When is spatial filtering enough? Investigation of brightness and lightness perception in stimuli containing a visible illumination component

Blakeslee, Barbara; McCourt, Mark E.

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.03.006

Cited by 36 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Observers were instructed to adjust the matching patch to match the apparent intensity (brightness) of the left or right test patch (cued by the location of the matching patch). Note that because illumination is unambiguously homogeneous in these displays (i.e., there are no illumination boundaries present in the stimuli) instructions to match apparent intensity (brightness) will produce the same matching luminances as instruction to match apparent reflectance (lightness) (Arend & Spehar, 1993; Blakeslee & McCourt, 2012; 2015a; 2015b). A checkerboard background for the matching patch was employed to insure that brightness-contrast (i.e., the intensity ratio at the border between the matching patch and its background) was not the dimension of visual experience being matched (Arend & Spehar, 1993; Blakeslee & McCourt, 2012; 2015a; 2015b).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note that because illumination is unambiguously homogeneous in these displays (i.e., there are no illumination boundaries present in the stimuli) instructions to match apparent intensity (brightness) will produce the same matching luminances as instruction to match apparent reflectance (lightness) (Arend & Spehar, 1993; Blakeslee & McCourt, 2012; 2015a; 2015b). A checkerboard background for the matching patch was employed to insure that brightness-contrast (i.e., the intensity ratio at the border between the matching patch and its background) was not the dimension of visual experience being matched (Arend & Spehar, 1993; Blakeslee & McCourt, 2012; 2015a; 2015b). In addition, previous investigations noted that observers report brightness matching to be easier on a checkerboard background although no differences in matching results were observed between homogeneous and checkerboard backgrounds with the same mean luminance (Blakeslee et al, 2005).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dissecting the influence of the collinear and flanking bars in White’s effect

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In White’s effect equiluminant test patches placed on the black and white bars of a square-wave grating appear different in brightness. The illusion has generated intense interest because the direction of the brightness effect does not correlate with the amount of black or white border in contact with the test patch, or in its general vicinity. Therefore, unlike brightness induction effects such as simultaneous contrast, White’s effect is not consistent with explanations based on contrast or assimilation that depend solely on the relative amounts of black and white surrounding the test patches. We independently manipulated the luminance of the collinear and flanking bars to investigate their influence on test patch matching luminance (brightness). The inducing grating was a 0.5 c/d square-wave and test patches measured 1.0° in width and either 0.5° or 3.0° in height. Test patches measuring 0.5° in height had more extensive contact with the collinear bars and test patches measuring 3.0° in height had more extensive contact with the flanking bars. The luminance of the collinear (or flanking) bars assumed twenty values from 3.2 to 124.8 cd/m2, while the luminance of the flanking (or collinear) bars remained white (124.8 cd/m2) or black (3.2 cd/m2). Under these conditions the influence of the collinear and flanking bars was found to be purely in the direction of contrast. The effect was dominated by contrast from the collinear bars (which results in White’s effect), however, the influence of the flanking bars was also in the contrast direction. The data elucidate the luminance relationships between the collinear and flanking bars which produce the behavior associated with White’s effect as well as that associated with “the inverted White effect” which is akin to simultaneous contrast.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissecting the influence of the collinear and flanking bars in White’s effect

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 and 2) and assimilation in more complicated patterns, as well as Adelson's checkershadow illusion that was traditionally thought to involve illumination estimation. 50,51,[53][54][55] Thus, the operational similarities between these two models 58,60 imply some important common grounds in color and brightness processing that are worth investigating in the future.…”

Section: Comparing 2-d Landm Retinex To Multiscalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 On the other hand, the multiresolution and the orientation-dependent schemes are important for predicting lightness. 53,55,60,67 Bertalmío 65 noted that the variational model [Eqs. (13) and (14)] does not reproduce the perceptual phenomena of assimilation and only generates a contrast effect.…”

Section: Variational Retinexes In Relation To Othermentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of retinal and cortical components of Retinex algorithms

Yeonan-Kim

Bertalmío

2017

J. Electron. Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Following Land and McCann's first proposal of the Retinex theory, numerous Retinex algorithms that differ considerably both algorithmically and functionally have been developed. We clarify the relationships among various Retinex families by associating their spatial processing structures to the neural organizations in the retina and the primary visual cortex in the brain. Some of the Retinex algorithms have a retina-like processing structure (Land's designator idea and NASA Retinex), and some show a close connection with the cortical structures in the primary visual area of the brain (two-dimensional L&M Retinex). A third group of Retinexes (the variational Retinex) manifests an explicit algorithmic relation to Wilson-Cowan's physiological model. We intend to overview these three groups of Retinexes with the frame of reference in the biological visual mechanisms. © The Authors. Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.

show abstract

“…al., 2008; Blakeslee & McCourt, 2012; 2015). The three types of lightness judgments are in fact not comparable but are frequently unwittingly conflated due to the underspecified definition of lightness as simply “apparent reflectance”.…”

Section: ) Confusion Has Been Created By the Fact That Lightness Dementioning

confidence: 99%

Comments and Responses to “Theoretical Approaches to Lightness and Perception”

Blakeslee

McCourt

2015

Perception

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his review of the literature Kingdom (2011) noted that “Divided into different camps, each with its own preferred stimuli, methodology and theory, the study of LBT (lightness, brightness, transparency) is sometimes more reminiscent of the social sciences with its deep ideological divides than it is of the neurosciences”. Methodology and theory clearly separate our work from that of Gilchrist as described by Kingdom (2011). The similarity of the underlying problems, however, has led us to investigate the roots of these differences and to propose a framework to bridge the divide and advance the field (Blakeslee & McCourt, 2015). The core ideas of this framework are: 1) that much of the confusion in the literature stems from different groups using different definitions of the central variables (brightness and lightness); 2) that the term lightness, when defined simply as apparent reflectance, is underspecified with regard to illumination and is, due to the inverse problem, often inadvertently used to refer to three very different and independent types of judgments that are not comparable. The theoretical confusions related to these ideas and the false dichotomy between brightness and lightness research paradigms that they support are discussed in relation to the preceding article (Gilchrist, 2015).

show abstract

When is spatial filtering enough? Investigation of brightness and lightness perception in stimuli containing a visible illumination component

Cited by 36 publications

References 32 publications

Dissecting the influence of the collinear and flanking bars in White’s effect

Dissecting the influence of the collinear and flanking bars in White’s effect

Analysis of retinal and cortical components of Retinex algorithms

Comments and Responses to “Theoretical Approaches to Lightness and Perception”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About