K T Mullen — Page 3 | Search PubMed

PubMed1985

The contrast sensitivity of human colour vision to red-green and blue-yellow chromatic gratings.

A method of producing red-green and blue-yellow sinusoidal chromatic gratings is used which permits the correction of all chromatic aberrations. A quantitative criterion is adopted to choose the intensity match of the two colours in the stimulus: this is the intensity ratio at which contrast sensitivity for the chromatic grating differs most from the contrast sensitivity for a monochromatic luminance grating. Results show that this intensity match varies with spatial frequency and does not necessarily correspond to a luminance match between the colours. Contrast sensitivities to the chromatic gratings at the criterion intensity match are measured as a function of spatial frequency, using field sizes ranging from 2 to 23 deg. Both blue-yellow and red-green contrast sensitivity functions have similar low-pass characteristics, with no low-frequency attenuation even at low frequencies below 0.1 cycles/deg. These functions indicate that the limiting acuities based on red-green and blue-yellow colour discriminations are similar at 11 or 12 cycles/deg. Comparisons between contrast sensitivity functions for the chromatic and monochromatic gratings are made at the same mean luminances. Results show that, at low spatial frequencies below 0.5 cycles/deg, contrast sensitivity is greater to the chromatic gratings, consisting of two monochromatic gratings added in antiphase, than to either monochromatic grating alone. Above 0.5 cycles/deg, contrast sensitivity is greater to monochromatic than to chromatic gratings.

Color Perception↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Bipolar or rectified chromatic detection mechanisms?

It is widely accepted that human color vision is based on two types of cone-opponent mechanism, one differencing L and M cone types (loosely termed "red-green"), and the other differencing S with the L and M cones (loosely termed "blue-yellow"). The traditional view of the early processing of human color vision suggests that each of these cone-opponent mechanisms respond in a bipolar fashion to signal two opponent colors (red vs. green, blue vs. yellow). An alternative possibility is that each cone-opponent response, as well as the luminance response, is rectified, so producing separable signals for each pole (red, green, blue, yellow, light, and dark). In this study, we use psychophysical noise masking to determine whether the rectified model applies to detection by the postreceptoral mechanisms. We measured the contrast-detection thresholds of six test stimuli (red, green, blue, yellow, light, and dark), corresponding to the two poles of each of the three postreceptoral mechanisms. For each test, we determined whether noise presented to the cross pole had the same masking effect as noise presented to the same pole (e.g. comparing masking of luminance increments by luminance decrement noise (cross pole) and luminance increment noise (same pole)). To avoid stimulus cancellation, the test and mask were presented asynchronously in a "sandwich" arrangement (mask-test-mask). For the six test stimuli, we observed that noise masks presented to the cross pole did not raise the detection thresholds of the test, whereas noise presented to the same pole produced a substantial masking. This result suggests that each color signal (red, green, blue, and yellow) and luminance signal, (light and dark) is subserved by a separable mechanism. We suggest that the cone-opponent and luminance mechanisms have similar physiological bases, since a functional separation of the processing of cone increments and cone decrements could underlie both the separation of the luminance system into ON and OFF pathways as well as the splitting of the cone-opponent mechanisms into separable color poles.

Color Perception↗