A PARADOX IN THE PERCEPTION OF LUMINANCE GRADIENTS. II

The first paper in this series was a study on a brightness paradox in the perception of luminance gradients in space. This study tests the hypothesis that an inducing field of higher or lower luminance having a luminance acceleration in space is a necessary condition for the paradox to appear. A magnitude estimation and a constant-sum method were used. The main result was a falsification of the hypothesis. A luminance acceleration across the inducing field was not necessary but it enhanced the paradox. The results are discussed in relation to theories on neural inhibition.     

When figure-ground segmentation modulates brightness: the case of phantom illumination

In the phantom illumination illusion, luminance ramps ranging from black to white induce a brightness enhancement on an otherwise homogeneous dark background. The strength of the illusion was tested with regard to the extension of the brightness inducing perimeter, surrounding the target area by manipulating the number of inducers (exp. 1) and the size of the inducers (exp. 2). Participants' task was to rate the difference in brightness between the target area and the background. Results show that the illusion occurs only when the target area is not completely segregated from the background by luminance ramps; vice versa, when the target area is delimited by a continuous gradient, it appears darker than the background. These findings suggest a major role of figure-ground organization in the appearance of the illusion. This hypothesis was tested in a rating task experiment with three types of target area shapes circumscribed by four types of edges: luminance contours, illusory contours, no contours, and ambiguous contours. Illusory contours, just as luminance contours, hinder the illusion and produce a darkening of the target area. A control experiment measured the brightness of the previous stimuli without luminance ramps: all configurations resulted in a darkening of the target area. Results from all experiments suggest that figure-ground segmentation plays a major role in the determination of both illumination and lightness in stimuli with luminance gradients.     

Perception of illumination

Abstract.— Previous research on the perception of illumination has primarily been occupied with the apparent paradox that "we must know the object colour in order to utilize the reflected light as an index of illumination, while we must know the illumination in order to use the reflected light as an index of object colour". The present study shows this paradox to exist only as a long as the traditional one-dimensional conception of achromatic colours is maintained. Two experiments are reported. In Exp. 1 it is shown that by mere variation of the luminance difference of two adjacent areas, a consistent shift in colourlshadow discrimination is obtained; i.e. within a certain range of luminance differences the observer may find it difficult to decide whether the difference is one of colour (two fields of different greyness in common illumination) or one of illumination (two fields of equal greyness under different illumination), above this range the observer perceives the differences as one of illumination. Taking the bidimensionality of achromatic colours into account in Exp. 2, results are obtained which show the brightness (alternatively termed luminosity) relations of adjacent areas to be the critical factor for the perceptual shift.     

Some new luminance-gradient effects

Three compelling luminance-gradient effects are described. The first effect concerns a brightness enhancement and a luminous mist spreading out from a central area having the same luminance as the white background and surrounded by four rectangular inducers shaded with a linear luminance gradient. The second effect is perceived with a photographically reversed configuration, and concerns what may be considered a brightness reduction or the enhancement of a darkness quality of a target area of the visual scene. The third effect concerns the perception of a self-luminous disk inside a somewhat foggy medium. The effects are worthy of further examination because they challenge current theories of luminosity perception and brightness perception in general.     

A multiscale filtering explanation of gradient induction and remote brightness induction effects: a reply to Logvinenko (2003)

Grating induction is a brightness effect in which a counterphase spatial brightness variation (a grating) is induced in a homogeneous test strip that is surrounded by an inducing luminance grating (McCourt, 1982 Vision Research 22 119-134). Moulden and Kingdom (1991 Vision Research 31 1999-2008) introduced an interesting variant of grating induction (sometimes referred to as gradient induction) in which multiple strips of either a linear luminance ramp or a sine-wave grating were interlaced with strips of homogeneous luminance. We (Blakeslee and McCourt, 1999 Vision Research 39 4361-4377) demonstrated that a simple multiscale filtering explanation could account for grating induction. Recently, however, Logvinenko (2003 Perception 32 621-626) presented several arguments impugning the adequacy of spatial filtering approaches to understanding brightness induction in gradient induction stimuli. We propose that Logvinenko's arguments apply only to a limited class of filtering models, specifically those which employ only a single spatial filter. To test this hypothesis we modeled gradient induction stimuli as a function of inducing contrast, as well as Logvinenko's (2003) remote induction stimulus, using our multiscale oriented difference-of-Gaussians (ODOG) model (Blakeslee and McCourt 1999). The ODOG model successfully predicts the appearance of the inducing strips and the homogeneous test strips in the gradient induction stimuli and the appearance of the test patches in the remote induction stimuli. These results refute Logvinenko's (2003) claims, and we interpret them as providing strong evidence for a multiscale filtering approach to understanding both gradient induction and remote brightness induction effects.     

