Inhomogeneous surrounds, conflicting frameworks, and the double-anchoring theory of lightness

The empirical question of whether or not the lightness of a region is accounted for purely by the average luminance of its surround has a complex answer that depends on whether such a region is an increment, a decrement, or intermediate relative to the luminances of the contiguous surfaces. It is shown here that a new model of lightness, based on anchoring principles, predicts and clarifies such intricacies. In this model, the luminance of the target region determines its lightness in two ways: indirectly, by causing it to group with parts of its surround and thus defining the nested frameworks to which it belongs; and directly, by anchoring it to the highest luminance and to the average surround luminance in each of these frameworks. Inter- and intraindividual differences in lightness assessment are shown to emerge under grouping conditions that create unstable, conflicting frameworks.     

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.     

Mesopic lightness,brightness, and brightness contrast

At mesopic mean luminances, a fixed luminance contrast produces less brightness contrast than it does at photopic luminances. This suggests that lightnesses of surfaces might also be altered at low luminances. I measured lightness, brightness, and brightness contrast in CRT simulations of achromatic paper patchworks. The illuminance of the standard pattern was fixed, producing 0.12,1.2, or 12 cd/m². The illuminance on the test pattern was varied in a lightness constancy paradigm. Constant brightness contrast required more luminance contrast at lower mean luminances. Failures of lightness constancy occurred at the lowest mean luminances, but they were minor in comparison with the loss of brightness contrast in the same pattern. These results have implications for imaging applications. Often, image content falls in both the photopic and the mesopic ranges. Our results indicate that brightness contrast may decrease substantially in low-luminance regions without large changes of surface lightness.     

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.     

Lightness constancy: Ratio invariance and luminance profile

The term simultaneous lightness constancy describes the capacity of the visual system to perceive equal reflecting surfaces as having the same lightness despite lying in different illumination fields. In some cases, however, a lightness constancy failure occurs; that is, equal reflecting surfaces appear different in lightness when differently illuminated. An open question is whether the luminance profile of the illumination edges affects simultaneous lightness constancy even when the ratio invariance property of the illumination edges is preserved. To explore this issue, we ran two experiments by using bipartite illumination displays. Both the luminance profile of an illumination edge and the luminance ratio amplitude between the illumination fields were manipulated. Results revealed that the simultaneous lightness constancy increases when the luminance profile of the illumination edge is gradual (rather than sharp) and homogeneous (rather than inhomogeneous), whereas it decreases when the luminance ratio between the illumination fields is enlarged. The results are interpreted according to the layer decomposition schema, stating that the visual system splits the luminance into perceived lightness and apparent illumination components. We suggest that illumination edges having gradual and homogeneous luminance profiles facilitate the luminance decomposition process, whereas wide luminance ratios impede it.     

Hess and Pretori revisited: Resolution of some old contradictions

An early experiment by Hess and Pretori (1894) was replicated and modified in an attempt to determine why they failed to find the ratio principle later discovered by Wallach (1948). Separating the two surround-infield patterns by darkness made very little difference. However, allowing the observer to adjust the infield luminance (as in Wallach) rather than the surround luminance (as in Hess & Pretori) revealed some startling effects. At surround:infield luminance ratios greater than approximately 100∶1, there is no ratio effect; all infields appear equal and totally dark. Converging evidence is presented that Hess and Pretori’s data in this region actually represent surround-matching by the observers. Nor are ratio effects found with increments (infield brighter than surround). When free to match either infield luminances or ratios (by controlling infield luminance), observers match luminances. For decrements with ratios between 1∶1 and approximately 100∶1, lightness constancy and the ratio principle hold.     

Brightness selectivity in the motion aftereffect

Eighteen Ss were required to track the apparent motion of a stationary grating viewed after prolonged inspection of a moving grating. Measures were obtained with the inspection and test gratings identical in contrast but different in space-average luminance, or with luminance held constant and contrast varied. The aftereffect was reduced as the gratings differed in space-average luminance, but contrast exerted less uniform influence as a variable. Brightness-selectivity in the motion aftereffect is interpreted within the selective adaptation model of aftereffects as evidence that some detectors in human vision are conjointly tuned to space-average luminance and image motion.     

Photometric, geometric, and perceptual factors in illumination-independent lightness constancy

It has been shown that lightness constancy depends on the articulation of the visual field (Agostini & Galmonte, 1999). However, among researchers there is little agreement about the meaning of "articulation." Beyond the terminological heterogeneity, an important issue remains: What factors are relevant for the stability of surface color perception? Using stimuli with two fields of illumination, we explore this issue in three experiments. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the number of luminances, the number of reflectances, and the number of surfaces and their spatial relationships; in Experiment 2, we manipulated the luminance range; finally, in Experiment 3 we varied the number of surfaces crossed by the illumination edge. We found that there are two relevant factors in optimizing lightness constancy: (1) the lowest luminance in shadow and (2) the co-presence of patches of equal reflectance in both fields of illumination. The latter effect is larger if these patches strongly belong to each other. We interpret these findings within the albedo hypothesis.     

Amodal completion is modulated by lightness similarity

The strength of amodal completion is known to be modulated by contour relationships and global shape. Some researchers have shown that amodal completion also depends on surface similarity, but they have not distinguished the relative importance of similarity in surface representations either pre or post lightness constancy. In the experiments reported here, we aimed to determine whether amodal completion depends on processes that occur either before or after the establishment of lightness constancy. We used computer rendering techniques to vary the consistency of a cast shadow with a decrement in luminance on one side of a partially occluded surface. We found that perceived completion depended on the consistency of the decrement in surface luminance with the orientation of a cast shadow (Exp.?1). In Experiment ?2, we generated occluded surface fragments that could be either luminance-matched or lightness-matched to surface fragments on the opposite side of the occluder, and we found that the strength of amodal completion depended primarily on similarity in the perceived surface reflectance. In Experiments 3 and 4, we performed apparent-motion tasks to obtain converging evidence for grouping on the basis of perceived similarity in lightness. We found that matching surfaces in lightness significantly improved the apparent motion of surfaces behind an occluder, as compared with surfaces that were matched in contrast alone. These results suggest that amodal completion depends on the perceived similarity in lightness of partially occluded surface fragments.     

