The relation of lightness and stereoscopic depth in a simple viewing situation

The effect of stereoscopic depth on perceived lightness was studied using a simple, achromatic stimulus arrangement. In Experiment 1, depth/lightness interactions were sought between a single test field and a single induction field. In Experiment 2, depth/lightness interactions were looked for between a single test field and two induction fields. Stimuli were presented on a computer screen and viewed with a stereoscope. The subjects reported perceived lightness of the achromatic test field by rating its apparent blackness along a dimension of 0%–100%. In Experiment 1, they reported lightness judgments of the test field across 13 perceived depth levels and 8 contrast levels. In Experiment 2, they gave lightness judgments of the test field across 7 perceived depth levels and 16 contrast levels. We were particularly interested in observing the generality of Gilchrist’s coplanar ratio hypothesis. The results showed that when stereopsis and contrast levels are the available cues, depth and lightness percepts are independent, and it is retinal ratios, not coplanar ratios, that dictate lightness perception. We conclude that before the relative depth location of an object is determined, its lightness value is known through sensory-level processes.     

The proximity structure of achromatic surface colors and the impossibility of asymmetric lightness matching

In asymmetric lightness matching tasks, observers sometimes report that they cannot achieve satisfactory matches between achromatic surfaces under different neutral illuminants. The surfaces appear different, yet no further adjustment of either surface improves the match. There are evident difficulties in interpreting data from a task that the observer cannot always do, and these difficulties likely affect the interpretation of a large number of previous studies. We investigated, as an alternative to asymmetric matching, the direct use of proximity judgments in the study of surface lightness perception. We asked observers to rate the perceived dissimilarity of pairs of achromatic surfaces that were placed in identical scenes and viewed under different neutral illuminants. We develop a parametric model that accurately predicts perceived dissimilarity in terms of physical light intensities and surface albedos. The parameters of this model are readily interpretable. In particular, the ratio of the influence of changes in illuminant intensity and changes in surface albedo is a measure of the extent to which the observer discounts the illuminant. Asymmetric lightness matching can be interpreted as an unachievable limiting case of proximity judgment.     

Lightness compression and hue changes

Two experiments were performed to relate the Bezold-Brücke (B-B) and lightness compression effects. The first used a calibrated screen to present an achromatic luminance staircase. In addition, it reproduced, the methodology and the essential aspects the lightness compression effect discovered by Cataliotti and Gilchrist (1995). That is, observers perceived a truncated grey scale (from white to medium grey) when the staircase was the only stimulation in the near background (Gelb condition), but not when presented on a Mondrian background, because of the high articulation level provided by this background. Experiment 1 design also included two other backgrounds that produced a partial compression effect. In Experiment 2, two chromatic staircases were used. Employing a naming task, changes in hue perception were only observed for the susceptible staircase. The observed changes were of two types. First, for the full staircase presentations, a Gelb background produced maximum lightness compression (more similarity in the lightness of the staircase stimuli) and, also, a minimum B-B effect (fewer differences in hue). Second, only for the Gelb condition, there were changes in the hue of the lowest luminance staircase stimuli depending on the staircase extension. Results are discussed in the framework of the anchoring theory of lightness perception.     

Measuring the meter: on the constancy of lightness scales seen against different backgrounds

The constancy of a 16-step achromatic Munsell scale was tested with regards to background variations in two experiments. In experiment 1 three groups of observers were asked to find lightness matches for targets in simultaneous lightness displays by using a 16-step achromatic Munsell scale placed on a white, black, or white-black checkered background. In experiment 2, a yellow-blue checkered background and a green-red checkered background replaced Munsell scales on the black and on the white backgrounds. Significant effects of scale background on matches were found only in experiment 1, suggesting that background luminance is a crucial factor in the overall appearance of the scale. The lack of significant differences in experiment 2, however, may stand for an overall robustness of the scale with respect to background luminance changes occurring within certain luminance ranges.     