On the determinants of surface brightness

The brightness of an achromatic surface with luminance S on an achromatic background with luminance B varies with S, with B, and with the luminance step deltaL at the border of the surface. In agreement with previous findings indicating that the visual system can perform as a photometer, the results of the two experiments reported here show that S and B determined surface brightness independently of deltaL when the surface was adjacent to and when it was separated from the background. This finding suggests that surface brightness depends on the integration of neural signals representing magnitudes of absolute luminance. A weighted-average model of this integration is proposed.     

PSYCHOPHYSICAL INVARIANTS OF ACHROMATIC COLOURVISION. V

LIE, I. Psychophysical invariants of achromatic colour vision. V. Brightness as a function of inducing field luminance. Scand. J. Psychol. , 1971, 12, 61–64.– Brightness (the dim-bright dimension) of achromatic colour was investigated as a function of surrounding field luminance. It was found that brightness of a test area was relatively independent of luminance level of the surrounding area until the luminance of the latter had passed well beyond that of the test area. With further increase of surrounding luminance, the brightness of the test area increased rapidly.     

PSYCHOPHYSICAL INVARIANTS OF ACHROMATIC COLOUR VISION: I. The multidimensionality of achromatic colour experience

L ie . I. Psychophysical invariants of achromatic colour vision. I. The multi-dimensionality of achromatic colour experience. Scand. J. Psychol ., 1969, 10, 167–175.—The literature relevant to the question of multidimensionality of achromatic colour is briefly reviewed. An experiment confirms that the achromatic scale is bidimensional, and indicates that the dimension of brightness is a direct function of the luminance of the local area inspected, while the dimension of whiteness is a direct function of luminance relations of adjacent areas in the visual field.     

Attention,brightness contrast,and assimilation: The influence of relative area

A model of information transmission in the visual system which describes the effect of attention on apparent brightness is examined. This model states in part that the luminance of the portion of the visual field which captures the attention is overweighted in arriving at an overall average luminance level across the visual field. As this average must be computed with respect to both luminance and relative area, it is hypothesized that increasing the relative area of the portion of the visual field that captures the attention will result in a greater effect on the apparent brightness of all parts of the visual field. Two predictions, which involve the effect of relative area on apparent brightness, are experimentally tested and confirmed.     

The phantom illumination illusion

A novel brightness illusion in planar patterns is reported. The illusion occurs, for example, when surfaces with a luminance ramp shaded from black to white are positioned on a black homogeneous background, so that each white end of the surfaces faces a single point of the plane of the pattern. The illusion consists of the enhancement of the brightness of the background in a relatively wide area around the white ends of the surfaces. A parametric study was conducted in which participants were asked to rate the difference in brightness between the parts of the background inside and outside a virtual circle formed by disks with different luminance ramps. The results show that mean ratings of brightness depended on the luminance of the background, the luminance range of ramps, and the kind of ramp. Discussion of these results with reference to other brightness illusions (assimilation, neon color spreading, anomalous surfaces, visual phantoms, grating induction, and the glare effect) shows that t hephantom illumination illusion derives from processes producing the perception of ambient illumination.     

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.     

Fechner’s paradox reflects a nonmonotone relation between binocular brightness and luminance

Twenty subjects judged the brightness of binocularly fused targets whose monocular luminances were varied independently. On each trial, the left eye was presented with one of two relatively high luminances and the right eye was presented with one of 15 luminances from the range in which Fechner’s paradox is effective. The objective of the experiment was to determine whether the psychophysical function over this range was nonmonotonic and Ll-shaped, as implied by several models of binocular brightness, or monotone increasing, but discontinuous at zero right-eye luminance. The functions associated with both left-eye intensities were found to be nonmonotone. Both minima were near the upper bound of the mesopic range.     

Brightness inhibition re size of surround

The amount by which the apparent brightness of a visual field is inhibited by a surrounding field depends on the area of the inhibiting field. Interocular brightness matches showed that, as the size of a surrounding annulus is increased from a thin ring, the degree of inhibition on the brightness of an inner disk increases rapidly at first and then more slowly as the effect approaches an asymptote. The increase of the inhibition with size of annulus can be expressed as an increase in the exponent of the power function that relates the apparent brightness of the dish to its physical luminance.     

