Literature DB >> 18598414

Sex-related differences in chromatic sensitivity.

M Rodríguez-Carmona1, L T Sharpe, J A Harlow, J L Barbur.   

Abstract

Generally women are believed to be more discriminating than men in the use of color names and this is often taken to imply superior color vision. However, if both X-chromosome linked color deficient males (8%) and females (<1%) as well as heterozygote female carriers (15%) are excluded from comparisons, then differences between men and women in red-green (RG) color discrimination have been reported as not being significant (e.g., Pickford, 1944; Hood et al., 2006). We re-examined this question by assessing the performance of 150 males and 150 females on the color assessment and diagnosis (CAD) test (Rodriguez-Carmona et al., 2005). This is a sensitive test that yields small color detection thresholds. The test employs direction-specific, moving, chromatic stimuli embedded in a background of random, dynamic, luminance contrast noise. A four-alternative, forced-choice procedure is employed to measure the subject's thresholds for detection of color signals in 16 directions in color space, while ensuring that the subject cannot make use of any residual luminance contrast signals. In addition, we measured the Rayleigh anomaloscope matches in a subgroup of 111 males and 114 females. All the age-matched males (30.8 +/- 9.7) and females (26.7 +/- 8.8) had normal color vision as diagnosed by a battery of conventional color vision tests. Females with known color deficient relatives were excluded from the study. Comparisons between the male and female groups revealed no significant differences in anomaloscope midpoints (p = 0.709), but a significant difference in matching ranges (p = 0.040); females on average tended to have a larger mean range (4.11) than males (3.75). Females also had significantly higher CAD thresholds than males along the RG (p = 0.0004), but not along the yellow-blue (YB) discrimination axis. The differences between males and females in RG discrimination may be related to the heterozygosity in X-linked cone photo pigment expression common among females.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18598414     DOI: 10.1017/S095252380808019X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vis Neurosci        ISSN: 0952-5238            Impact factor:   3.241


  11 in total

1.  Influence of background/surrounding area on accuracy of visual color matching.

Authors:  Diana Dudea; Cristina Gasparik; Alexandra Botos; Florin Alb; Ada Irimie; Rade D Paravina
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  S100beta protein expression: gender- and age-related daily changes.

Authors:  M I Nogueira; S Y Abbas; L G M Campos; W Allemandi; P Lawson; S H Takada; E C Azmitia
Journal:  Neurochem Res       Date:  2009-02-11       Impact factor: 3.996

3.  New iPAD-based test for the detection of color vision deficiencies.

Authors:  Dolores de Fez; María José Luque; Lucía Matea; David P Piñero; Vicente J Camps
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-10-06       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Ateev Mehrotra; Michele Morris; Rebecca A Gourevitch; David S Carrell; Daniel A Leffler; Sherri Rose; Julia B Greer; Seth D Crockett; Andrew Baer; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  An analytical model of the influence of cone sensitivity and numerosity on the Rayleigh match.

Authors:  Li Zhaoping; Joseph Carroll
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.129

Review 6.  Sex differences and reproductive hormone influences on human odor perception.

Authors:  Richard L Doty; E Leslie Cameron
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2009-03-09

Review 7.  In nutrition, can we "see" what is good for us?

Authors:  Stephen Barnes; Jeevan Prasain; Helen Kim
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 8.701

Review 8.  Sex differences in the brain: a whole body perspective.

Authors:  Geert J de Vries; Nancy G Forger
Journal:  Biol Sex Differ       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 5.027

9.  Color vision in ADHD: part 2--does attention influence color perception?

Authors:  Soyeon Kim; Mohamed Al-Haj; Stuart Fuller; Samantha Chen; Umesh Jain; Marisa Carrasco; Rosemary Tannock
Journal:  Behav Brain Funct       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 3.759

10.  Colour vision in ADHD: part 1--testing the retinal dopaminergic hypothesis.

Authors:  Soyeon Kim; Mohamed Al-Haj; Samantha Chen; Stuart Fuller; Umesh Jain; Marisa Carrasco; Rosemary Tannock
Journal:  Behav Brain Funct       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 3.759

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.