Surface lightness influences perceived room height

Surprisingly little scientific research has been conducted on the effects of colour and lightness on the perception of spaciousness. Practitioners and architects typically suggest that a room's ceiling appears higher when it is painted lighter than the walls, while darker ceilings appear lower. Employing a virtual reality setting, we studied the effects of the lightness of different room surfaces on perceived height in two psychophysical experiments. Observers judged the height of rooms varying in physical height as well as in the lightness of ceiling, floor, and walls. Experiment 1 showed the expected increase of perceived height with increases in ceiling lightness. Unexpectedly, the perceived height additionally increased with wall lightness, and the effects of wall lightness and ceiling lightness were roughly additive, incompatible with a simple effect of the lightness contrast between the ceiling and the walls. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the floor lightness has no significant effect on perceived height, and that the total brightness of the room is not the critical factor influencing the perceived height. Neither can the results be explained by previously reported effects of brightness on apparent depth or perceived distance.     

Lightness constancy and illumination discounting

Contrary to the implication of the term "lightness constancy", asymmetric lightness matching has never been found to be perfect unless the scene is highly articulated (i.e., contains a number of different reflectances). Also, lightness constancy has been found to vary for different observers, and an effect of instruction (lightness vs. brightness) has been reported. The elusiveness of lightness constancy presents a great challenge to visual science; we revisit these issues in the following experiment, which involved 44 observers in total. The stimuli consisted of a large sheet of black paper with a rectangular spotlight projected onto the lower half and 40 squares of various shades of grey printed on the upper half. The luminance ratio at the edge of the spotlight was 25, while that of the squares varied from 2 to 16. Three different instructions were given to observers: They were asked to find a square in the upper half that (i) looked as if it was made of the same paper as that on which the spotlight fell (lightness match), (ii) had the same luminance contrast as the spotlight edge (contrast match), or (iii) had the same brightness as the spotlight (brightness match). Observers made 10 matches of each of the three types. Great interindividual variability was found for all three types of matches. In particular, the individual Brunswik ratios were found to vary over a broad range (from .47 to .85). That is, lightness matches were found to be far from veridical. Contrast matches were also found to be inaccurate, being on average, underestimated by a factor of 3.4. Articulation was found to essentially affect not only lightness, but contrast and brightness matches as well. No difference was found between the lightness and luminance contrast matches. While the brightness matches significantly differed from the other matches, the difference was small. Furthermore, the brightness matches were found to be subject to the same interindividual variability and the same effect of articulation. This leads to the conclusion that inexperienced observers are unable to estimate both the brightness and the luminance contrast of the light reflected from real objects lit by real lights. None of our observers perceived illumination edges purely as illumination edges: A partial Gelb effect ("partial illumination discounting") always took place. The lightness inconstancy in our experiment resulted from this partial illumination discounting. We propose an account of our results based on the two-dimensionality of achromatic colour. We argue that large interindividual variations and the effect of articulation are caused by the large ambiguity of luminance ratios in the stimulus displays used in laboratory conditions.     

Lightness of an object under two illumination levels

Anchoring theory (Gilchrist et al, 1999 Psychological Review 106 795-834) predicts a wide range of lightness errors, including failures of constancy in multi-illumination scenes and a long list of well-known lightness illusions seen under homogeneous illumination. Lightness values are computed both locally and globally and then averaged together. Local values are computed within a given region of homogeneous illumination. Thus, for an object that extends through two different illumination levels, anchoring theory produces two values, one for the patch in brighter illumination and one for the patch in dimmer illumination. Observers can give matches for these patches separately, but they can also give a single match for the whole object. Anchoring theory in its current form is unable to predict these object matches. We report eight experiments in which we studied the relationship between patch matches and object matches. The results show that the object match represents a compromise between the match for the patch in the field of highest illumination and the patch in the largest field of illumination. These two principles are parallel to the rules found for anchoring lightness: highest luminance rule and area rule.     