Expectancy and visual-spatial attention: effects on perceptual quality

When we expect important stimuli at a particular spatial location, how does our perceptual sensitivity change over space? Subjects were cued to expect a target stimulus at one location and then required to perform one of the following tasks at that and three other locations: luminance detection, brightness discrimination, orientation discrimination, or form discrimination. The analysis of subjects' performance according to signal detection theory revealed changes in both sensitivity and bias for each of these tasks. Sensitivity was maximally enhanced at the location where a target stimulus was expected and generally decreased with distance from that location. Factors that influenced the gradient of sensitivity were (a) the type of task performed and (b) the spatial distribution of the stimuli. Sensitivity fell off more steeply over distance for orientation and form discrimination than for luminance detection and brightness discrimination. In addition, it fell off more steeply when stimuli were near each other than when they were farther apart.     

Perceiving the intensity of light

The relationship between luminance (i.e., the photometric intensity of light) and its perception (i.e., sensations of lightness or brightness) has long been a puzzle. In addition to the mystery of why these perceptual qualities do not scale with luminance in any simple way, "illusions" such as simultaneous brightness contrast, Mach bands, Craik-O'Brien-Cornsweet edge effects, and the Chubb-Sperling-Solomon illusion have all generated much interest but no generally accepted explanation. The authors review evidence that the full range of this perceptual phenomenology can be rationalized in terms of an empirical theory of vision. The implication of these observations is that perceptions of lightness and brightness are generated according to the probability distributions of the possible sources of luminance values in stimuli that are inevitably ambiguous.     

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.     

The effect of figural manipulations on brightness differences in the Benary cross

The Benary cross is a classical demonstration showing that the perceived brightness f an area is not solely determined by its luminance, but also by the context in which it is embedded. Despite the fact that two identical grey triangles are flanked by an equal amount of black and white, one of the triangles is perceived as being lighter than the other. It has been argued that the junctions surrounding a test area are crucial in determining brightness. Here, we explored how different aspects influencing perceptual organisation influence perceived figure-background relations in the Benary cross and, with that, the perceived brightness of the triangular patches in our stimuli. The results of a cancellation task confirm that the alignment of contours at junctions indeed has a strong influence on an area's brightness. At the same time, however, the Benary effect is also influenced by the overall symmetry of the cross and its orientation.     

Brightness interactions between rods and cones

Two parafoveal test targets with different spectral compositions were matched in brightness to a fixed-luminance foveal reference target under scotopic adaptation conditions. The idea of the experiment was to find a reference luminance for which one of the matching test targets stimulated only rods while the other stimulated both rods and cones. If brightness was proportional to the linear sum of rod and cone responses, then the luminance of the matching rod+cone target would be predictably closer to rod threshold than would that of the rod target. The results were complicated by evidence that rod responses to the test targets selectively enhanced weak chromatic signals. Nevertheless, it was possible to show that cone activity never reduced the matching luminance as much as predicted by the additivity hypothesis, and sometimes even increased it. These findings suggest that cone activity can suppress brightness signals from rods.     

Is there an auditory analogue to Fechner's paradox in binaural loudness perception?

In binocular brightness perception a phenomenon called Fechner's paradox can be observed. This paradox implies non-monotonicities in the psychometric functions of binocular brightness. Lehky (1983) proposed a model that describes such non-monotonicities. He suggested that Fechner's paradox also exists in binaural loudness perception. However, until now no sufficient data have been collected to test this hypothesis. Therefore, an experiment was conducted in which 36 psychometric functions were obtained using binaural stimuli in the range of intensities in which Fechner's paradox supposedly occurs. As a result, no significant non-monotonicities were found. However, it is shown that jnds derived from the psychometric functions contradict predictions derived from the limited binaural additivity model of Gigerenzer and Strube (1983).     

The relationship between binocular brightness matches and luminance difference discriminability of successively presented light flashes1

Measurements of monocular ΔI and PSE as a function of the ISI between two 2-deg foveal fields successively presented to the same retinal area were obtained for two Standard durations, using the method of constant stimuli. Binocular brightness matches of the stimuli revealed that detection of a difference occurred whenever a constant difference (in log mL) in matching luminance existed. The implication of the results was that ΔI is related to the rate of change of brightness with changes in test-field luminance.