicular to the line of sight. In such scenes, reliable estimation of the color of a surface is a difficult if not impossible computational problem (Maloney, 1999). In three-dimensional scenes consisting of surfaces at many different orientations it is at least in theory possible to estimate surface color. However, the difficulty of the problem increases, in part, because the effective illumination incident on each surface (the light field) now depends on surface orientation and location. We review recent work in multiple laboratories that examines the degree to which the human visual system discounts the light field in judging matte surface lightness and color and how the visual system estimates the flow of light in a scene. The light fieldThe spectral power distribution of light emitted by the sun is almost constant. The variations in daylight (Figure 4.1) we experience over the course of a day and with changes in seasons is due to the interaction of sunlight with the Earth's atmosphere Vision in 3D Environments, ed. L. R. Harris and M. Jenkin.

show abstract

Achromatic color matching as a function of apparent target orientation, target and background luminance, and lightness or brightness instructions

Cited by 10 publications

References 18 publications

On the determinants of surface brightness

On the determinants of surface brightness

Perceived lightness, but not brightness, of achromatic surfaces depends on perceived depth information

Surface color perception and light field estimation in 3D scenes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About