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

In two experiments, achromatic color matches for a fixed target, under constant illumination, were compared under conditions where the target appeared perpendicular to illumination direction and coplanar with the background (monocular viewing) and where the target appeared nonperpendicular to illumination direction and noncoplanar with the background (binocular viewing). Contrary to the coplanar ratio hypothesis, which predicts a “lightening” of the target seen coplanar with a darker background, a general “darkening” of the target occurred for both white (N9.5/) and black (N3/) backgrounds and for both dark (N5.5/) and light (N6.5/) targets. This darkening effect was greatest for the darker target and black background, and approximately equal for other combinations of target value and background. The direction of the darkening effect is consistent with the albedo hypothesis, which assumes an inferential correction for changes in conditions of illumination. However, variation in the magnitude of the darkening effect is problematical, and cannot be easily explained by any existing theory. In both experiments, instructions to judge “lightness” or “brightness” failed to produce any substantial differences in performance, although postexperimental questioning suggested that subjects had a verbal understanding of these concepts. Apparently, under reduction conditions, subjects lack cues to illumination and make only lightness matches, regardless of instructions.     

Perceived area and the luminosity threshold

Observers made forced-choice opaque/luminous responses to targets of varying luminance and varying size presented (1) on the wall of a laboratory, (2) as a disk within an annulus, and (3) embedded within a Mondrian array presented within a vision tunnel. Lightness matches were also made for nearby opaque surfaces. The results show that the threshold luminance value at which a target begins to appear self-luminous increases with its size, defined as perceived size, not retinal size. More generally, the larger the target, the more an increase in its luminance induces grayness/blackness into the surround and the less it induces luminosity into the target, and vice versa. Corresponding to this luminosity/grayness tradeoff, there appears to be an invariant: Across a wide variety of conditions, a target begins to appear luminous when its luminance is about 1.7 times that of a surface that would appear white in the same illumination. These results show that the luminosity threshold behaves like a surface lightness value—the maximum lightness value, in fact—and is subject to the same laws of anchoring (such as the area rule proposed by Li & Gilchrist, 1999) as surface lightness.     

Perceived area and the luminosity threshold.

Observers made forced-choice opaque/luminous responses to targets of varying luminance and varying size presented (1) on the wall of a laboratory, (2) as a disk within an annulus, and (3) embedded within a Mondrian array presented within a vision tunnel. Lightness matches were also made for nearby opaque surfaces. The results show that the threshold luminance value at which a target begins to appear self-luminous increases with its size, defined as perceived size, not retinal size. More generally, the larger the target, the more an increase in its luminance induces grayness/blackness into the surround and the less it induces luminosity into the target, and vice versa. Corresponding to this luminosity/grayness tradeoff, there appears to be an invariant: Across a wide variety of conditions, a target begins to appear luminous when its luminance is about 1.7 times that of a surface that would appear white in the same illumination. These results show that the luminosity threshold behaves like a surface lightness value--the maximum lightness value, in fact--and is subject to the same laws of anchoring (such as the area rule proposed by Li & Gilchrist, 1999) as surface lightness.     

The perception of lightness in 3-D curved objects

Lightness constancy in complex scenes requires that the visual system take account of information concerning variations of illumination falling on visible surfaces. Three experiments on the perception of lightness for three-dimensional (3-D) curved objects show that human observers are better able to perform this accounting for certain scenes than for others. The experiments investigate the effect of object curvature, illumination direction, and object shape on lightness perception. Lightness constancy was quite good when a rich local gray-level context was provided. Deviations occurred when both illumination and reflectance changed along the surface of the objects. Does the perception of a 3-D surface and illuminant layout help calibrate lightness judgments? Our results showed a small but consistent improvement between lightness matches on ellipsoid shapes, relative to flat rectangle shapes, under illumination conditions that produce similar image gradients. Illumination change over 3-D forms is therefore taken into account in lightness perception.     