Infant lightness perception: do 4-month-old infants follow Wallach's ratio rule?

When adults view a test disk embedded in a higher-luminance surround, the perceived lightness of the disk is largely determined by the surround-to-disk (S/D) luminance ratio (Wallach's ratio rule). Performance of 4-month-old infants tested with a forced-choice novelty-preference technique was consistent with predictions based on Wallach's ratio rule. This result suggests that the ability to extract and maintain information about local luminance ratios is present early in infancy. This ability is likely to contribute to the development of lightness constancy.     

The place of white in a world of grays: a double-anchoring theory of lightness perception

The specific gray shades in a visual scene can be derived from relative luminance values only when an anchoring rule is followed. The double-anchoring theory I propose in this article, as a development of the anchoring theory of Gilchrist et al. (1999), assumes that any given region (a) belongs to one or more frameworks, created by Gestalt grouping principles, and (b) is independently anchored, within each framework, to both the highest luminance and the surround luminance. The region's final lightness is a weighted average of the values computed, relative to both anchors, in all frameworks. The new model accounts not only for all lightness illusions that are qualitatively explained by the anchoring theory but also for a number of additional effects, and it does so quantitatively, with the support of mathematical simulations.     

Orientation-specific aftereffects and illusions in the perception of brightness

Orientation-specific brightness aftereffects were found when vertical and horizontal gratings of the same space-average luminance were viewed following alternate exposure to vertical and horizontal gratings that differed in space-average luminance. The vertical test grating appeared bright following exposure to a dim vertical grating, and dim after a bright vertical grating had been viewed. This aftereffect did not occur when the adaptation gratings had been seen by one eye and the test gratings by the other eye. An orientation-specific illusion in the perception of brightness was also found, with the white sectors of a vertical grating appearing brighter against a background of horizontal lines than they did against a background of vertical lines. Both distortions imply that there are detectors in the human visual system that are conjointly tuned to luminance and contour orientation.     

Differential effect of luminance contrast reduction and noise on motion induction

Motion perception in a region is affected by motion in the surround regions. When a physically static or flickering stimulus surrounded by moving stimuli appears to move in the direction opposite to that of the surround motion, it is referred to as motion contrast. When the centre appears to move in the same direction, it is referred to as motion assimilation. We investigated how noise and luminance contrast affect motion induction by employing static and dynamic counterphase flickering targets. The tendency of motion assimilation was found to be stronger at a high noise level than at a low noise level for both static and dynamic targets. On the other hand, a decrease of luminance contrast tended to strengthen the tendency of motion contrast. However, the addition of noise and the decrease of luminance contrast decreased the visibility of motion comparably. These results suggest that the visual system changes the mode of motion induction according to the noise level, but not the visibility.     

Lightness constancy in the presence of specular highlights

Abstract— Visible surfaces in a natural environment often have multiple components of reflectance, including a diffuse component, by which light is scattered isotropically in all possible directions, and a specular component, by which light is reflected anisotropically within a limited range of directions. The research described in the present article was designed to investigate how these different components of reflectance influence the perception of lightness. Human observers were presented with shaded images of smoothly curved surfaces and asked to compare the relative lightness of different surface regions whose diffuse and specular components of luminance were independently manipulated. The results revealed that observers are able to discount the presence of specular highlights so that the relative lightness among different regions is determined almost entirely by the diffuse component of surface reflectance.     

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.     

Articulation: brightness, apparent illumination, and contrast ratios

Luminance edges in the environment can be due to regions that differ in reflectance or in illumination. In three experiments, we varied the spatial organization of 10 achromatic (simulated) surfaces so that some arrangements were consistent with an ecologically valid and parsimonious interpretation of 5 surfaces under two different illuminants. A constant contrast-ratio along a luminance edge in the scene allows this interpretation. The brightness of patches in this condition was compared to their brightness with minimally different spatial arrangements that fail to maintain the constant contrast-ratio criterion. When the spatial arrangement of the 10 surfaces included a luminance edge satisfying the constant contrast-ratio criterion, brightness changed systematically, compared to arrangements without such a luminance edge. We account for the results by positing that a luminance edge with a constant contrast-ratio segments the scene into regions of lower and higher illumination, with the same effect as a difference in real physical illumination: all else equal, a given surface appears brighter under higher than under lower illumination.     

Induction in variants of White's effect: common or separate mechanisms?

In White's display the gray target surrounded more by black than white appears darker than the target of the same physical luminance surrounded more by white than black. Several subsequent studies have shown that this effect occurs only when the luminance of the test regions lies between the minimum and maximum luminance values of the inducing stripes. With targets either lighter or darker than both inducing stripes, the direction of the effect is reversed and the effect is known as the 'inverted' White's effect. Views differ on whether the classical and inverted White's effects are mediated by common or separate underlying mechanisms. We varied the aspect ratio of the test and inducing regions in the classical and inverted White's effects. Consistent with previously reported findings, we found that the direction of the classical effect did not depend on the amount of black or white border in immediate contact with the test patch. On the other hand, perceived lightness in the inverted White's effect was affected by such variations, suggesting that induction in classical and inverted White's configurations is governed by different mechanisms. These results confirm the critical importance of the interaction between luminance and geometric relationships in induced brightness.     

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.     

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.