Literature DB >> 9797957

When is a background equivalent? Sparse chromatic context revisited.

E Brenner1, F W Cornelissen.   

Abstract

Jenness and Shevell (Vision Res 1995;35:797-805) reported that a red background with white dots scattered on it has a different influence on a target's apparent colour than an equivalent uniform background. We show that this finding depends on what one considers an equivalent background. Jenness and Shevell averaged the chromaticity and luminance of the background with the dots, and 'superimposed' the target onto this new background. This changed the luminance and chromaticity of both the target and the surround. We show that if only the surround is changed, it is irrelevant whether the latter is red with white dots scattered over it, or a uniform field with the same space averaged chromaticity and luminance. Our findings are consistent with a local contrast mechanism that has a limited spatial resolution.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9797957     DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00404-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  3 in total

1.  Colour constancy under simultaneous changes in surface position and illuminant.

Authors:  Kinjiro Amano; David H Foster
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2004-11-22       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Color constancy in natural scenes explained by global image statistics.

Authors:  David H Foster; Kinjiro Amano; Sérgio M C Nascimento
Journal:  Vis Neurosci       Date:  2006 May-Aug       Impact factor: 3.241

3.  Minimalist surface-colour matching.

Authors:  Kinjiro Amano; David H Foster; Sérgio M C Nascimento
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.490

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.