Lightness constancy: a direct test of the illumination-estimation hypothesis

Many models of color constancy assume that the visual system estimates the scene illuminant and uses this estimate to determine an object's color appearance. A version of this illumination-estimation hypothesis, in which the illuminant estimate is associated with the explicitly perceived illuminant, was tested. Observers made appearance matches between two experimental chambers. Observers adjusted the illumination in one chamber to match that in the other and then adjusted a test patch in one chamber to match the surface lightness of a patch in the other. The illumination-estimation hypothesis, as formulated here, predicted that after both matches the luminances of the light reflected from the test patches would be identical. The data contradict this prediction. A second experiment showed that manipulating the immediate surround of a test patch can affect perceived lightness without affecting perceived illumination. This finding also falsifies the illumination-estimation hypothesis.     

Precision of synesthetic color matching resembles that for recollected colors rather than physical colors

Grapheme-color synesthesia is an atypical condition in which individuals experience sensations of color when reading printed graphemes such as letters and digits. For some grapheme-color synesthetes, seeing a printed grapheme triggers a sensation of color, but hearing the name of a grapheme does not. This dissociation allowed us to compare the precision with which synesthetes are able to match their color experiences triggered by visible graphemes, with the precision of their matches for recalled colors based on the same graphemes spoken aloud. In six synesthetes, color matching for printed graphemes was equally variable relative to recalled experiences. In a control experiment, synesthetes and age-matched controls either matched the color of a circular patch while it was visible on a screen, or they judged its color from memory after it had disappeared. Both synesthetes and controls were more variable when matching from memory, and the variance of synesthetes' recalled color judgments matched that associated with their synesthetic judgments for visible graphemes in the first experiment. Results suggest that synesthetic experiences of color triggered by achromatic graphemes are analogous to recollections of color. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Testing the coplanar ratio hypothesis of lightness perception

What determines an object's lightness remains unclear, but it is generally thought that the ratios of its luminance to the luminance of other objects in a scene play a crucial role because these ratios allow the relative reflectance of each object to be estimated, providing all the objects are under the same illumination. Because objects that lie in the same plane are typically illuminated equally, it has been suggested that it is the luminance ratios between coplanar objects that primarily determine lightness (Gilchrist, 1977 Science 195 185-187; Gilchrist et al, 1999 Psychological Review 106 795-834). An alternative hypothesis is that perceived illumination differences can affect lightness directly. As the studies that provided evidence for the coplanar ratio hypothesis always varied the illumination and the coplanar relationships simultaneously, it is unclear which hypothesis is correct. I measured the influence of each factor separately and found that the perceived illumination differences have a greater effect on lightness.     

Response priming driven by local contrast, not subjective brightness

We demonstrate qualitative dissociations of brightness processing in visuomotor priming and conscious vision. Speeded keypress responses to the brighter of two luminance targets were performed in the presence of preceding dark and bright primes (clearly visible and flanking the targets) whose apparent brightness values were enhanced or attenuated by a visual illusion. Response times to the targets were greatly affected by consistent versus inconsistent arrangements of the primes, relative to the targets (response priming). Priming effects could systematically contradict subjective brightness matches, such that one prime could appear brighter than the other but could prime as if it were darker. Systematic variation of the illusion showed that response-priming effects depended only on local flanker-background contrast, not on the subjective appearance of the flankers. Our findings suggest that speeded motor responses, as opposed to conscious perceptual judgments, access an early phase of lightness and brightness processing prior to full lightness constancy.     

Assimilation of achromatic color cannot explain the brightness effects in the achromatic neon effect

If the mouths of the pacmen of a Kanizsa square are colored, for example red, then an illusory red transparent square is seen. In many visual theories such 'neon color spreading' is explained by assimilation of chromatic and achromatic color. In this paper the achromatic case was investigated. In a two-alternative forced-choice task thirty observers judged the brightness of achromatic neon figures. The results suggest that assimilation of achromatic color inside and/or outside of the illusory figures cannot explain the brightness effects seen in achromatic neon color spreading. Although these displays may produce assimilation, it appears that contrast (perhaps acting nonlocally) is a stronger influence on their perceived brightness.     

When does perceived lightness depend on perceived spatial arrangement?

Experiments have recently been reported in which a decisive change in perceived lightness was produced by a change in perceived spatial position, with no important change in the retinal image. A number of previous studies had found little or no such effect. Experiments of the kind that produced these effects and of the kind that do not produce these effects are presented here. The main differences between these two kinds of experiments are discussed. One difference is whether the display allows the target to be part of one ratio in one spatial position but another in the other spatial position. Another difference concerns the range of luminances within the display. Also discussed are the implications of these findings for cognitive vs. S-R theories, the order of processing depth and lightness, laboratory data vs. experience, the role of lateral inhibition in lightness perception, and theories of lightness perception in general.     

Lightness constancy through a veiling luminance

Observers were asked to select samples from a Munsell chart to match the lightness of seven identified surfaces in an outdoor scene they were shown. A separate group that was given the same task but viewed the same scene covered with a veiling luminance equal in intensity to the highest luminance in the scene selected almost the same matches. The same lightness constancy results were obtained using an abstract laboratory display to rule out memory color. These results challenge ratio and contrast theories because a veiling luminance, by adding a constant luminance to every poing in the image, dramatically alters luminance ratios. Lightness constancy was not obtained, however, when these three-dimensional real-world-type displays were replaced by a flat, Mondrian-type display consisting of surface grays from white to black, whether or not colored regions were present in the display; lightness matches were consistent with ratio predictions both with and without the veil.     

Relative area and relative luminance combine to anchor surface lightness values.

The anchoring of lightness perception was tested in simple visual fields composed of only two regions by placing observes inside opaque acrylic hemispheres. Both side-by-side and center/surround configurations were tested. The results, which undermine Gilchrist and Bonato's (1995) recent claim that surrounds tend to appear white, indicate that anchoring involves both relative luminance and relative area. As long as the area of the darker region is equal to or smaller than the area of the lighter region, relative area plays no role in anchoring. Only relative luminance controls anchoring: The lighter region appears white, and the darker region is perceived relative to that value. When the area of the darker region becomes greater than that of the lighter region, relative area begins to play a role. As the darker region becomes larger and relative area shifts from the lighter region to the darker region, the appearance of the darker region moves toward white and the appearance of lighter region moves toward luminosity. This hitherto unrecognized rule is consistent with almost all of the many previous reports of area effects in lightness and brightness. This in turn suggests that a wide range of earlier work on area effects in brightness induction, lightness contrast, lightness assimilation, and luminosity perception can be understood in terms of a few simple rules of anchoring.     

Relative area and relative luminance combine to anchor surface lightness values

The anchoring of lightness perception was tested in simple visual fields composed of only two regions by placing observers inside opaque acrylic hemispheres. Both side-by-side and center/surround configurations were tested. The results, which undermine Gilchrist and Bonato’s (1995) recent claim that surrounds tend to appear white, indicate that anchoring involves both relative luminance and relative area. As long as the area of the darker region is equal to or smaller than the area of the lighter region, relative area plays no role in anchoring. Only relative luminance controls anchoring: The lighter region appears white, and the darker region is perceived relative to that value. When the area of the darker region becomes greater than that of the lighter region, relative area begins to playa role. As the darker region becomes larger and relative area shifts from the lighter region to the darker region, the appearance of the darker region moves toward white and the appearance of lighter region moves toward luminosity. This hitherto unrecognized rule is consistent with almost all of the many previous reports of area effects in lightness and brightness. This in turn suggests that a wide range of earlier work on area effects in brightness induction, lightness contrast, lightness assimilation, and luminosity perception can be understood in terms of a few simple rules of anchoring.